Secretary of War Pete Hegseth is being tight-lipped about whether the U.S. is preparing military strikes on Venezuela, even as reports swirl that President Donald Trump might consider land strikes and the administration tightens military posture in the region. This article lays out the key reporting, quoted statements, and the types of targets being discussed while keeping the original quotes intact.
The public line from Pentagon officials has been minimal and deliberate, signaling caution while allowing pressure to build on Venezuela’s leadership. The simple fact is clear: questions about strikes are being asked and officials are refusing to lay out operational details. That silence itself has weight in Washington and on the ground near Venezuela.
Fox News recently “declined to say whether the U.S. is preparing military strikes on Venezuela.” That line has been repeated across outlets and fed the narrative that plans, or at least serious planning, are underway. From a Republican perspective, the choice to withhold specifics is sensible when operational security matters.
This comes amid reports that President Donald Trump may even be looking to conduct land strikes on Venezuela. The suggestion of land operations moves the conversation from limited strikes to a far riskier set of options, which has elevated concern among diplomats and military planners alike.
Things are heating up as observers note an uptick in deployments and posture around the Caribbean and northern South America. The Hill reports that land strikes by the U.S. military on Venezuela are looking “increasingly likely.” That assessment is prompting scrutiny about what the United States would aim to achieve and how it would limit civilian harm.
Per the outlet:
The U.S. launching strikes within Venezuela is looking increasingly likely as the Trump administration continues to bolster the buildup of military assets in the region, turning up the pressure against Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro, whom U.S. officials have characterized as an “illegitimate leader.”
Administration sources describe a range of potential targets focused on degrading Venezuela’s illicit trafficking networks and military reach. “The administration has identified military facilities in Venezuela used to smuggle narcotics as potential targets for the attack, although President Trump has not made a final decision on whether to carry out strikes inside the South American country, The Wall Street Journal reported Thursday night. Potential targets under consideration are military-controlled airports and ports, including airstrips and naval facilities, the outlet reported, citing one U.S. official.” Those specifics point to a campaign aimed at chokepoints rather than broad occupation.
The administration, of course, has already been carrying out strikes on boats. Those maritime actions show a willingness to hit trafficking nodes and deny routes used by criminal networks that harm U.S. interests. Escalating to strikes on fixed infrastructure would be a different level of engagement and would bring new legal and diplomatic calculations.
When pressed, Secretary Hegseth refused to detail potential operations or intentions. “Appreciate the question, but, of course, we would not share any amount of operational details about what may or may not happen,” he said. Keeping those details off the record preserves options and avoids telegraphing moves to adversaries and to the Maduro regime.
Other parts of the administration have tried to calm things publicly while allowing deterrence to play out behind the scenes. Fox reports:
President Donald Trump said Friday he was not considering strikes inside Venezuela, and Secretary of State Marco Rubio and the White House both pushed back against reports citing unnamed “sources” claiming any such plan was in motion.
Still, reporting continues that elite units and special operations elements are positioning closer to the theater, a fact that keeps planners’ options open. The New York Post described one deployment as the movement of an elite Army unit capable of inserting special operations forces into a fight, raising questions about readiness and intent. The republic needs clarity on objectives, but not at the expense of operational security.
An often-overlooked element here is the narcotics angle that officials cite as justification for striking specific facilities. Disrupting smuggling networks that fund authoritarian regimes and criminal groups is a clear national interest, and targeting transit hubs sends a message without committing to large-scale occupation. The debate now is whether precision strikes will be deemed sufficient or if policymakers will authorize a broader set of actions.
