United States President Donald Trump’s suggestion of an imminent land strike against Venezuela has jolted the America First movement he built on avoiding foreign entanglements, sparking divisions among his supporters and reviving debates reminiscent of the war on Iraq, part of what supporters describe as “forever wars”.

On Tuesday, Trump hinted not only at an intervention in Venezuela but also at possible attacks against other countries. The remarks rattled anti-interventionists, a core Make America Great Again (MAGA) constituency, who fear that toppling Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro could mire the US in a years-long conflict, destabilize the region, and damage both Trump’s legacy and the movement’s political brand.

Republicans redraw the lines on intervention

Despite his long-standing criticism of US interventions, some Republican allies are now defending the possibility of military action. They argue that operations within the Western Hemisphere are more defensible than the West Asia wars they once denounced, and contend that the US is not seeking “regime change” but an adjustment in Venezuelan leadership without reshaping its political structure.

“He’s not trying to play God with what regime is in which country,” said Alex Gray, former National Security Council chief of staff.

Gray argued the move represents a refocusing of US strategy toward “core American interests,” describing Venezuela as central to hemispheric security.

Pressure mounts as US military presence grows

The administration insists it is not pursuing regime change; instead, it continues to level baseless accusations against the Venezuelan president, describing him as a leader of a “drug cartel”.

Still, the scale of US deployments, including a carrier strike group and roughly 15,000 troops, and Trump’s reported private ultimatum to Maduro last week, have amplified expectations of imminent action. Two people familiar with the call said Trump threatened Maduro, demanding he step down or face the “consequences.”

“No one is more bullish than the president on this,” another individual familiar with internal discussions told Politico, adding that the initiative “comes from the top.”

Read more: Caribbean basin in US crosshairs: The Trump doctrine at work

MAGA skeptics warn of Iraq-style pitfalls

For anti-interventionist MAGA figures, the moment represents a deep ideological test. Many had hoped for an administration focused exclusively on domestic priorities. Now they hope any action resembles the recent limited aggression on Iran, where the US bombed three Iranian nuclear facilities in June. 

“Let’s not turn into George W. Bush and before you know it, we’re in charge of Venezuela,” said a former senior Trump advisor.

Boots on the ground and nation-building remain “red lines” for the America First movement.

Vice President JD Vance, once a fierce critic of foreign interventions, has shifted as well, defending limited strikes on Iran while framing any action in Venezuela as essential to combating “narco terrorists in our own hemisphere.”

Concerns over fallout, regional stability

Opponents of interference in Venezuela argue that Maduro's removal could spark migration surges, empower criminal networks, or disrupt global energy markets, consequences that evoke the results of the US invasion of Iraq.

Ian Bremmer of the Eurasia Group noted Trump never campaigned on regime change, calling unilateral intervention “a NeoCon idea… discredited around the world.”

Still, some conservative realists believe Trump may ultimately avoid escalation. Curt Mills of The American Conservative said Trump may yet decide a full-scale conflict would be “a disaster in the making.”

At a Cabinet meeting, top officials emphasized a simple America First litmus test. As Secretary of State Marco Rubio, a staunch backer of military action in the Latin American country, stated, “Is it going to make us richer? Is it going to make us safer? If it is, he is for it.”

Read more: Rubio leading US campaign to oust Maduro through force, sanctions: WSJ