Stephen King issues scathing Trump attack as he claims he 'has hit the gutter'

 

Stephen King didn’t mince words as fresh turmoil erupted around Venezuela and the Trump administration’s latest foreign policy gamble.

Following reports of an aggressive U.S. military operation against Venezuela’s government, the legendary author publicly criticized President Donald Trump, questioning both the motives and morality behind the move. The administration claimed the action was aimed at dismantling “narco-terrorism” linked to Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro. But King, like many observers, isn’t buying that explanation.

According to multiple reports, Maduro was seized in Caracas during a sudden U.S. operation and later transported to New York, where he was formally indicted on drug trafficking–related charges. The incident followed early-morning strikes over the Venezuelan capital, with explosions and low-flying aircraft sending residents into panic.

Reacting on the social media platform Bluesky, Stephen King argued that the justification had little to do with drugs and far more to do with oil. While acknowledging that Maduro is no hero, King pointed out the hypocrisy of Trump’s posture, especially given his past praise for Russian President Vladimir Putin. In King’s view, the contrast was telling: strong words and force for a socialist oil-rich nation, but warm treatment for authoritarian leaders aligned with Trump’s interests.

Online reactions quickly echoed King’s sentiment. Many commenters said the operation looked like a resource grab disguised as law enforcement, while others noted how desensitized the public has become to extreme political actions. Several referenced Trump’s repeated failure to confront Putin over Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, despite claiming to be tough on global crime and instability.

The operation itself marked a dramatic escalation. U.S. forces reportedly removed Maduro and his wife from their residence on a military base in the middle of the night, transported them aboard a U.S. warship, and brought them to the United States. Venezuela’s vice president condemned the move, calling it an illegal abduction and reaffirming Maduro as the country’s legitimate leader.

Speaking shortly afterward, Trump announced that the United States would temporarily assume control in Venezuela, citing a leadership vacuum. He claimed American authorities would oversee the country until a “safe and proper” transition could be arranged and openly discussed plans to “fix” Venezuela’s oil infrastructure to boost exports. The language drew immediate comparisons to past U.S. interventions, particularly the 2003 invasion of Iraq.

Reports from Caracas described a brief but intense military strike lasting under half an hour, involving at least seven explosions. Venezuelan officials labeled it an imperialist attack on both civilian and military targets. While exact casualty numbers were not released, authorities confirmed deaths among civilians and soldiers. Trump admitted some U.S. troops were injured but said he did not believe there were any fatalities.

For critics like King, the episode reinforces a broader concern: that Trump’s foreign policy prioritizes power and profit over international law, human rights, and global stability. To them, Venezuela isn’t an isolated incident—it’s another example of how easily rhetoric about security can be used to justify actions that destabilize entire nations.