The Roll Up: January 6, 2026 

TL;DR: Social media jumped on word of the bold U.S. military action in Venezuela and its taking of Nicolás Madura to New York to stand trial. While the move clearly has global political implications, it seems to have fanned the flames regarding American oil interests, Jeffrey Epstein and just how legal the action was. Here's what we know:

As news broke Saturday of the U.S. raid into Caracas to grab Maduro, social media quickly--and heavily--weighed in with reactions. At the time of this writing--just more than two days after word of the raid came out--Rolli IQ analysis shows the volume of engagement exceeds 13 million, a very high level for any single news event. 

The mix of sentiments among posts and engagement overall is as would be expected for a Trump Administration action, leaning slightly negative with still plenty of support and a good number of neutral posts explaining what happened. Rolli IQ's AI summary of activity on Twitter/X sums up the breadth of sentiments well:

• Twitter/X: The posts reflect a highly polarized and contentious situation regarding Venezuela. There are expressions of support and hope for Venezuelan prosperity and freedom, alongside celebrations of the reported capture of President Maduro and U.S. military actions. However, many posts criticize the U.S. intervention as illegal, imperialistic, and motivated by oil interests, highlighting concerns about sovereignty and the humanitarian impact. Some emphasize internal Venezuelan suffering and corruption, while others point to geopolitical tensions involving China, Israel, and the U.S. Protests both supporting and opposing the intervention are noted, illustrating a divided public opinion. Overall, the discourse is marked by a mix of optimism, condemnation, and skepticism.    

A more insightful approach to gauging public reaction dives more deeply into the posts with Rolli IQ's use of multiple keywords in searches. The Trump Administration justified the move to stop Maduro's part in "narco-terrorism" and to end his dictatorship. Searching that first justification turns up a reasonably small percentage of posts citing drug interdiction as the reason for the raid. And among those mentioning that motivation, many are skeptical the raid had much, if anything, to do with reducing drugs coming into the U.S, meaning sentiments ran very much to the negative.

In terms of freeing Venezuela from the grip of a dictator, there was more engagement on that subject. The Rolli IQ Sentiment Analysis shows as highly negative, though that isn't so much a judgement on U.S. military actions, as it is negative feelings toward Maduro and what he has done to Venezuela.

Twitter/X and Bluesky--often on opposite ends of the ideological spectrum--exhibit fairly similar views of Maduro and his rule of Venezuela, though Bluesky was also quick to condemn Trump for what many users saw as dictator-style illegal military action.

• Twitter/X: The majority of posts express strong support and approval of the U.S. military operation that captured Venezuelan dictator Nicolás Maduro, praising President Trump for taking decisive action to remove a brutal, corrupt, and narco-terrorist leader. Many highlight the celebrations in Venezuela as a sign of liberation and freedom from oppression, contrasting this with criticism of Democrats and leftists who oppose the operation. Some posts emphasize the strategic importance of removing Maduro and frame it as a victory against socialism and globalist threats. A minority of posts raise concerns about the legality and international implications of the unilateral action, warning it could set dangerous precedents. Overall, the sentiment is overwhelmingly positive toward the capture of Maduro and supportive of Trump's role in it.
• Bluesky: The posts overwhelmingly criticize both Nicolás Maduro as a brutal dictator and Donald Trump's illegal military intervention in Venezuela. While acknowledging Maduro's oppressive regime, the consensus condemns Trump's unauthorized regime change, highlighting its illegality under U.S. and international law and the negative consequences for global stability. Many posts argue that Trump replaced one dictator with another, motivated by control over Venezuela's oil rather than genuine concern for its people. The intervention is described as imperialistic, reckless, and damaging to the rule of law, with concerns about increased global instability and human suffering. There is also frustration with political leaders' responses and skepticism about the true intentions behind the U.S. actions.

The one overwhelmingly positive take Rolli IQ found involved the keyword "freedom." Those using that word congratulated the Venezuelan people and what they perceived as the freedom they would experience without Maduro in power. While the volume was not particularly large, the sentiment was overwhelmingly positive. 

While many of these reactions using the keywords above could be seen as a victory for the Trump Administration winning over public support, other posts in higher volume told a difference story. The most common keyword to come up--eclipsing all those already discussed here--was "oil." A large percentage of posts mentioned American thirst for oil profits as the main motivator behind the military action. These posts were overwhelmingly negative, often citing previous U.S. wars in the Middle East to secure access to oil money.

Also common was the keyword "illegal" in reference to the use of the military in this fashion. Many users mentioned the attacks on boats off the coast of Venezuela as the start of illegal action, saying the move to get Maduro was a huge escalation of illegal military action. Others called for Congress to step in and assert its constitutional powers to declare war to stop the Trump Administration from acting unilaterally.

And, not to be lost in this latest flurry of news headlines, the spectre of Jeffrey Epstein still hangs heavily over any actions Donald Trump undertakes. A significant volume of users engaged with content mentioning Epstein and this is can only be seen as 100 percent negative for Trump and his actions in South America.

The bottom line is that the analysis using Rolli IQ to look at online posts about U.S. action in Venezuela shows a general trend of negative reactions to the move, with some bright spots for the Trump Administration in terms of freeing the Venezuelan people from a dictator and stemming drug supplies to the United States.