Rubio Says He Doesn’t Anticipate Use of Force in Venezuela — But He Won’t Rule It Out

Marco Rubio came to the Hill on Wednesday with a warning in writing that the Trump administration is “prepared to use force” to keep Venezuela’s interim leaders cooperating after Nicolás Maduro’s capture. But he stopped short of repeating the threat in public testimony, instead framing any potential escalation as a conditional act of self-defense.

The Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing was Rubio’s first public committee appearance since the U.S. deposed Maduro, the former Venezuelan leader, earlier this month, a move that caused some Republicans to break with President Donald Trump over his use of war powers.

Rubio’s prepared remarks made clear that force remains on the table: “Make no mistake, as the president has stated, we are prepared to use force to ensure maximum cooperation if other methods fail.”

Sen. Chris Murphy pressed Rubio on what “maximum cooperation” means, asking whether the administration would consider military action if Venezuela’s interim leaders refused to grant the U.S. access to oil, or tried to keep it for themselves.

Rubio did not offer a clean “no,” but also sought to reassure senators that the administration isn’t currently planning military intervention there.

“The president never rules out his options as commander in chief to protect the national interest of the United States,” he said. “I can tell you right now with full certainty, we are not postured to, nor do we intend or expect to have to take any military action in Venezuela at any time.”

He said the U.S. would have no troops in Venezuela beyond the Marine security detail at the embassy. Still, Rubio didn’t close the door on force if a new threat emerges, casting any future strike as self-defense.

“The president does reserve the option in self-defense to eliminate that threat,” he said, even as he stressed the administration doesn’t “see” or “anticipate” that scenario.

Rubio said more military action would undercut the post-Maduro plan, warning it “would set us back.”

“That’s not what we hope to see,” he added. “It’s certainly not our goal here.”

Venezuelan acting President Delcy Rodríguez has so far signaled cooperation by approving prisoner releases and major oil sales to the United States, and the State Department has begun laying the groundwork for a possible embassy reopening. But she has begun pushing back on the U.S. publicly, saying on Sunday she has had “enough” of Washington’s orders.

Meanwhile, U.S. intelligence assessments have raised doubts she will meet Washington’s core demand: cutting formal ties with Iran, China and Russia.

Democrats also pressed Rubio on working with Rodríguez as the interim leader, arguing it still amounts to dealing with a senior figure from the same government Rubio has described as corrupt. They also pushed for clarity on what success looks like and how Washington plans to get there if the interim leadership resists U.S. demands.

Rubio said working with Rodríguez is a temporary, pragmatic step to keep Venezuela from collapsing after Maduro, not an endorsement of his government.

“We are dealing with … individuals that have been involved in things that in our system would not be acceptable to us in the long term,” Rubio told Sen. Jeanne Shaheen. “By no means is our policy to leave and place something permanent that’s as corrupt as you’ve described.”

He argued the U.S. is using leverage and tight controls over oil revenue to steer the transition, with “success” defined as stabilizing the country and moving toward credible elections.

Rubio told Sen. Jeff Merkley the administration is “not spending money in Venezuela right now,” stressing that no U.S. taxpayer dollars would be spent there.

Merkley said he was glad Rubio restated the point, but warned he’s concerned the Trump administration could eventually subsidize U.S. oil companies involved in rebuilding Venezuela’s infrastructure.

Rubio acknowledged the administration gave no-bid licenses to two U.S. oil trading companies to move Venezuelan oil to the market quickly. He characterized this as a “short-term fix” necessitated by Venezuela running out of storage capacity, saying the “long-term plan” involves direct sales to refineries and expanded operations by companies like Chevron.

Sen. Chris Coons pressed Rubio on why lawmakers were not briefed ahead of the Venezuela operation, framing it as a basic separation-of-powers issue.

“If there was time to practice, there was time to consult,” Coons said.

Rubio acknowledged consultation is a recurring “point of tension,” but said the mission could not be briefed because it “wasn’t even in the realm of possible until very late in December” and was “a trigger-based operation” that “may never have happened.” Rubio also raised concerns about leaks.

He also insisted that removing Maduro was not an act of war. Sen. Rand Paul, one of the top Republican critics of Trump’s Venezuela operations, asked if it would be an act of war if a foreign country “bombed our air defense missiles, captured and removed our president, and blockaded our country.”

“We just don’t believe that this operation comes anywhere close to the constitutional definition,” Rubio responded.

Rubio clashed with Sen. Tammy Duckworth over whether the U.S. is at war with Venezuela after she asked if he’d urge Trump to rescind his use of the Alien Enemies Act to deport migrants accused of ties to Tren de Aragua.

Rubio said the U.S. is “not in a state of war with Venezuela,” but argued gangs “have waged war on the United States,” calling it a “war-like setting,” and pointed her legal questions to the Justice Department.