🔥 BREAKING: Donald Trump GIVES UNHINGED INTERVIEW After VENEZUELA INVASION — LIVE TV DESCENDS INTO TOTAL CHAOS ⚡

In a wide-ranging interview that aired this week on Fox News, former President Donald Trump offered an extraordinary and unsettling account of a U.S. military operation in Venezuela, describing the action less as a solemn exercise of state power than as a spectacle he appeared to relish watching unfold.

Speaking with evident enthusiasm, Mr. Trump characterized the operation — which he framed as an intervention to ensure a “proper transition” in Venezuela — as something he observed almost as entertainment. He praised its speed and force, spoke approvingly of the scale of the military deployment, and suggested the United States would remain in control of the country until it was, in his words, “run properly.”

The tone of the interview, broadcast on Fox News, quickly drew scrutiny in Washington, where lawmakers and former national security officials expressed concern not only about the substance of the operation but about the former president’s casual treatment of war, civilian harm and constitutional limits.

At several points, Mr. Trump openly celebrated the use of overwhelming force. He boasted that additional waves of military power had already been prepared, describing an “armada” assembled to ensure total dominance. When pressed on casualties, he asserted that no American troops had been killed, acknowledged some injuries and a damaged helicopter, and moved past questions of Venezuelan civilian losses with visible indifference, saying reports were still unclear.

Perhaps most striking was Mr. Trump’s framing of the operation itself. Rather than describing it as a grave national security decision, he spoke of it as something he “enjoyed watching,” blurring the line between command responsibility and spectacle. The language stood in sharp contrast to the traditional restraint expected of civilian leaders overseeing military force.

The former president also dismissed concerns about geopolitical escalation. Asked about China’s interests in Venezuela — including reports of Chinese officials meeting with Venezuelan leaders shortly before the operation — Mr. Trump waved away the issue, citing his personal relationship with Xi Jinping. China, he said, would still receive oil, but only on American terms.

The remark underscored what critics say was an unvarnished admission of resource-driven motives. Control of oil, rather than humanitarian or security concerns, appeared central to Mr. Trump’s justification — a position that diplomats warn could erode already fragile international norms.

Mr. Trump also lashed out at Democratic lawmakers who questioned the legality of the operation, arguing that Congress should be thanking him rather than scrutinizing his authority. He portrayed constitutional oversight as obstruction, suggesting that legal limits on executive power were obstacles to decisive action.

That argument was swiftly rejected on Capitol Hill. Senator Mark Warner, the top Democrat on the Senate Intelligence Committee, said Congress had not been briefed before or after the operation. In a sharply worded statement, he warned that authorizing military force without congressional approval crossed a dangerous constitutional line.

Such a precedent, Mr. Warner argued, could be cited by other powers to justify unilateral aggression — whether by China against Taiwan, or by Vladimir Putin in Ukraine. Once normalized, he warned, the logic of unchecked force becomes difficult to contain.

Back on television, Mr. Trump dismissed those concerns and escalated his rhetoric further. He claimed elite units, including Delta Force, were eager to deploy and had to be restrained by commanders — a portrayal that current and former military officials say misrepresents the disciplined, law-bound culture of professional armed forces.

Meanwhile, reports from Venezuela suggested a far more uncertain reality. Senior figures within the ruling party appeared publicly denying reports of capture or death. Regional governors asserted they remained in control. In Caracas, residents lined up outside grocery stores, rushing to secure food amid fears of instability and retaliation.

The interview’s most alarming moment may have come near its end, when Mr. Trump turned his attention to Mexico. Referring to President Claudia Sheinbaum, he claimed she lacked control over her country, asserting that drug cartels were in charge. He suggested, without elaboration, that military action could follow.

For many observers, the remarks crystallized broader fears: that the former president views military force not as a last resort constrained by law, but as a flexible tool — one to be celebrated, televised and expanded. Whether hypothetical or real, such rhetoric, critics say, risks normalizing a vision of American power untethered from restraint, process or accountability.