How to talk about Trump’s military strikes in the Caribbean and possible Venezuela attacks
National Security Action commissioned a nationwide survey from October 22–23, 2025 to understand how Americans perceive President Trump’s recent airstrikes targeting suspected drug traffickers near Venezuela and the Caribbean Sea. The poll of 1,215 likely voters reveals notable public awareness of the strikes and deep partisan divides over their legitimacy and effectiveness.
The findings confirm what many in the national security and foreign policy community have observed: while Republicans are strongly supportive of the strikes, independent voters and Democrats view them as reckless, illegal, and ineffective. These attitudes reflect growing fatigue with unilateral military action and skepticism toward Trump’s use of force for political spectacle rather than strategic necessity.
The goal of this document is to help allies communicate effectively about the dangers of Trump’s overreach.
Key Findings
61% of Americans have heard at least something about the strikes – a relatively high awareness level.
Overall approval is 50–45 in favor, but this masks deep partisan divides:
Democrats: Strongly opposed (−46 net).
Independents: Narrowly opposed (−6).
Republicans: Overwhelmingly supportive (+61).
Support drops notably when the strikes are framed as taking place inside Venezuela (−3 net) or inside Mexico (−4 net) — showing discomfort with escalation or violations of sovereignty.
Most Effective Arguments Across Audiences
Among all the messages tested, the most compelling centered on Trump’s recklessness.
Voters, especially independents, responded strongly to the idea that these strikes risk dragging the United States into another unnecessary conflict, destabilizing the region, and putting American servicemembers in harm’s way.
This framing was the single most effective overall, producing a +14 point net margin nationwide and a +28 point margin among independents, with 41 percent of independents describing it as very convincing.
Messages highlighting the ineffectiveness of Trump’s approach were equally persuasive.
Voters found the argument that “you can’t bomb your way out of a drug epidemic” persuasive, viewing the strikes as political theater rather than a serious attempt to solve the problem.
This message generated a +14 point margin overall, including a +60 point margin among Democrats and a +24 point margin among independents, placing it alongside “recklessness” as the top-performing critique across audiences.
Arguments emphasizing the illegality of the strikes also performed strongly.
This message scored a +11 point margin nationwide and a +24 point margin among independents, demonstrating that concerns about presidential overreach resonate beyond the Democratic base.
Messages focused on Trump’s hypocrisy as a “peace candidate” or on claims of a hidden regime-change agenda were notably less effective.
The “peace candidate” frame produced only a +8 point net margin overall, while the “regime change” argument was underwater nationally (−4) and strongly rejected by Republicans (−49). These messages appealed primarily to Democrats but failed to move independent voters.
Key Takeaways:
Voters are responsive to strategic critiques: recklessness, ineffectiveness, and illegality more than moral or partisan attacks. Independents, in particular, react strongly to arguments that frame Trump’s actions as unwise, risky, and wasteful rather than immoral.
Do’s and Don’ts:
Do:
Lead with restraint and accountability. Emphasize that presidents cannot use lethal force without congressional approval.
Frame this as reckless and costly. Highlight the risk of escalation, potential for regional instability, and lack of strategy.
Underscore ineffectiveness. Make clear that “bombing drug traffickers” won’t solve America’s drug epidemic or make communities safer.
Connect to overreach and abuse of power. Situate these strikes in Trump’s broader record of ignoring legal limits and oversight.
Echo bipartisan values. Use language about constitutional checks, responsible leadership, and focus on domestic priorities.
Don’t:
Don’t moralize or personalize excessively. Attacks focused purely on Trump’s character or hypocrisy tested poorly beyond the base.
Don’t lean on “regime change” framing. That argument failed to move persuadable independent voters and was actively rejected by Republicans.
Don’t imply isolationism. Avoid language that suggests the U.S. should withdraw from global engagement. Instead, frame the critique around how America engages, stressing that we should act smartly, lawfully, and in ways that advance our interests and uphold the rule of law.
Don’t make this about Venezuela or Mexico per se. Keep the focus on American interests, legality, and prudence, not regional geopolitics.
Talking Points:
Trump’s unauthorized strikes are reckless and dangerous. They put American servicemembers at risk and threaten to destabilize Latin America, dragging the U.S. into a costly regional conflict.
This is presidential overreach, pure and simple. The Constitution is clear: Congress, not the president, has the power to authorize military force. These strikes ignore that limit.
There’s no strategy here, only spectacle. Airstrikes against supposed drug traffickers make headlines, but they do nothing to address addiction, trafficking, or the opioid crisis at home.
America can’t bomb its way out of a drug problem. We need solutions rooted in treatment, prevention, and diplomacy, not militarized photo-ops.
Trump’s actions weaken America’s credibility and security. Every reckless strike strengthens the perception that Washington acts impulsively and illegally, and makes it harder to protect U.S. interests.
Published: October 2025