(1-3-26) The U.S. strike and capture of Maduro come amid escalating tensions over drug trafficking and Venezuela’s government. Republicans broadly praised the decisive action; Democrats and some watchdogs are questioning legal authority and seeking more information from the administration. 

Related:

Venezuela President And Wife In US Custody After Military Strike

Here’s a summary of what Ohio elected officials are saying about the U.S. strike on Venezuela (including the reported capture of President Nicolás Maduro) — based on multiple local and national news reports: 

Republican Ohio Officials — Supportive

Sen. Bernie Moreno (R-Ohio)

Strongly praised the Trump administration, saying the action “changed the course of Latin America for a generation.” Framed the strike as self-defense against what he called a “narco terror organization” and a threat to U.S. national security. Claimed Maduro and his government were responsible for drug trafficking and violence affecting the U.S. and Latin America. 

Sen. Jon Husted (R-Ohio)

Called Maduro an “illegitimate dictator” and said the operation was justified. Emphasized that Maduro will face U.S. criminal charges and highlighted the threat posed by drug trafficking. 

Vice President J.D. Vance (Ohio native, national GOP leader)

Defended the strike on social media, stating President Trump made clear that drug trafficking must stop and that the operation showed resolve. 

Other GOP state lawmakers (e.g., Rep. Gary Click, Brian Stewart)

Reacted with praise on social media, describing the operation as “incredible” and likening it to a successful decisive mission. 

Democratic Ohio Officials — Critical

Rep. Greg Landsman (D-Ohio)

Described the operation as “likely unlawful.” Urged that the administration must brief Congress on the threats and legal justification for the military action. 

Sherrod Brown, who is running for an Ohio Senate seat, released the following statement on the Trump administration’s declaration that the United States will “run” Venezuela following military operations in the country. 

“Hundreds of thousands of Ohioans are struggling to make ends meet, yet Washington continues to make their lives harder while prioritizing foreign countries before our own. Ohioans are facing higher costs across the board and are desperate for leadership that will help deliver relief. We should be more focused on improving the lives of Ohioans— not Caracas.”

Domestic Reactions in Venezuela

Government supporters: Maduro loyalists protested and demanded his return, condemning the U.S. attack. 

Opposition figures: Some Venezuelan opposition leaders celebrated the reported removal of Maduro and viewed it as opening a path for political change. 

Latin America

Condemnation by major regional governments:

Brazil’s President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva called the U.S. strikes a “very serious affront” to Venezuela’s sovereignty and a dangerous precedent. 

Colombia and Mexico: Leaders called for respect for international law and expressed concern or condemned the U.S. military intervention. Colombia urged global attention via the U.N. and mobilized border forces, while Mexico cited the U.N. Charter’s prohibition on use of force. 

Mixed responses in the region:

Argentina’s President Javier Milei (an ally of Trump) welcomed the capture, proclaiming “liberty advances,” while Chile condemned the operation and called for peaceful solutions.  

Global Responses

United Nations: The U.N. expressed alarm and concern that the U.S. action could set a dangerous precedent and violate international norms regarding sovereignty. 

China and Russia: Both countries strongly condemned the strike as a violation of international law and sovereignty, with Russia calling it “armed aggression” and warning of further escalation. 

European reactions: Some European governments (e.g., France) criticized the U.S. military action as incompatible with international law and cautioned against external imposition of political outcomes. The EU urged restraint and respect for peaceful processes. 

Other nations: Several countries, including Cuba and Iran, denounced the strike as a “criminal attack” or violation of sovereignty. Some smaller states reiterated principles of peaceful dispute resolution and non-intervention.