Tennesseans need representatives who oppose regime change and endless war

Smoke is seen over buildings after explosions and low-flying aircraft were heard on Jan. 3, 2026 in Caracas, Venezuela. (Photo by Jesus Vargas/Getty Images)

In the days following the Trump administration’s kidnapping of Venezuelan president Nicolás Maduro, Tennessee’s Republican lawmakers took to social media to praise the congressionally unauthorized attack. 

U.S. Sens. Marsha Blackburn and Bill Hagerty referenced allegations against Maduro for his supposed involvement in fentanyl and cocaine “narcoterrorism.” Since Americans are wise to the term “WMDs,” — or, weapons of mass destruction, the alleged reason for the U.S. to invade Iraq — the moniker “narcoterrorist” is a new one the Trump admin began using to justify unsanctioned missile strikes on boats in the Caribbean and East Pacific, including the killing of wounded sailors who had survived previous U.S. attacks.

Reps. Tim Burchett, Chuck Fleischmann, and David Kustoff spoke more towards Maduro’s dictatorial leadership as being sufficient justification for deposing him. As they were writing their press releases, they must’ve forgotten to give their constituents their reasons for why the U.S. doesn’t apply that same principle to the many dictatorships America supports, funds, and arms.

Missing from the conversation entirely was any mention of whether or not Tennesseans want their elected representatives to support regime change.

American support for foreign entanglements fades by the minute

This isn’t the Cold War era. Propaganda and politicians’ lies don’t work like they used to, and every American generation alive today has its own horror stories of one or more U.S. conquests abroad, be it Korea, Iran, Vietnam, Nicaragua, Panama, Afghanistan, Iraq, or Libya. 

According to YouGov’s polling just days after the military strike on Venezuela, 39% of U.S. adults said they opposed the use of military force to overthrow Maduro, compared to 36% who supported it. About 41% of Americans oppose the U.S. running Venezuela, something President Donald Trump said the U.S. would do during a press conference following the attack. Only 34% of U.S. adults support that plan, according to the poll.

Stealing a sovereign nation’s oil won’t improve material conditions for working Tennesseans

Tennessee’s Republican lawmakers don’t care what their constituents want, because they’re convinced a takeover of Venezuela will be good for U.S. oil interests, which they think will be good for Americans.

But good for which Americans? That point is key, because in Trump’s January 3 press conference, he said U.S. oil corporations would begin operating on Venezuelan oil fields. But he also said in a later meeting that American taxpayers, not the oil corporations, could be on the hook for the billions of dollars needed to repair and modernize Venezuela’s aging oil infrastructure. That’s a big pill to swallow for a population faced with an affordability crisis.

The fact that previous wars for oil never worked out the way we wanted them to is enough to leave the American people skeptical as to whether or not a hostile takeover of Venezuela will be a net benefit. Some Americans will benefit, certainly, like the fossil fuel executives who donated a whopping $450 million to Trump and Republicans (including Tennessee lawmakers) throughout the 2024 election cycle. But it looks as though hardworking American taxpayers will be the ones subsidizing oil corporations on the front end, with little more than a wink and a nod towards “potential” cost savings down the road.

Destabilizing Latin American countries will compel mass migration

Foreign wars for oil rarely result in lower costs for Americans, but they do cause price spikes, market volatility and serious regional instability, leading to mass migration as civilians flee their war-town communities. Trump didn’t run on campaign promises to mire the U.S. in foreign conflicts and regime change operations, but he did say he would solve the immigration issue, something that destabilizing Latin American countries certainly won’t do. 

In fact, no Republican at the Tennessee General Assembly or in D.C. has seemed to connect the dots that U.S. intervention in Latin America is directly predictive of migration surges. Throughout the 21st century, the largest migration surges have come from the countries with which the U.S. has intervened the most, including Venezuela. 

It’s worth noting that Venezuela had the highest standard of living in Latin America during the late-20th century and into the 21st. That standard of living was achieved in part thanks to President Carlos Andrés Pérez nationalizing Venezuela’s oil industry in 1976 and President Hugo Chavez forcing U.S. oil corporations into minority partnerships between 1999 and 2007. Sadly, every sovereign effort by Venezuela to ensure their oil resources benefited the Venezuelan people first and U.S. corporations second was met with U.S. administrations levying unprecedented sanctions against the nation, ultimately contributing to the greatest economic collapse of any country in the region’s history and leading to millions of Venezuelans migrating into other Latin American countries and the U.S.

Tennesseans deserve moral clarity from elected officials

Despite Tennessee’s Republican politicians backing the Trump administration to the hilt, most Americans don’t want their government to set the precedent that it’s OK for one nation to swoop in and kidnap the leader of another. And while the situation on the ground is developing by the minute, what we know with certainty is that, on January 3, the U.S. military conducted an unsanctioned attack on Venezuela, killed between 57 and 100 people, including civilians, and kidnapped that country’s leader, all for a Republican ego project and territorial expansion.

Is that making America great?