Most Americans Oppose U.S. Military Action in Venezuela as Poll Highlights Deep Skepticism

Quick Read

• 70% of Americans oppose U.S. military strikes in Venezuela, according to CBS/YouGov polling.
• 76% say the Trump administration has not clearly explained its position on military action.
• Three-quarters believe congressional approval is needed for strikes in Venezuela.
• U.S. military presence in Latin America is at its highest in decades, with operations ongoing.
• Legal experts and officials warn of questionable legality and potential war crimes.

Americans Push Back on Military Strikes: Poll Shows 70% Disapproval

As tensions mount between the United States and Venezuela, a new CBS/YouGov poll delivers a decisive message: the majority of Americans want no part in military action against the South American nation. With 70 percent of respondents opposing U.S. strikes, the poll lays bare a widespread skepticism that stands in stark contrast to the Trump administration’s increasingly forceful rhetoric and actions in the region.

The poll, conducted in late November 2025, arrives at a critical juncture. Over the past months, the United States has amassed its largest military presence in Latin America in decades, deploying warships and military aircraft near Venezuela’s coastline. Despite this buildup—and a reported 83 deaths from at least 21 strikes since September—the American public remains unconvinced by the administration’s case for intervention.

Lack of Explanation Fuels Distrust and Demands for Oversight

According to CBS/YouGov’s findings, 76 percent of Americans feel the administration has failed to “clearly explain the U.S. position on military action in Venezuela.” This demand for transparency transcends party lines, with 97 percent of Democrats, 86 percent of independents, and 64 percent of Republicans insisting that President Donald Trump provide a public justification for any military engagement.

The desire for oversight is equally clear. Three-quarters of those polled believe that congressional approval is necessary for strikes inside Venezuela—a sentiment echoed by legal experts and members of Congress. Yet, the administration has pressed forward, claiming executive authority to conduct boat strikes without congressional consent. A top Department of Justice lawyer argued that such operations do not qualify as “hostilities” under the War Powers Resolution, a position that has drawn sharp criticism from both legal scholars and military officials.

Escalation Amid Controversy and Internal Dissent

The atmosphere in Washington is tense. Some senior officials and military lawyers have sounded alarms, warning that the strikes could be illegal and that personnel may be exposed to liability for carrying out potentially unauthorized actions. NBC News reported that the senior military legal advisor overseeing the operations deemed them unlawful, but his concerns were overruled by higher-ranking administration officials.

Meanwhile, public skepticism continues to grow. Most Americans—87 percent—say Venezuela is either not a threat or only a minor threat to the U.S. Specifically, 39 percent view Venezuela as no threat at all, and another 48 percent see it as a minor one. This disconnect between perceived threat and actual military engagement has only intensified calls for restraint and accountability.

Political Narrative Versus Public Sentiment

President Trump has repeatedly justified his administration’s stance by invoking security concerns and unverified claims about Venezuela. In a recent interview on CBS’s “60 Minutes,” Trump denied that the U.S. was going to war with Venezuela but insisted that “they’ve been treating us very badly.” He went on to repeat claims that Venezuela had “emptied their prisons” into the U.S.—a statement that fact-checkers and independent media have refuted as false and inflammatory.

The poll also found widespread disapproval of Trump’s broader immigration policies. Fifty-five percent of respondents said they disapprove of his handling of immigration, and 54 percent believe that ICE is detaining more individuals than necessary. The administration’s efforts to tie Venezuela policy to broader concerns about border security and immigration have, so far, failed to win over public opinion.

Risks and Regional Implications

Beyond domestic politics, experts have warned of significant risks associated with military action in Venezuela. In CBS News coverage, national security correspondent Charlie D’Agata and Ryan Berg, director of the Americas Program at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, highlighted the potential for regional instability, escalation of violence, and damage to U.S. credibility. The specter of regime change looms large, with officials floating the idea of imminent strikes aimed at toppling the government of President Nicolas Maduro.

But the path ahead is fraught with uncertainty. The administration faces mounting criticism not only from Congress and the legal community but also from within its own ranks. Questions about the legality of covert operations, the risk of war crimes, and the long-term consequences for U.S.-Latin America relations remain unresolved.

A Nation Divided, But Clear in Its Skepticism

The poll’s results offer a snapshot of a nation wrestling with the implications of foreign military intervention. The numbers are clear: the majority of Americans do not support strikes against Venezuela, are dissatisfied with the administration’s lack of transparency, and demand that Congress—not just the President—have a say in decisions that could lead to war.

As the U.S. military presence in the region grows and the administration continues to weigh its options, the gulf between official policy and public sentiment is more evident than ever. Whether this will prompt a shift in strategy remains to be seen. But for now, the American public’s message is unmistakable: caution, clarity, and constitutional oversight must come before military action.Based on all available polling and expert commentary, public opposition to U.S. military action in Venezuela is driven by concerns over legality, lack of justification, and fears of unintended consequences. The administration’s failure to provide clear explanations and congressional oversight has only deepened mistrust, reinforcing the necessity for transparency and accountability in any future policy decisions.