Navratilova Slams Trump’s Venezuela Strike—Is She Out of Touch?

Paul Riverbank, 1/5/2026Martina Navratilova slams Trump’s Venezuela raid, reigniting debates over celebrity activism and political polarization.

Shortly after news broke that American forces had moved to detain Venezuelan strongman Nicolás Maduro, Navratilova picked up her phone and fired off a tweet — blunt, raw, unmistakably hers. “He is absolutely insane. Not to mention this is completely illegal,” she declared, her words slicing through the ceaseless scroll on X (formerly Twitter). She was responding not only to the military drama but to a video clip of Donald Trump, grinning and jubilant, reveling in the aftermath. “This incredible thing last night... We have to do it again. We can do it again, too. Nobody can stop us.” The implication was clear: might makes right, at least in Trump’s calculus. Navratilova, not for the first time, found herself both the messenger — and the target.

Critics wasted no time. “Stick to tennis,” came the hackneyed retort, predictable yet persistent. Scorn morphed into goading, some referencing her escape from Soviet-bloc Czechoslovakia years ago: “Again why did you leave your country?” one user snapped, seemingly missing the obvious parallels she often draws from the regime she once fled. The backlash wasn’t surprising, but Navratilova’s reply was as rooted in her biography as her backhand: “I lived in a totalitarian authoritarian country growing up and I will not vote for that now or ever.” She doubled down, calling Trump a “serial criminal on so many different fronts” — words pulled from the memory of a childhood shadowed by unchecked state power.

Navratilova, of course, doesn’t fit easily into partisan boxes. Conservative commentators, quick to lambast her over Trump, have in recent months praised her willingness to buck liberal orthodoxy on matters like transgender inclusion in women’s sports. Her support for swimmers and runners at odds with trans competitors — Riley Gaines, Jennifer Sey — won her unlikely admirers on the right, even as she found herself pilloried by some on the left. Last fall, she signed, seemingly without hesitation, a statement with conservative athletes condemning Tehran over a death sentence aimed at an Iranian boxing champion. For Navratilova, the pattern is clear: principle over party, even if that means straddling the ever-widening aisle.

Meanwhile, the Venezuelan episode has thrown open old wounds in American political life. In Miami, crowds of Venezuelan émigrés — many of them having left family or fortune behind — filled Calle Ocho with cheers, hoisting flags and weeping at news of Maduro’s capture. To them, U.S. intervention was a long-awaited deliverance. In Washington, though, the reviews split along deeply-grooved partisan lines. Senator John Fetterman and Congresswoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz gave their enthusiastic support, while Vice President Kamala Harris warned the operation was “unlawful and unwise.” Diplomats fretted; analysts argued; the news cycle churned.

Through it all, Navratilova’s online missives alternated between fury and concern. She railed against oil companies she accused of “pillaging” — part of a long-term critique about foreign powers, resource extraction, and the invisibility of the powerless in global power plays. “Holding a country hostage while pillaging its natural resources. Next stop- either Greenland or Nigeria,” she warned, voice rising above the noise, the phrasing just ambiguous enough to spark further debate.

It begs the perennial question: Where do we draw the line between public service and spectacle when it comes to celebrity commentary on serious national matters? Navratilova has never hidden from this question, only sharpened it: does her immigrant background deepen her insight, or does it render her an outsider forever cautioned to “stick to tennis”? If history is a guide, the tennis legend will keep saying what she thinks, court of public opinion be damned.

In the end, it’s not the fact of intervention or even the figure of Trump that splits opinion, but a deeper uncertainty about who gets to shape American arguments. The dust hasn’t yet settled in Venezuela’s capital, and on Navratilova’s X feed, it stirs again every time she posts. America, for all its supposed weariness with outrage, still finds plenty to debate — and, in the voices of those with both scars and status, still something to learn.

Martina Navratilova rarely backs down from a challenge — whether it’s the relentless rhythm of a Wimbledon final or the unpredictable churn of today’s public debates. Lately, though, her battleground is less clay and grass courts, more the unforgiving sprawl of social media and, unexpectedly, the fallout from a U.S. raid in Venezuela.Shortly after news broke that American forces had moved to detain Venezuelan strongman Nicolás Maduro, Navratilova picked up her phone and fired off a tweet — blunt, raw, unmistakably hers. “He is absolutely insane. Not to mention this is completely illegal,” she declared, her words slicing through the ceaseless scroll on X (formerly Twitter). She was responding not only to the military drama but to a video clip of Donald Trump, grinning and jubilant, reveling in the aftermath. “This incredible thing last night... We have to do it again. We can do it again, too. Nobody can stop us.” The implication was clear: might makes right, at least in Trump’s calculus. Navratilova, not for the first time, found herself both the messenger — and the target.Critics wasted no time. “Stick to tennis,” came the hackneyed retort, predictable yet persistent. Scorn morphed into goading, some referencing her escape from Soviet-bloc Czechoslovakia years ago: “Again why did you leave your country?” one user snapped, seemingly missing the obvious parallels she often draws from the regime she once fled. The backlash wasn’t surprising, but Navratilova’s reply was as rooted in her biography as her backhand: “I lived in a totalitarian authoritarian country growing up and I will not vote for that now or ever.” She doubled down, calling Trump a “serial criminal on so many different fronts” — words pulled from the memory of a childhood shadowed by unchecked state power.Navratilova, of course, doesn’t fit easily into partisan boxes. Conservative commentators, quick to lambast her over Trump, have in recent months praised her willingness to buck liberal orthodoxy on matters like transgender inclusion in women’s sports. Her support for swimmers and runners at odds with trans competitors — Riley Gaines, Jennifer Sey — won her unlikely admirers on the right, even as she found herself pilloried by some on the left. Last fall, she signed, seemingly without hesitation, a statement with conservative athletes condemning Tehran over a death sentence aimed at an Iranian boxing champion. For Navratilova, the pattern is clear: principle over party, even if that means straddling the ever-widening aisle.Meanwhile, the Venezuelan episode has thrown open old wounds in American political life. In Miami, crowds of Venezuelan émigrés — many of them having left family or fortune behind — filled Calle Ocho with cheers, hoisting flags and weeping at news of Maduro’s capture. To them, U.S. intervention was a long-awaited deliverance. In Washington, though, the reviews split along deeply-grooved partisan lines. Senator John Fetterman and Congresswoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz gave their enthusiastic support, while Vice President Kamala Harris warned the operation was “unlawful and unwise.” Diplomats fretted; analysts argued; the news cycle churned.Through it all, Navratilova’s online missives alternated between fury and concern. She railed against oil companies she accused of “pillaging” — part of a long-term critique about foreign powers, resource extraction, and the invisibility of the powerless in global power plays. “Holding a country hostage while pillaging its natural resources. Next stop- either Greenland or Nigeria,” she warned, voice rising above the noise, the phrasing just ambiguous enough to spark further debate.It begs the perennial question: Where do we draw the line between public service and spectacle when it comes to celebrity commentary on serious national matters? Navratilova has never hidden from this question, only sharpened it: does her immigrant background deepen her insight, or does it render her an outsider forever cautioned to “stick to tennis”? If history is a guide, the tennis legend will keep saying what she thinks, court of public opinion be damned.In the end, it’s not the fact of intervention or even the figure of Trump that splits opinion, but a deeper uncertainty about who gets to shape American arguments. The dust hasn’t yet settled in Venezuela’s capital, and on Navratilova’s X feed, it stirs again every time she posts. America, for all its supposed weariness with outrage, still finds plenty to debate — and, in the voices of those with both scars and status, still something to learn.