Rubio Defends U.S. Action in Venezuela as Lawmakers Demand Strategy and Costs

Marco Rubio is scheduled to appear before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee to defend a recent U.S. operation that resulted in Nicolás Maduro’s removal and to describe follow-up policy. He has portrayed the effort as a targeted, law-enforcement-style action rather than a classic invasion, emphasizing there are no permanent U.S. ground forces in Venezuela while acknowledging that the use of force remains a contingency if negotiations collapse. Senators from both parties are expected to press Rubio on the legal basis for the operation and on whether the outcomes justify the political and fiscal costs. Financial scrutiny has centered on an ongoing naval cordon that Washington says is intended to limit hostile maritime activity; committee members want detailed accounting of current expenditures and longer-term projections. Separate reporting and U.S. officials describe a two-track administration strategy that combines coercive maritime operations — including dozens of reported strikes U.S. officials tie to anti-smuggling and narcotics interdiction — with steps toward restoring formal diplomatic ties, beginning with added embassy staff in Caracas. Some of those maritime actions have been linked in reports to civilian casualties and have prompted wrongful-death legal claims, a development likely to figure prominently in oversight questioning about executive authority and risk. At the same time, the administration has publicly noted interim Venezuelan authorities’ release of hundreds of political detainees and has signaled a desire to reconstitute a public diplomatic mission as conditions allow. Intelligence planners are reported to be preparing a small, initially clandestine presence inside Venezuela to provide security assessments, vetting and real-time information to inform both field operations and diplomatic engagement; senators are expected to ask how that covert footprint will be protected, overseen and coordinated across agencies. The unfolding mix of pressure and outreach has a clear economic dimension: Washington is positioning for privileged access to Venezuela’s energy resources should an interim government open the sector, a prize that would reshape market access but also intensify geopolitical competition in the region. Lawmakers are divided between members who see the two-track approach as necessary leverage to secure energy and security gains and those who warn the administration may have stretched executive authority and invited legal challenges. Beyond immediate budgeting and legal questions, the hearing will probe whether Congress is willing to underwrite sustained operational and intelligence commitments that could provoke nationalist backlash and complicate a return to normal diplomatic relations. Rubio’s testimony will be read as a test of whether the administration can reconcile claims of restraint with the realities of an expanded operational footprint and potential litigation costs; the answers Congress extracts could reshape funding decisions, oversight demands and U.S. posture in Latin America.