Return to Transcripts main page

Inside Politics

Trump On Venezuela: "We're Going To Run The Country"; Fallout Brews In D.C. After U.S. Captures Venezuelan President. Venezuela's Maduro in New York after Capture by U.S.; Interview with Former U.S. Envoy to Venezuela; Trump Adds Venezuela to Long List of U.S. Interventions Abroad. Aired 8-9a ET

Aired January 04, 2026 - 08:00   ET

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.

[08:00:00]

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

(MUSIC)

MANU RAJU, CNN HOST (voice-over): Captured.

DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: We are going to run the country. We're going to run it, essentially.

RAJU: Nicolas Maduro arrives on U.S. soil after his extraordinary arrest shocks the world. What's next for Venezuela and the wider region? And how long will the U.S. stay?

Trump's former Venezuela envoy joins me live.

Plus, outrage. The president faces blowback.

REP. SETH MOULTON (D-MA): He said that this wasn't about regime change, but it is.

RAJU: Was the operation legal? We go one on one with a former prosecutor.

INSIDE POLITICS, the best reporting from inside the corridors of power, starts now.

(MUSIC)

(END VIDEOTAPE)

RAJU (on camera): Good morning. Welcome to INSIDE POLITICS SUNDAY. I'm Manu Raju.

"Make Venezuela great again," those are President Trump's exact words in the aftermath of the stunning U.S. attack against Venezuela and that extraordinary raid. Now, where were -- the now the ousted Venezuelan leader, Nicolas Maduro and his wife were dragged from their bedroom and taken to New York and now indicted on federal drugs and weapons charges. This new video posted by the White House appears to show him being perp walked in New York, and there are many questions about whether this was even legal and the rationale behind it. Now, Trump says the U.S. will, quote, run the country and take over its vast oil reserves.

Joining me now is David Culver in Colombia, right on the border of Venezuela.

So, David, what are you seeing on the ground in Colombia?

DAVID CULVER, CNN SENIOR NATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Manu, you can see behind me the reinforcement from the Colombian side headed towards Venezuela of Colombian military personnel establishing themselves here so as to have a show of force and perhaps try to convey some sense of stability, at least at this crossing. This is the Simon Bolivar Bridge.

So here we are in Cucuta, Colombia, headed this way is Venezuela. And you can see cars are coming over from Venezuela. I've even seen a few folks walking over and you've got motorbikes and bicycles and the same for from the Colombian side going into Venezuela. So, it's moving at a rather normal pace for a Sunday morning.

But this is a very interesting town, and that is a big indicator of what could come. It's essentially a pressure valve, if you will, of the migration that has been happening in recent years in Colombia is home to some 3 million Venezuelans who have fled in the past decade or so. And when you think about the total number since 2014, its seven and a half, eight million Venezuelans who have left, many of them coming through this border so as to then continue on.

And we've met them along the way through South America and into Central America and into the U.S. but now, it's a point of uncertainty. Skepticism. And what happens next? This could be one of those places that we get a real indication of next steps.

For example, if folks feel like things have stabilized and now that Maduro is gone, they can return to their home and reestablish their lives. This is one of those crossings in which that could happen. However, if they feel like there's more uncertainty, more instability, more fracturing in Venezuela, you could see more Venezuelans coming over and trying to flee whatever instability and uncertainty that is taking place in Venezuela.

So, this is a place that we're watching closely for that reason. And you can see the Colombian military is also on standby trying to get an idea as to what next steps might be and how they might need to respond -- Manu.

RAJU: All right. David Culver, thanks.

There's a lot to unpack about the ramifications from this weekend's events, but I want to first begin with all the new details we are learning about what is being dubbed Operation Absolute Resolve, and President Trump spoke about the dramatic capture of President Maduro yesterday. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TRUMP: There was a lot of gunfire. You saw some of it today, but he was trying to get to a safe place, which wasn't safe because we would have had the door blown up and about 47, I think 47 seconds. They say on average, regardless of how thick the steel was, it was a very thick doors, a very heavy door.

But he was unable to get to that door. He made it to the door. He was unable to close it.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

RAJU: All right. Joining me now is retired U.S. Air Force Colonel Cedric Leighton.

So, Colonel Leighton, walk us through just how this dramatic mission was carried out.

CEDRIC LEIGHTON, CNN MILITARY ANALYST: Yes. This is one of the greatest aspects of it. And just real quick to orient everybody. This is Venezuela. David Culver is here on the border between Colombia and Venezuela.

And the U.S. strikes in Venezuela hit all of these different target areas, everything from the naval academy to the port to an air base, La Carlota, as it's known, antenna sections, the Fort Tiuna military base and an airport over here. So, everything basically around Caracas was what was hit.

So, one of the key things here is, you know, just exactly how they did this. So, this is one of the antenna farms that they have there.

[08:05:01]

And here is something that is really important. This is basically the before picture. So, take a look at all these buildings. Now let's look at after the strike. And especially right here what used to be a standing set of structures. All gone and similar right here.

This again is at Fort Tiuna. The before picture a little bit of a close up here. And what that shows you is this is -- actually disappeared.

RAJU: Wow.

LEIGHTON: So, the strike was very, very precise. And there are several of them. And you know, when you go back to the big map here that shows all the different areas that they struck, they really spent a lot of time figuring out not only what to hit, but how to hit it and what would be the most effective munition to go after that.

And when they did this, they brought in all these assets, including 150 aircraft of various types. These fighters like the F-22, the F-35, the F/A-18s, B-1 bombers even, helicopters, of course, for the extraction force. These came from 20 different bases. Of course, months of preparation.

And to do all of this, they started at 10:46 Eastern Friday, 8:00 p.m. Eastern. That's when the president ordered them to move forward.

Once they did this, they made sure that they had all these 150 aircraft in the air. They arrived at the compound at 1:01, and they were able to capture Maduro within minutes, basically.

By 3:29 a.m. on Saturday morning, they were over the water, meaning outside of Venezuelan territory and basically ready to go.

RAJU: Real quickly. How do they get into the compound? And really, given all the guards how fortified this compound was?

LEIGHTON: Well, basically what you do is you find the areas where their weakness, where there are weaknesses, and you have areas in the fence line that you can probably penetrate. They may have had explosive devices that they use. Usually, what they'll use is they'll have like these satchel bombs that they can put in there. And they basically like dynamite and they blow it up.

They were prepared to cut through Maduro safe room. They could have done it. As the president said, in 47 minutes or less. And they were ready to do that. They didn't have to do that specific thing, and that made it easier for them to get out at that at that particular moment in time.

RAJU: One of the most stunning things yesterday was Trump just openly admitting that the United States wants to go in and take all the oil reserves and actually move ahead and extract that oil, sell the oil, get the money from this, these oil sales.

Walk us through exactly what that means.

LEIGHTON: So, let's take a look, Manu, at the oil reserves here and what's really important is this right here. Venezuela has 303 billion barrels of oil reserves. And you compare that, it's the biggest set of oil reserves in the entire world, bigger than Saudi Arabia, bigger than Russia, bigger than the UAE.

And that is something that is really, really important. Now when you look at daily oil production, what you have here is how bad the infrastructure in Venezuela actually is. From 2013, they were able to produce almost 3 million barrels per day, go down to 2024. They produce less than a million a day. And that is the key thing here.

The infrastructure in Venezuela, lots of oil. But the problem is the infrastructure actually is decrepit. It is not producing the oil that it needs to.

RAJU: All right. Retired U.S. Air Force Colonel Cedric Leighton, thank you so much for your expertise.

And I've got an excellent group of reporters to break this down even further. "Politico's" Dasha Burns, David Sanger of "The New York Times", and Seung Min Kim with "The Associated Press". Good morning to you all.

David, I want to start with you about you've been covering this for so long, what's happening with Venezuela. The question everyone has is how are they going to run this country? Trump says they're going to run it. And you have the vice president now. They said it's the interim president, Delcy Rodriguez, saying she's not going to just allow the United States to come in and run the country.

So how is this going to play out?

DAVID SANGER, CNN POLITICAL & NATIONAL SECURITY ANALYST: So, Manu, this is the great contrast in what we've seen happen here. As you could see from Cedric's description, this was an incredibly precise military operation. And I think the president and Secretary Hegseth and others were right when they said there's probably no other country in the world that could step in and pull this off in basically 2-1/2 hours. Obviously, months of planning. Cedric didn't mention it, but they even built a model in Kentucky of the entire facility that they were going to be doing so they could invade it and invade it again and practice this whole thing.

The astounding contrast here, Manu, is that there's this high that comes from grabbing the bad guy in this case and indicted, alleged drug trafficker. I don't -- I haven't run across many Venezuelan friends who are sorry to see him go. He stole the last election. So there's that part.

And then there's the stunning next part where the president says we're going to run the thing. Well, he actually got elected president in part on the argument that the forever wars were ill-conceived, that we don't know how to go do this.

[08:10:07]

And you add to this the very naked grab for the world's largest oil reserves. It's reasonable to assume that there are people on the ground, a lot of them in Venezuela, a country of 30 million people, who are going to say, we're perfectly happy you got rid of Maduro. No, that does not give you rights to our oil reserves.

RAJU: I mean, that's the really the contrast, as you point out, the precision of this strike, months of planning, CIA on the ground, the way that it was carried out. But what about the planning for the aftermath? Has there been planning for the aftermath to this extent?

And I mean, Trump yesterday was asked all sorts of questions. Will there be boots on the ground troops? He really didn't have many details.

DASHA BURNS, HOST, POLITICO'S "THE CONVERSATION WITH DASHA BURNS": Yeah, way more questions than answers at this point. And look, if someone had told me when I was covering Trump on the campaign in 2024 and he was talking about grocery prices, anecdotes about how Melania wouldn't let him buy bacon because it was too expensive. Talking about immigration. If someone had told me then that we would be doing regime change in

Venezuela within his first year of his term, I would have told you were crazy.

Now, the way that some White House allies are framing this is that they get to message this as a law enforcement operation, that the warrant for his arrest, that he's a narco terrorist, that they get to say this wasn't regime change. Yes. That was a byproduct of what we did. But that's not necessarily the intention.

But then Trump goes out and says, we're going to run the country. And one of the sources that was telling me how great a message this was then heard that and said, oof, because literally that was the response, because then that wipes out so much of what they had tried to build as the way to bring some of the MAGA isolationist folks along.

Now, they're not -- they're not rebelling just yet, I think in part because we don't know what we run the country is actually going to mean. And that's where the political risk is. It's all about what happens next.

RAJU: And I mean, there's just so many questions the American public has. I mean, look at this CBS poll from just a few weeks ago. Has the Trump administration clear clearly explained the position on the U.S. military action in Venezuela? Seventy-three percent say no because they had not explained that this was about regime change.

SEUNG MIN KIM, CNN POLITICAL ANALYST: Right, right. And those are the concerns that you're also hearing from Congress as well. But going back to the fact that there are just so many more questions than answers right now, even throughout the day. Yesterday, the president gave conflicting answers to these very key questions that the public has had.

For example, at his press conference when he was asked about potential boots on the ground, he seemed pretty willing to say that he was willing to put troops there, saying, were not afraid of the concept of boots on the ground. But then later, in an interview with "The New York Post", he very much backtracked on that. So, you're just going to see these questions develop through, you know, through the next several weeks.

Obviously, the relationship, if one exists between the Trump administration and Delcy Rodriguez, he seemed to imply yesterday that she told Secretary Rubio that they will coordinate with the administration. Now --

RAJU: And she said something opposite.

KIM: Something completely opposite.

SANGER: Which may have been for internal affairs.

KIM: Sure, sure. But then also just I found his answer when he was asked about, Maria

Corina Machado really interesting when, you know, he's saying that she does not have the support to run Venezuela when he -- when the administration had been very supportive of her as the opposition leader -- just all those dynamics, I think, will be really fascinating to watch in the weeks to come.

RAJU: No question about it.

All right. A lot more to digest, including the blowback from the operation that's actually coming from Capitol Hill. Why weren't top congressional leaders notified ahead of time?

Plus, was this actually legal? An expert weighs in on that, ahead.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[08:17:57]

RAJU: Democrats are livid at how the Venezuela attack played out, not necessarily because they want the deposed leader, Nicolas Maduro, to stay in power, but because they say the mission should have been authorized by Congress. War, they say, at the very least, congressional leaders on the so-called Gang of Eight should have been notified ahead of time, as they usually are during covert operations when the military is involved.

Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer, one of the members of the Gang of Eight, said he knows very little about the president's objective and wants some answers

(BEGIN AUDIO CLIP)

SEN. CHUCK SCHUMER (D-NY): I was not briefed. I still have not been briefed. We have gotten no information from them

RAJU: All right. My panel is back.

You know, beyond just the briefing, there's the actual authorizing, this strike. This is what Susie Wiles, the White House chief of staff, said to "Vanity Fair" magazine in an interview that was published just a few weeks ago. If you were to authorize some activity on land, then it's war. Then we'd need Congress.

BURNS: Right, right.

RAJU: So, she says.

KIM: So, for this broader operation, the administration has been relying on those very, you know, decades old use of force authorizations back in 2001. But I found it really interesting when the administration did start doing their notifications. Obviously, Chuck Schumer is a little lower down on the list of the people that they talk to. But I found it --

RAJU: But typically, though -- KIM: Typically, they are --

RAJU: -- they would notify members in both parties, leaders in both parties on something like this.

KIM: Particularly in advance, even if it's just very minimal, just to let them know what's going on. But the administration said we wanted to -- we felt that was not necessary. And then Trump kind of just went in and said also they would probably leak. And that is why they decided to keep the lid on it.

But when they started notifying members of Congress, I found it really interesting. I don't know if you did, Manu, that they one of the first people that they talked to was Mike Lee of Utah.

And he's not -- you know, he's not in leadership. He is not, you know, the chairman of the intelligence committee, but he is a Republican who has been critical of both administrations or, administrations of both parties using, you know, relying on that old AUMF and kind of going beyond the powers of the presidency.

[08:20:02]

And I found -- so the fact that Rubio went to him, you know, among the first and tried to rationalize the administration's actions there, and he seemed to be persuaded, you know, they were really trying to neutralize their potential Republican critics there.

SANGER: You know, Manu, the Gang of Eight does not leak.

RAJU: Right.

SANGER: I've been at this for a little while.

RAJU: I was about to say, right.

SANGER: Okay. They may after the operation is over, step in and criticize this. But at that point, the operation is over. But they do not blow operations in advance. Neither, by the way, does, you know, mainstream media when they learn of these things in advance.

So, so the president's argument here, I did not think carried a whole lot of water. The second part of this is you could separate out grabbing him as the U.S. grabbed Noriega in 1989 and say, that's the law enforcement part of that.

But you have to separate out the law enforcement part from the part we were just discussing, which is the virtual occupation part, the part where we say we now will be essentially running your government. You can do whatever you want as long as its in our interests. And if it's not in our interests, there may be a second wave of invasion. And by the way, look off coast.

BURNS: No one has been really briefed on that second piece of what you're talking about.

SANGER: That's right.

BURNS: And to your point about the order of operations here, I mean, what I was hearing is they were essentially looking at the tweets from Republicans and calling the people that were out there tweeting questions.

RAJU: To create political problems for them on the right.

BURNS: Exactly, exactly. And the thing about this Venezuela issue and the power of Congress is it's not just Democrats that have been critical. I mean, in the in the aftermath of this operation, Republicans have largely stood in line.

But prior to this, I mean, I've been hearing from Republican lawmakers that they are not getting enough information from the administration and that Congress is basically, you know, completely forfeited all of their power in this regard, both with Venezuela and a bunch of other foreign affairs issues.

RAJU: And to that point, I mean, there was a big briefing that happened on Capitol Hill last month in the aftermath of that so-called double tap strike. Remember, that was when there was that multiple strikes that occurred, questions about whether defenseless survivors were killed and there was whether that was a violation of the rules of war.

What -- Pete Hegseth, Marco Rubio went up to Capitol Hill, answered questions from senators and House members, and they were asked questions about what the objective is in Venezuela. And they were asked about regime change, and they didn't give a very clear answer.

Listen to Lindsey Graham.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

RAJU: Has the administration properly articulated the objective here with Venezuela?

SEN. LINDSEY GRAHAM (R-SC): I think the -- I think they've articulated their legal authority. I think they've articulated how they decide to blow somebody up or not. But I want clarity right here.

President Trump is saying his days are numbered. That seems to me that he's got to go. If it's the goal of taking him out because he's a threat to our country, then say it. And what happens next, don't you think most people want to know that? They gave an answer that was confusing to me.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

RAJU: Confusing to me.

SANGER: If they were confused - was confusing to him, imagine all the rest of us.

Okay. So part of the answer here you may find buried in the national security strategy that the administration turned out.

BURNS: Absolutely.

SANGER: And it mentions -- it focuses on the Western Hemisphere in a way that previous national security strategies have not, and then names what they call a Trump corollary to the Monroe Doctrine. We actually heard Donald Trump talking about the Monroe Doctrine.

RAJU: The Donroe doctrine.

SANGER: Well, he then went on to Donroe. He went from Monroe to Donroe.

The Trump corollary basically says, we have -- we assert the right to go into any country that whose internal troubles are creating a threat to us in the region. And that's a pretty broad, mandate out there. One, I'm not sure sits so well with the MAGA crowd, right? But that essentially is the fundamental argument they're making, and it's completely up to them about what constitutes the reason to do it.

RAJU: Before you jump in, I just wanted you to weigh in about just how long Republicans could stick around, stand with the president on this. Just look at the polling from Quinnipiac poll about whether to support U.S. military action inside Venezuela. Republicans, 52 percent support, 33 percent opposed. That's not a great number for Trump when it comes to Republicans. Typically, it's much higher than that when it comes to GOP on any number of issues.

But the independent number, 68 percent oppose military action in Venezuela. And then you look at someone like a Brian Fitzpatrick, who is a swing district Republican, one of three Republicans in districts that Kamala Harris won, saying the only country that the United States of America should be running is the United States of America. I suspect you may hear more of that if this drags on.

[08:25:01]

KIM: Yeah, and it's concerning. It should be concerning for the president that you're hearing that from moderates like Brian Fitzpatrick and from some of the far right sort of MAGA podcaster types. Now, again, for now, there hasn't been a full on revolt from Republicans, I think because everyone is waiting to understand what exactly we are doing here.

And for that, I do want to talk about Marco Rubio for a second, because this is -- from everyone that I've talked to, this is Marco Rubio-driven. Someone, one person close to the administration said, I'm surprised that we did this because we said we weren't going to do regime change. But I'm not surprised because this has been Marco Rubio's dream.

And he did what in the past administration was not accomplished. Remember in '17, '18, Trump was interested in doing something in Venezuela. He was talked down at the time by his chief of staff and others. Marco Rubio, though, made a few key points. He talked about the economic incentives with oil. He talked about drugs, which of course, Venezuela is not the top offender here, but that's something that gets Trump going.

He talked about the potential for a huge win for Hispanic voters. And all of that combined got Trump on board with this in a way that that I think maybe was surprising to some folks in the space.

RAJU: Yeah, and we'll see how it plays out. It could be good for him. Maybe it gives him a little boost. Perhaps if it doesn't go the way that he hopes, maybe not. So, of course, we will see in the weeks and months ahead.

So, will all of this actually hold up in a court of law? And when and where will we see Maduro next? A former federal prosecutor joins me. Stay tuned.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[08:30:55]

MANU RAJU, CNN HOST: Now that the deposed Venezuelan president, Nicolas Maduro, is facing four federal charges, what is the likelihood that they will actually hold up in court?

Maduro, who has been charged with narco terrorism conspiracy, conspiring to import cocaine, and possessing and conspiring to possess machine guns and destructive devices is expected in court as soon as tomorrow.

Let's bring in CNN senior legal analyst Elie Honig, a former prosecutor in the Southern District of New York. Elie, thanks for being here this morning.

So is it legal? Was this legal? That's the question that so many people have right now about the way that this was carried out, the way that they arrested Maduro and his wife, brought him to the United States. Was this a legal operation?

ELIE HONIG, CNN SENIOR LEGAL ANALYST: Well Manu, as we sit here on Sunday, January 4th, there's no way that I nor anyone else can give you a definitive answer to that question. That's part of what makes this case so remarkable, so unusual.

But the good news is we will find out, because I assure you that once Maduro gets lawyers, one of the first things they will do is challenge his arrest. They will argue that the manner of his extraction from Venezuela violated international law.

They will argue that he has something called sovereign immunity, meaning he can't be criminally charged for his actions as the leader of another country. We will get rulings on those issues from the court.

I suspect that these charges will hold up, and here's why. There is a long standing, first of all, opinion out of the Justice Department. It dates back to 1989. It actually was authored by Bill Barr, who would go on to become the attorney general twice. But that opinion basically says even if an arrest violates some of the principles or tenets of international law, it doesn't mean that the case gets dismissed. It doesn't mean the case cannot be tried in the United States.

And looking at this purely from a practical point of view, Manu, and I know this judge who has the case, Judge Hellerstein, I appeared in front of him many different times. I just don't see a federal United States district court judge saying this arrest was improper. Case dismissed. Nicolas Maduro, you are allowed to go free. Just looking at it from a purely practical standpoint.

RAJU: And you know, Senator Mike Lee said the action likely falls within the president's inherent authority under Article Two of the Constitution to protect U.S. personnel from an actual or imminent attack. Does that hold water?

HONIG: Well, so that's precisely what underpins that 1989 DOJ memo that I talked about that basically says this is not an area for the courts to intervene in the decision about how to handle foreign affairs, diplomacy, military actions sits with the executive branch, sits with the Article Two precedent. And it's really not something for the judiciary to interfere with. I do think that will fundamentally drive the decision in this case.

RAJU: So the vice president, JD Vance, pushed back against those calling it illegal saying he had multiple indictments -- Maduro had multiple indictments. And Vance went on to say, quote, "You don't get to avoid justice for drug trafficking in the United States because you live in a palace in Caracas."

Are there broader implications for that argument? If the courts allow this to go forward.

HONIG: Yes, I think there are. I think that's a bit oversimplified from the vice president. I mean, if it was as simple as if the leader of a foreign nation commits some act that happens to violate U.S. law, we can go pick that person off and take them out of the palace and bring them into the United States.

I'm not saying we should never do that, but I don't think it's quite as straightforward as you commit a crime against us, we can take you out whenever we want. We can bring you here for criminal prosecution. I think there's a complex set of legal and political and constitutional factors here.

But I think the charges against Maduro, if you look at them, it's more than just drug trafficking. It's a 20-plus-year stretch of narco terrorism. I think a lot of the answers to these questions that you're raising, Manu, really have to come from the political branch and have to come from Congress more than from the courts.

[08:34:49]

HONIG: Remember, when this case is being tried in the Southern District of New York, the questions are really quite narrow.

I think a judge is likely to uphold this case. And ultimately, Manu, it will be handled as any other criminal trial. It will ultimately go to a jury of 12 Manhattanites, 12 New Yorkers, and they will decide Nicolas Maduro's fate.

RAJU: Elie, is this case a strong one against Maduro, or do you think there are holes when you look at the indictment?

HONIG: So I've read the indictment carefully. It appears to be strong. The conduct itself is overwhelming. I mean, we are talking about a two decades plus long system that would basically use the government of Venezuela to unite all these different narco terrorist groups, the FARC and others.

And Maduro allegedly sent 250 plus tons of cocaine into the United States each and every year. He used -- he engaged in money laundering. He used diplomatic passports to get safe passage for drug traffickers, used violence, weaponry, bombs.

The question really, in any case like this Manu, where you have a hierarchical organization is can you get that evidence on the top guy? Because typically the top guy, whether it's the president of a country or the leader of a terrorist group, they're insulated. They have other people do their dirty work for them. They limit who they who they talk to and what they say. So that's going to be the challenge for prosecutors here.

RAJU: And very quickly, how long do you think this will take to play out and how much prison time could Maduro be facing?

HONIG: So he's looking at a minimum of 30 years in prison, a max of life if he's convicted. Typically a case like this, Manu, in federal court could take anywhere from a year to two years to reach trial. We're going to have some complicated pretrial motions, as you and I discussed.

So I think a trial is likely, maybe at the earliest, late 2026, more likely sometime in 2027.

RAJU: Oh, boy. Yes, I guess we'll be talking about this for a while. Elie Honig, thank you so much for --

HONIG: I'm ready.

RAJU: Absolutely. Thanks for being with us this morning. Really appreciate it.

My panel is back with me.

David, there's also some issues involving United Nations as well.

DAVID SANGER, CNN POLITICAL AND NATIONAL SECURITY ANALYST: Right. There's an international law element to this. I mean, I think Elie's analysis here is just right. I'd be shocked if the judge paid attention to how it is that -- that Maduro ended up in this courtroom, right.

But the United States has signed as a treaty the U.N. Charter. The U.N. Charter says you cannot use force on a sovereign territory of another country without its consent. Well, clearly, that wasn't here. Without the authorization of the U.N. Security Council, well, they didn't even get authorization from Congress, right?

Or because of a self-defense argument. And that's the argument that the administration is going to make, that the combination of drugs and other elements of this made this an operation for self-defense.

The big question, Manu, is if you're a foreign leader -- maybe you're Vladimir Putin, maybe you're Xi Jinping -- and you look at this and you say, well, this one isn't bad, right? I mean, the Russians in the early days of the Ukraine war, tried to grab Zelenskyy. I'm sure that the Chinese have thought about what they could do with the leader of Taiwan, right. So you're creating a precedent here you may not want to live with.

RAJU: Yes. And it's such a good point.

I just want to just take a step back about what this says about Trump's foreign policy doctrine. He mentioned the Don-Roe, Trump called it the Don-Roe doctrine, referring to, of course, the Monroe doctrine, the U.S. foreign policy from the 1820s.

This is just what Trump has done. He's authorized the actions this year in 2025, strikes against Somalia, Iraq, Yemen, Iran, Venezuela, Syria, Nigeria.

I mean, that's a fair amount from a president who suggested he'd be a peace president. You know, they'll say peace through strength. But what do you think this says about Trump's foreign policy?

DASHA BURNS, POLITICO WHITE HOUSE BUREAU CHIEF: Well, it's not isolationism. It's not America First I think in the way that most people had interpreted it in his first term and were interpreting it as he was campaigning.

I think that this this president, along with this cabinet, folks like Marco Rubio and Pete Hegseth, have decided that America is going to be involved and be heavily involved and have his hands in a number of different conflicts.

And that is going to be a challenge, especially in a midterm year when I was hearing from his officials that he was really going to turn back inwards.

And it also, to David's point, sends quite a message globally that this -- the era of people kind of minding their own business is over.

RAJU: Yes.

BURNS: If the United States is doing this, who else might it embolden?

RAJU: And what's next? I mean, Greenland? This is what, Katie Miller, Stephen Millers wife, who's -- she's a podcaster. She posted this, "Greenland soon", with the American flag on it.

SEUNG MIN KIM, ASSOCIATED PRESS WHITE HOUSE REPORTER: Yes. I mean, I did see Denmark officials respond to that tweet saying it's a friendly reminder that we are shared -- we have shared interests that we otherwise get along, which is kind of a notable place to be in right now.

[08:39:50]

KIM: But back to Dasha's point, I think it's really interesting too, how both Secretary Rubio and Vice President Vance tried to kind of, you know, reconcile the whole, you know, peace president with what happened.

And both emphasize that Maduro had multiple warnings and multiple offers to resolve this in a different way from the United States. And Rubio kind of made that point, saying, we tried to resolve this peacefully. We understand that the president, this president is the peace president, but it is a contradiction that they're going to have to really explain and confront in the coming months.

RAJU: Yes. They haven't really explained a whole lot as we discussed earlier. Much more ahead, of course.

Next up, Trump's former envoy for Venezuela joins me live. We'll ask him how the U.S. plans to actually run Venezuela.

And later, this is not the first time the U.S. has been involved in regime change. So how did those other episodes play out?

[08:40:42]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

RAJU: There are so many questions about what's next now that President Trump has declared the United States will actually be in charge of running another country. And how messy will taking over Venezuela actually be?

Joining me now is someone who could shed light on this. Elliott Abrams, who served as the U.S. special representative for Venezuela during President Trump's first term. Mr. Abrams, thank you so much for joining me this morning.

So that is my first question to you. How is the United States actually going to run Venezuela?

ELLIOTT ABRAMS, FORMER U.S. SPECIAL ENVOY TO VENEZUELA: I doubt there's much been planning been done for this, but partly because it was necessary to retain operational security. I don't think many people in the government knew this was going to happen.

The United States cannot run Venezuela. The worst thing that we could do, and we may be doing it actually, is to make some kind of deal with the regime's remnants, with the vice president, Delcy Rodriguez, and leave her and the regime in place, except for maybe a change on oil policy.

That's conceivable, but that's not our running Venezuela. That's the Maduro regime running Venezuela without Maduro.

RAJU: So how should they deal with Delcy Rodriguez? Because she says that their country will not cooperate. So should the U.S. Go in and try to arrest her, remove her from power as well?

ABRAMS: No, I think first of all, the United States should be demanding the expulsion of Cuban and Iranian officials from Venezuela.

We should be demanding the liberation of all political prisoners right now.

And we should be supporting Edmundo Gonzalez, who won that election in 2024 with a 70 percent landslide.

I thought that was the worst point in the president's press conference yesterday. The insult, really, to Maria Corina Machado, who is the leader of democratic forces in Venezuela. That's what we should be supporting. The guy who won the election should be president.

RAJU: Yes. The president said the united -- there was not broad support. It was not respect for Machado -- what you're referring to right there.

I'm wondering if you think the president also is leveling with the American public about just how difficult this will be to run a country like Venezuela?

ABRAMS: Yes. You know, nobody else used that word "run" until he did. And my thought is that that didn't appear in some, you know, papers done through a long interagency process, that it just came out of the president and that nobody else expected to run Venezuela. It would be extremely difficult.

You know, it's a very big country. It's twice the size of California, 25 million people, roughly. It's too complex for us to run.

What we should be looking for is a popular government, a democratic, elected government that can begin to rehabilitate the country with our support and the support of the other democracies that surround Venezuela. That's possible.

But the notion that we're going to run it from Washington, I think is implausible and it's just not going to work.

RAJU: You know, as you know regime changes don't always work. They require significant manpower and resources. How many U.S. troops do you think will be needed to stabilize this country? And how much do you think that will actually cost U.S. taxpayers?

ABRAMS: Well, I don't think any U.S. troops are needed if there is a popular government. That is, what we should be doing is helping the people who are elected take over helping them negotiate with the army.

This has happened all over South America. There are lots of transitions to democracy. There's always an amnesty. There's always a deal with the military.

That's what they need in Venezuela. And they need to pay the army. So we should be helping them find the money from the World Bank, the Inter-American bank, to pay the military so that we they retain the loyalty.

But I don't think any American troop should go in to Venezuela and certainly not to help this regime, this terrible regime, the Maduro regime stay in power through the -- through the other indicted criminals who are still there.

RAJU: Mr. Abrams, is it legal for the United States to simply just go in and take Venezuelan oil and sell it? Is that legal?

ABRAMS: No. I do think that this is analogous to Panama though, in the sense that it is legal to go in and seize a fugitive and indicted drug trafficker, Nicolas Maduro.

And I do think that some of the complaints, frankly, from Democrats about this are coming from people who thought it was just fine for Barack Obama to have an air campaign against Libya for seven months when he was president.

[08:49:51]

ABRAMS: And now all of a sudden, the use of presidential power is not possible. So I don't think that's a very strong argument.

But I do think the idea that the oil is ours is not persuasive. It belongs to the Venezuelan people.

RAJU: Right.

ABRAMS: We should help them redevelop that industry. But it's not our oil.

RAJU: All right. Mr. Abrams, thank you so much for joining me this morning. We really appreciate your expertise and your perspective. Thanks so much.

ABRAMS: Welcome.

RAJU: And regime change in foreign lands is really nothing new for America. More on that next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

RAJU: As stunning as this weekend's events were in Venezuela, forcing regime change in an adversarial country has been not uncommon in American history. In fact, it's not even the first time a similar situation took place on January 3rd.

[08:54:43]

RAJU: It was exactly 36 years ago yesterday that Panama's Manuel Noriega, the country's military dictator for roughly six years, was arrested by U.S. troops.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

GEORGE H.W. BUSH, FORMER PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: He will be arraigned in the U.S. district court in Miami on charges stemming from his previous indictment for drug trafficking.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

RAJU: And the aftermath is usually much more fraught than the initial invasion.

And in March 2003, a U.S.-led invasion overthrew Saddam Hussein's government, with Baghdad falling a month later, leaving behind a chaotic and deadly aftermath.

And in 2011, the U.S. helped NATO drive Libyan dictator Muammar Gaddafi from power and eventually to his death.

President Barack Obama was later asked what the worst mistake of his presidency was.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

BARACK OBAMA, FORMER PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: Probably failing to plan for the day after what I think was the right thing to do in intervening in Libya.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

RAJU: The exact numbers of coups the U.S. Has been involved with over the years is hard to pin down. A 2005 Harvard report calculated 41 U.S. interventions in just Latin America alone from 1898 through 1994.

And in 1994, the United States stepped into Haiti to restore to power its democratically-elected president.

And in 1954, the CIA helped mount a coup against a democratically- elected president in Guatemala, in part because of U.S. fears over the rise of communism.

And of course, there's the Bay of Pigs, the infamous 1961 failed attempt to overthrow Fidel Castro's government in Cuba that eventually led to the Cuban missile crisis.

So will history again repeat itself? Well, President Trump and Secretary of State Marco Rubio did not rule out similar action in Cuba in the future.

That's it for INSIDE POLITICS SUNDAY.

"STATE OF THE UNION" is up next.

Thanks again for sharing your Sunday morning with us. We'll see you next time.

[08:56:40]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)