President Donald Trump’s military intervention in Venezuela will pose a fresh test of his ability to hold together a restive Republican coalition during a challenging election year that could be defined by domestic concerns like health care and affordability.

While most Republicans lined up behind the president in the immediate aftermath of the stunning U.S. mission to capture Venezuelan leader Nicolás Maduro and bring him to New York to face criminal charges, there were signs of unease across the spectrum within the party. In particular, Trump’s comments about the U.S. positioning itself to “run” Venezuela have raised concerns that he is abandoning the “America First” philosophy that has long distinguished him from more traditional Republicans and helped fuel his political rise.

“This is the same Washington playbook that we are so sick and tired of that doesn’t serve the American people, but actually serves the big corporations, the banks and the oil executives,” said Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene of Georgia, a former Trump ally who is resigning on Monday, in an interview with NBC’s “Meet the Press” on Sunday.

Those concerns were shared by some who are not associated with the party’s far-right flank.

Rep. Brian Fitzpatrick of Pennsylvania, a moderate who is one of the most vulnerable Republicans in the November midterms, said in a statement that “the only country that the United States of America should be ‘running’ is the United States of America.”

Those comments reflect the sensitive dynamics between Trump and his fellow Republicans at the outset of an election year in which their party risks losing control of Congress. While the president’s dominance remains undisputed, the ironclad grip that he has held over the party has faced unusual challenges in recent months. Blocs of Republicans have banded together to pressure Trump to release the Jeffrey Epstein files. Others have been vocal in encouraging Trump to take concerns about affordability more seriously.

Trump’s aggressive vision of US dominance

Few issues are as central to Trump’s political brand as ensuring that the U.S. does not get entangled in seemingly endless foreign conflicts at the expense of domestic goals. During a 2016 Republican presidential debate, for instance, he described the war in Iraq as a “big, fat mistake.»

But on Saturday, Trump said he was “not afraid of boots on the ground” in Venezuela if that was deemed necessary, and he framed his actions as prioritizing the safety and security of Americans. He articulated an aggressive vision of U.S. dominance in the Western Hemisphere, and said it was important to “surround ourselves with good neighbors.»

He remained confident on Sunday, telling reporters aboard Air Force One that his supporters are “thrilled.”

“They said this is what we voted for,” Trump said.

However, much like the Iraq War, a president’s early optimism after a dramatic military action can sometimes meet more sobering realities that drain domestic political support.

In Venezuela, U.S. troops could be placed in harm’s way again as Trump warns that more military operations may be in the works. An ongoing conflict could worsen the hemisphere’s refugee crisis, something the White House has tried to tamp down with stricter border controls. In addition, there are questions about how much cooperation the U.S. will receive from officials still in Venezuela or how easily the country’s oil reserves could be tapped to fulfill Trump’s goal of extracting more energy with Maduro out of the picture.

Trump’s comments this weekend about revitalizing the oil industry in Venezuela are in line with some of the earliest critiques he made of the handling of the Iraq War. During a 2013 speech before the Conservative Political Action Conference, Trump said the U.S. should “take” oil from Iraq and “pay ourselves back.”

Frustration with the handling of the Iraq War contributed to major gains for Democrats in the 2006 election and helped create the conditions for Barack Obama to be elected to the presidency two years later. Given the baggage surrounding those wars, Trump allies insist that the actions this weekend in Venezuela are different.

“Venezuela looks nothing like Libya,” Secretary of State Marco Rubio said on “Meet the Press. “It looks nothing like Iraq. It looks nothing like Afghanistan. It looks nothing like the Middle East other than the Iranian agents that are running through there plotting against America, okay?”

Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman Tom Cotton argued that the 1989 ouster of Manuel Noriega in Panama is a better comparison.

“That was a successful operation,” Cotton said on CNN’s “State of the Union.” “I believe, in the long run, this will be too.”

Still, amid some of the pushback about the U.S. taking expansive responsibility for managing Venezuela, Rubio suggested a more limited role. He said that Washington would not handle day-to-day governance of the South American country other than enforcing an existing “oil quarantine” on Venezuela.

There’s not much organized GOP opposition to the strikes

It is not clear that any forceful, organized opposition to Trump’s Venezuela policy is emerging within the GOP. Instead, many lawmakers appear to be giving the Republican administration some room and, at most, offer some warnings.

Sen. Susan Collins of Maine, who faces a potentially challenging reelection campaign this year, called Maduro a “narco-terrorist and international drug trafficker” who should stand trial even, as she said “Congress should have been informed about the operation earlier and needs to be involved as this situation evolves.”

Even Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky, who often criticizes military interventions, did not specifically oppose Trump’s actions. He wrote on social media that “time will tell if regime change in Venezuela is successful without significant monetary or human cost.”

Many Democrats denounced Trump’s actions in Venezuela and the Democratic National Committee quickly sought to raise money by blasting “another unconstitutional war from Trump.”

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio Cortez, D-N.Y., rejected the administration’s argument that it was combating drug crimes, saying on X that the White House is instead focused on “oil and regime change” while seeking to “to distract from Epstein + skyrocketing healthcare costs.” Former Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg said the strike was part of an “old and obvious pattern” where an “unpopular president — failing on the economy and losing his grip on power at home — decides to launch a war for regime change abroad.”