Big News Alert

President Donald J. Trump has claimed the United States carried out its first land strike against Venezuela on Christmas Eve. This alleged attack targeted a facility housing what the administration called "drug boats," marking a significant escalation in Washington’s campaign against Nicolas Maduro’s regime.

Yet, the details remain stubbornly opaque. Trump refused to confirm whether the US military or the CIA conducted the operation, only stating it was "along the shore." This lack of transparency immediately raises red flags for any watchful American citizen.

Adding to the confusion, the Venezuelan government has offered no public report of such an attack. While some footage on X showed an explosion in Zulia state on December 24, a local chemical company, Primazol, categorically rejected claims it was a US strike, attributing it instead to a warehouse fire. The conflicting narratives demand intense scrutiny.

What Could Go Wrong

If confirmed, this unacknowledged land strike sets a dangerous precedent, potentially dragging the United States into an undeclared war without the consent of the American people or proper congressional oversight. Such covert actions undermine the very foundations of democratic accountability and international law. Where does this executive power grab end?

The implications for American values are profound. When the President can unilaterally initiate military action, especially without clear attribution, it erodes trust in government and bypasses the constitutional checks and balances designed to prevent reckless conflict. This isn't just about Venezuela; it's about who decides when America goes to war.

Furthermore, such aggressive intervention risks destabilizing the entire region, potentially drawing the U.S. into a prolonged and costly engagement. History teaches us that "low risk" military options can quickly spiral out of control, costing American lives and resources that could be better spent at home. Who truly benefits from this escalation?

Who Must Answer

President Trump must provide a clear and unequivocal account of these alleged actions. The American people deserve to know the truth: who authorized this strike, who carried it out, and what were the legal justifications? His refusal to state whether it was the military or the CIA is deeply troubling, suggesting a deliberate attempt to obfuscate responsibility.

This incident follows a pattern of increasing aggression, including a naval blockade, the seizure of "ghost ships," and numerous strikes on alleged "narcoboats" that have already claimed over a hundred lives. The administration’s stated goal of forcing Maduro to "cry uncle" seems to justify any means, regardless of constitutional propriety or ethical considerations.

Senior officials like Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Dan Caine, who briefed President Trump on these "options," must also be held accountable for their role in advising such potentially reckless strategies. The justification that land strikes are favored because the "risk posed to American lives is relatively low" is a chilling reminder of how easily the lives of others can be disregarded for political objectives.

Your Call

“A dangerous precedent is being set when the executive branch can claim a foreign land strike, deny details, and face no immediate public or congressional confirmation. This is not how a transparent democracy operates.”

The question before every American citizen is critical: Are you OK with this? Are you comfortable with an administration engaging in covert military actions on foreign soil, without clear public disclosure or confirmation? Is this the level of executive power and secrecy you expect from your government?

Your vigilance is essential. Demand answers, challenge the narrative, and decide if this unilateral escalation aligns with the principles of freedom, accountability, and justice that define our nation. The future of American foreign policy and the integrity of our democratic processes depend on it.