Rubio hit the morning shows to flesh out the administration's position. He explained that the United States will not be 'running' Venezuela in the sense of appointing its officials, rewriting its laws and manning its offices. Instead, the U.S. aims to steer Venezuelan officials away from corruption in the nation's oil business, away from narcotics trafficking, away from mass migration, and toward better relations with the United States.

Tweet

There have been two parts to the political world's reaction to the American operation that deposed and captured Nicolas Maduro. The first part was to marvel at what Brit Hume called the "extraordinary level of skill, technology and daring" on the part of American forces and leadership. Hume noted that the U.S. performance, when considered alongside the flawless attack on Iran's nuclear program, sent to the world "precisely the opposite signal from that sent by the botched withdrawal from Afghanistan."

The second reaction emerged after President Donald Trump's press conference announcing the action. "We're going to run [Venezuela] until such time as we can do a safe, proper and judicious transition," Trump said. "So we don't want to be involved with having somebody else get in and we have the same situation that we had for the last long period of years. So we are going to run the country until such time as we can do a safe, proper and judicious transition."

With that, much of the attention to the Venezuela matter turned away from the military and intelligence aspects of the operation to a simple and absolutely vital question: What did Trump mean by "run"?

The president explained to some degree but still left a lot of questions. A reporter asked, "What is the mechanism by which you're going to run the country? Are you going to designate U.S. officials to coordinate?" "Yes," answered Trump. "It's all being done right now. We're designating people. We're talking to people. ... We're going to let you know who those people are." When asked who would take part, Trump said, "It's largely going to be, for a period of time, the people that are standing behind me." Behind Trump at that moment were Secretary of State Marco Rubio, War Secretary Pete Hegseth, CIA Director John Ratcliffe and Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Gen. Dan "Razin" Caine.

Trump was also asked if "running the country means that U.S. troops will be on the ground." He appeared a little impatient with the question. After all, the operation was proof that American forces were already on the ground in Venezuela. "You know, they always say 'boots on the ground,'" Trump said. "So we're not afraid of boots on the ground if we have to have. We had boots on the ground last night at a very high level, actually. We're not afraid of it. We don't mind saying it, but we're going to make sure that that country is run properly. We're not doing this in vain."

The next morning, Rubio hit the morning shows to flesh out the administration's position. He explained that the United States will not be "running" Venezuela in the sense of appointing its officials, rewriting its laws and manning its offices. Instead, the U.S. aims to steer Venezuelan officials away from corruption in the nation's oil business, away from narcotics trafficking, away from mass migration, and toward better relations with the United States. 

"Right now we have to take the first steps, and the first steps are securing what's in the national interest of the United States and also beneficial to the people of Venezuela," Rubio told NBC's "Meet the Press." "And those are the things that we're focused on right now: No more drug trafficking, no more Iran/Hezbollah presence there, and no more using the oil industry to enrich all of our adversaries around the world and not benefiting the people of Venezuela or, frankly, benefiting the United States and the region."

Rubio stressed that the key to the plan is the oil that supports the country's entire economy. "We don't need Venezuela's oil," he said on NBC. "We have plenty of oil in the United States. What we're not going to allow is for the oil industry in Venezuela to be controlled by adversaries of the United States. Why does China need their oil? Why does Russia need their oil? Why does Iran need their oil? They're not even in this continent. This is the Western Hemisphere. This is where we live, and we're not going to allow the Western Hemisphere to be a base of operation for adversaries, competitors and rivals of the United States. It's as simple as that."

The United States has tremendous "leverage" over Venezuela, Rubio said, because the U.S. can block the country's oil transactions. "We have a quarantine on their oil," he told ABC's "This Week." "That means their economy will not be able to move forward until the conditions that are in the national interest of the United States and the interests of the Venezuelan people are met."

Will the plan work? The early statements about it, both from Trump and Rubio, are at such a level of generalization that it is hard to visualize what the proposal will really involve. But the key to things, at least from the perspective of U.S. politics, is how much, and for how long, Venezuela will require intense U.S. effort and attention. 

The important thing is for Trump to stabilize the situation in Venezuela quickly. If the U.S. intervention leads to chaos and disorder, requiring increasing amounts of American involvement, Trump will face accusations that he has gotten the U.S. into a morass in South America. The sooner Trump can accomplish a "safe, proper and judicious transition," the better. If Trump can pull that off, the critics will in retrospect seem alarmist, Trump's opponents will be wrong again, and Trump will have a success, even as he focuses on domestic issues in midterm campaigning. If he can't pull it off, he'll have big trouble. 

On Saturday, Larry Krasner, the elected Democratic district attorney of Philadelphia, posted a photo of himself on social media. It was a black-and-white picture of a stern-looking Krasner in a dark suit, one hand to his sunglasses. At the bottom of the photo, in all caps, was "FAFO," which of course stands for "f*** around and find out." The accompanying message said, "To [Immigration and Customs Enforcement] and the National Guard: if you commit crimes in Philadelphia, we will charge you and hold you accountable to the fullest extent of the law."

Made in the context of the Minneapolis shooting, the post was part of a new wave of tough-guy progressivism in which state and local Democratic officials around the country apparently hope to intimidate the federal government over the enforcement of federal immigration law. "Get the f*** out of Minneapolis," said the city's Democratic mayor, Jacob Frey, addressing his comments to ICE. Back in Philadelphia, Krasner's Democratic colleague, Sheriff Rochelle Bilal, used street slang to threaten ICE: "If any of them want to come in this city and commit a crime, you will not be able to hide. ... You don't want this smoke, 'cause we will bring it to you."

Tough-guy anti-ICE talk is, of course, rampant on social media. A search by Grok finds that 100 to 200 X accounts use "F*** ICE" or some variant in their username or bio. Some have it superimposed on their photos. As for social media content, Grok said that "F*** ICE" appears on the site "thousands of times at minimum across X's history, and very likely tens of thousands when including all capitalizations and slight variations."

That kind of thing is to be expected. You can find somebody saying f*** anything on social media. What is more interesting, and more concerning, is that the belligerence displayed by some in positions of authority has trickled down to street protesters. There, raw anger and combativeness toward law enforcement can have very serious consequences.

On Friday, Fox News correspondent Matt Finn rode through Minneapolis with ICE as agents attempted to warn people against obstructing law enforcement. Standing at the driver's side window, an agent told a woman who had been tracking ICE vehicles, "If I continually see you following us, interfering with us, honking your horn, blocking our cars, you have a very high probability of making a really bad decision and being arrested today, OK?" With what appeared to be a self-satisfied smile, the woman said, "I think I'm making exactly the right decision. Bad decision – that's funny, coming from you."

Other videos have gone viral in recent months of drivers across the country organizing to block ICE operations. Most have ended without serious incident. But anyone who has been stopped by the police should appreciate the importance of not only not resisting but being cooperative. The anti-ICE crusade seems to have spawned a corps of amateur warriors who believe they can stick it to law enforcement officers without consequence. Maybe they can, maybe they can't.

The most awful consequence occurred with another tough-guy progressive, Rebecca Good, who is the wife of Renee Good, the woman killed in the Minneapolis encounter with ICE. Just look at Rebecca Good in the video taken by agent Jonathan Ross. "U.S. citizen, former f***ing veteran," Rebecca Good said to Ross. "You want to come at us? You want to come at us? I say go get yourself some lunch, big boy." A few seconds later, Rebecca Good urged Renee Good to drive away, even after being ordered by law enforcement to get out of the car. Renee Good hit the accelerator, and the tough-guy progressive pose led to disaster.

Still, at the moment, tough-guy progressivism is itching for a fight. From Larry Krasner to the streets of Minneapolis, resistance warriors have arrayed themselves for battle against federal law enforcement. That's never a good idea, but they seem to be very excited about it. Given that, it is unfortunately true that the Minneapolis incident will likely not be the last to end badly.

Byron York is chief political correspondent for The Washington Examiner.

COPYRIGHT 2026 BYRON YORK