President Donald Trump on Friday responded to a reporter’s question about whether he would consider sending the U.S. military to capture Russian President Vladimir Putin, following the capture of Venezuela’s Nicolás Maduro last week.
Why it matters
Trump’s remarks come as the administration’s foreign policy moves draw increased scrutiny, including the high-profile Maduro operation and stepped-up efforts aimed at restricting oil exports from Venezuela’s government.
The Trump administration is also trying to broker a peace deal between Russia and Ukraine. Russia launched its full-scale invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, after first invading in 2014, annexing Crimea, and occupying parts of eastern Ukraine.
The broader debate over U.S. military intervention—and what such actions could mean for U.S.-Russia relations—has intensified as military and economic pressure increasingly shape global diplomacy. The prospect of direct action against foreign leaders also raises questions about legal boundaries, diplomatic strategy, and how the U.S. projects power abroad.
What to know
Fox News’ Peter Doocy asked Trump—citing recent remarks by Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky—whether he would ever order a mission to capture Putin.
Trump said, in part: “I don’t think it’s going to be necessary…I’ve always had a great relationship with him [Putin]. I’m very disappointed. I settled eight wars; I thought this was going to be in the middle of the pack or maybe one of the easier ones.”
He added: “The last month, they’ve lost 31,000 people, many of them Russian soldiers and the Russian economy is doing poorly.”
After Maduro’s capture, Zelensky said the U.S. “knows what to do next” when it comes to “capturing dictators.”
What people are saying
Columbia University professor Robert Y. Shapiro, to Newsweek via email on Friday: “Trying to capture Putin would be too dangerous and would risk war with Russia. Military leaders would surely question this. Good or Bad matters less than the desire and ability to reach agreements and minimize hostility.”
Shapiro later added: “That’s Trump’s typical tough posturing. It should be taken that way.”
Senator Chris Van Hollen, a Maryland Democrat, on X this week: “Trump’s actions in Venezuela and his Administration’s national security strategy are making our nation—and the world—less safe. They’re setting a dangerous precedent, and you can bet Putin and [Chinese President] Xi are taking note.”
Senator Sheldon Whitehouse, a Rhode Island Democrat, on X this week: “Trump/Russia? Greenland gambit attacks NATO, as Putin wants. Venezuela gambit emboldens Putin on Ukraine, may be a de facto swap. Support for EU far right aligns with Putin. Please let’s not pretend there’s no Trump/Russia happening.”
Vice President JD Vance on X earlier this month: “The president offered multiple off ramps, but was very clear throughout this process: the drug trafficking must stop, and the stolen oil must be returned to the United States. Maduro is the newest person to find out that President Trump means what he says. Kudos to our brave special operators who pulled off a truly impressive operation.”
In a follow-up post, Vance added: “And PSA for everyone saying this was ‘illegal’: Maduro has multiple indictments in the United States for narcoterrorism. You don’t get to avoid justice for drug trafficking in the United States because you live in a palace in Caracas.”
What happens next
Debate in Congress and among foreign policy experts over the legality—and potential consequences—of extraterritorial U.S. operations is likely to continue. That discussion has sharpened following American actions in Venezuela, with Trump indicating oversight may last “much longer” than a year, he told The New York Times.
