Vance’s Low Profile During Venezuela Strike Raises Questions About Policy Divide

By Mona Austin

A recent New Yorker report has drawn attention to the conspicuous absence of Vice President JD Vance—both publicly and behind the scenes—during the January 3 U.S. operation in Venezuela that resulted in the capture of Nicolás Maduro. The White House pushed back on the reporting Wednesday, but the questions remain.

According to the Wall Street Journal, Vance was not among the advisers who joined President Donald Trump in the lead‑up discussions about the attack, nor was he present in the Mar‑a‑Lago "Situation Room" during the operation. For a vice president who is also an Iraq War veteran, his lack of visibility and direct involvement has fueled speculation that he may disagree with the president on the use of military force.

During her first press briefing of the year, Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt rejected the idea that Vance was disengaged. “He was, of course, read in and deeply involved in this operation from the very beginning,” she said, accusing the publication of attempting to “sow distrust and division” within the president's team.

Leavitt added that Vance participated “via secure communication from a different location” on the night of the operation, citing security precautions. She also noted that the White House has intentionally reduced the frequency of joint appearances between the president and vice president.

Still, dismissing the reporting does not erase the optics seen worldwide. Secretary of State Marco Rubio, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, Stephen Miller and Joint Chiefs Chairman Gen. Dan Caine were all visibly engaged in the operation.  Vance's physical absence fueled the perception that he was sidelined on the mission.

The VP did post a lengthy statement on X illuminating that the operation was a about preventing fentanyl form entering the country.

Given Vance’s proximity to the president and his military background, many expected him to play a more prominent public role in shaping and explaining national security decisions. While Vance later posted supportive remarks about the operation on X, his absence from the process has raised questions about his influence—especially as Trump’s chosen successor.

As the New Yorker's Benjamin Wallace Wells put it, “Vance’s general absence from the Venezuela initiative has been taken as an expression of his ideological identity. He is a dove, at least in the relative terms of Trumpworld, and this has been an operation for the hawks.”

Given the leeriness about Pres. Trump potentially handing over the reigns before the term ends, although it is speculative, there is interest in what Vance thinks about every major situation coming out of the White House and an expectation for him to be seen and heard overtly.