As the Trump administration presses forward with an aggressive posture toward Venezuela, Democratic lawmakers are sharpening their criticism, arguing that the president’s focus on foreign intervention is deeply misaligned with the economic pressures facing Americans at home.

From rising rents in Los Angeles to grocery prices in suburban California, critics say voters are far more concerned with affordability than with regime change in South America. Several Democrats have framed the administration’s actions as both strategically reckless and politically tone-deaf, warning that the United States risks repeating the costly mistakes of past foreign interventions.

Representative Eric Swalwell, a California Democrat and potential gubernatorial candidate, articulated that argument during a recent television appearance, dismissing the idea that Americans are prioritizing Venezuela over domestic challenges.

“People are focused on rent, groceries, and wages,” Swalwell said. “They are not asking for another foreign entanglement, especially one with no clear plan and no connection to improving life here at home.”

Swalwell and others have questioned President Donald Trump’s claim that Venezuelan oil would offset the costs of U.S. involvement. The argument, they say, echoes past justifications that failed to materialize.

More than two decades ago, President George W. Bush promised that oil revenues would help defray the costs of the Iraq war. Instead, that conflict ultimately cost the United States an estimated $3 trillion, according to economists. Democrats argue that the parallels are difficult to ignore.

“This idea that the intervention will pay for itself is historically false,” Swalwell said. “We’ve heard it before, and it ended in massive debt and long-term instability.”

Other Democrats have gone further, characterizing the administration’s actions as an invasion rather than a limited operation. They argue that removing or detaining a foreign leader without congressional authorization raises serious constitutional and international law concerns, regardless of how the White House describes the operation.

Representative Ro Khanna, a progressive Democrat, framed the issue in moral terms. “The United States is not supposed to be an empire,” Khanna said in a statement. “We don’t claim other countries’ resources as if they belong to us.”

Khanna and others argue that the administration’s rhetoric—particularly public statements suggesting that U.S. oil companies would play a central role in Venezuela’s future—undermines claims that the intervention is about democracy or human rights.

While many Democrats acknowledge that Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro has governed repressively, they argue that opposing Maduro does not automatically justify U.S. military or quasi-military action.

“The question isn’t whether Maduro is a dictator,” Khanna said. “The question is whether the United States has the right to intervene unilaterally, destabilize a region, and assume control over another country’s future.”

Critics also point to what they see as selective outrage in the administration’s foreign policy. They note that President Trump has praised or tolerated other authoritarian leaders while singling out Maduro—fueling suspicions that economic interests, particularly oil, are driving decision-making.

Representative Dan Goldman has argued that the administration’s motivations should be scrutinized more closely. Goldman has cited reports that Trump privately assured energy executives of favorable treatment if they supported his political efforts.

“If oil executives were promised priority access or policy benefits, that raises serious ethical and legal questions,” Goldman said. “Foreign policy cannot be an extension of campaign finance.”

The administration denies that claim, insisting that its actions are intended to combat narcotics trafficking and regional instability. But Goldman and others counter that those explanations ring hollow, particularly given Trump’s past pardons of individuals convicted of major drug offenses in other countries.

Veterans in Congress have also expressed concern. Representative Seth Moulton, who served multiple tours in Iraq, warned that interventions without clear objectives often produce long-term consequences.

“We’ve seen what happens when the United States enters conflicts without an exit strategy,” Moulton said. “It’s American troops and civilians abroad who pay the price.”

The debate has exposed divisions not only between parties, but within them. While Democrats are increasingly vocal, some activists argue that party leadership has been too cautious, focusing on procedural objections rather than condemning the intervention outright.

At the same time, Republican lawmakers have largely rallied behind the president. A small number have expressed unease privately, according to Democratic members, but few have done so publicly. Several Democrats say Republicans fear political retaliation from Trump and his base if they break ranks.

The administration’s posture has also raised alarms internationally. Regional analysts warn that destabilizing Venezuela could have ripple effects across Latin America, potentially driving migration, economic disruption, and diplomatic fallout.

Trump’s own rhetoric has intensified those concerns. In recent remarks, he suggested that U.S. involvement in Venezuela might be ongoing, not temporary—language that critics say contradicts earlier assurances of a limited operation.

For many Democrats, the political optics are as troubling as the policy itself. They argue that Trump is devoting outsized attention to foreign ventures while failing to deliver on domestic promises that helped fuel his electoral support.

Manufacturing jobs have not rebounded at the scale promised, housing costs remain high, and inflation continues to strain household budgets. “America First,” they argue, has not translated into measurable relief for most Americans.

Former Vice President Kamala Harris echoed that sentiment in a recent statement, calling the administration’s Venezuela strategy “unlawful, unwise, and disconnected from the real needs of American families.”

Harris warned that history shows regime-change efforts, regardless of how they are framed, tend to spiral into prolonged instability. “American families and foreign families alike pay the cost,” she said.

As the situation unfolds, lawmakers say the larger issue is accountability—both constitutional and moral. Several Democrats have emphasized that even if Congress had approved action, it would not resolve deeper questions about whether such interventions reflect American values or serve the public interest.

“This isn’t just about legality,” Khanna said. “It’s about who we are and what kind of country we want to be.”

For now, the administration shows little sign of reversing course. But critics warn that the combination of domestic economic stress, global instability, and unresolved questions about authority could turn Venezuela into another chapter in a long history of costly U.S. interventions—one Americans neither asked for nor can easily afford.