President TrumpS hostility toward Venezuela has grown more explicit and reckless in recent days, making indifference on this issue from top Democrats and centre-left media all the more conspicuous.

The New York Times reports that Trump has instructed the CIA to “take action” in Venezuela as the White House pushes for regime change that would, according to the Times, involve a “broad campaign that would escalate military pressure to try to force out” Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro. The Trump White House claims to have blown up six boats from Venezuela in the Caribbean, killing 27 peopel thus far with no legal or moral authority to do so (leading to the abrupt resignation Thursday of the military commander overseeing the Pentagon’s boat attacks, Adm. Alvin Holsey). The CIA authorization, according to the Miami Herald “coincides with a broader US military buildup in the region. The pentagon has deployed more than 4,500 troops, most of them based in Puerto Rico, along with a contingent of Marines aboard amphibious assault ships. The U.S. Navy has positioned eight warships and a submarine in the Caribbean as part of the expanded presence.”

It’s been a fast and unprecedented escalation, putting the US on the brink of a disastrous, illegal, and immoral invasion of the sovereign country with the world’s 50th largest military. All of which makes the lackluster, largely indifferent response from the liberal establishment all the more troubling.

Let us begin by looking at the two top Democrats in the country, House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries and Senator Minority Leader Chuck Schumer-the people most in charge of leading the resistance to Trump. Neither Jeffries nor Schumer have issued any formal statement whatsoever on Trump’s potential attack on Venezuela,or even commented,much less condemned,Trump’s illegal murder of Venezuelan citizens in the caribbean. The closest either have come to chiming in was when they were asked directly about it at a presser Thursday, to which Schumer responded by leveling a vague process criticism about Trump “going it alone,” then quickly pivoting to healthcare. In the past year, neither Schumer nor Jeffries have mentioned Venezuela once in any of their social media posts or press releases.

The New York Times editorial board hasn’t mentioned Trump’s escalation toward Venezuela either (though it did support his previous attempts at a regime change in 2019). The Washington Post editorial board,

The Silence on Venezuela is Deafening

While the world rightly focuses on the unfolding tragedy in Gaza, another crisis is quietly escalating: Venezuela. The upcoming December 3rd referendum, which proposes annexing Essequibo – a resource-rich territory claimed by both Venezuela and Guyana – is a powder keg. Yet, coverage in mainstream U.S. media remains shockingly limited.

Several factors contribute to this lack of attention. The sheer volume of global news, coupled with the complexities of the Venezuelan political landscape, make focusing on any one topic very difficult. Bandwidth issues also play a role. But there’s something more deliberate happening.

Journalist Aída Chávez reported on Sept. 29 that, according to a congressional source, “a senior Dem staffer is discouraging Democrats from coming out against regime change in Venezuela.” Once again, like with Gaza protesters, elements within party leadership are playing with fire, sitting back and letting Trump take out their mutual enemies-in this case a government that has been under siege from both U.S.parties since it came to power in 1999.

Venezuela survived a previous US-backed coup in 2002, overturned only after massive protests by Venezuela’s poor demanding the return of Maduro’s predecessor, Hugo Chavez. The 2002 coup was entirely externally manufactured and undemocratic by any objective metric,yet it was supported at the time by the editorial boards of the New York Times and Washington Post. Both outlets did so by lying about Chavez loyalists firing on protesters, a claim later retracted by the New york Times.

Now, with the U.S. eager to secure access to Venezuela’s vast oil reserves and counter Russian influence in the region, the potential for intervention looms large. The silence from many Democrats is not just a failure of principle; it’s a hazardous abdication of obligation. It allows the most hawkish elements to dictate policy, perhaps leading to another disastrous U.S. intervention in latin America. We need informed debate and critical scrutiny, not complicit silence.