CD332: Controlling Venezuela

CD332: Controlling Venezuela

Feb 15, 2026

Follow Congressional Dish and never miss an episode.

Secretary of State Marco Rubio testified before the Senate to defend the U.S. seizure of Venezuela’s president—and his answers raised more questions than they settled. This episode features highlights from the testimony, discussion of possible further military action, and an examination of the Trump administration’s efforts to reshape and control Venezuela’s oil sector and contracts.

Please Support Congressional Dish – Quick Links

Contribute monthly or a lump sum via PayPal
Support Congressional Dish via Patreon (donations per episode)
Send Zelle payments to: Donation@congressionaldish.com
Send Venmo payments to: @Jennifer-Briney
Send Cash App payments to: $CongressionalDish or Donation@congressionaldish.com
Use your bank’s online bill pay function to mail contributions to: 5753 Hwy 85 North, Number 4576, Crestview, FL 32536.

Please make checks payable to Congressional Dish

Thank you for supporting truly independent media!

Contact Your Members of Congress: (202) 224-3121

Background Sources

Recommended Congressional Dish Episodes

CD190: A Coup for Capitalism

CD176: Target Venezuela: Regime Change in Progress

2026 Strike and Removal of Maduro

“Maduro raid killed about 75 in Venezuela, U.S. officials assess.” Dan Lamothe. January 6, 2026. The Washington Post.

“Trump says U.S. is ‘in charge’ of Venezuela, Maduro jailed in New York after U.S. military operation.” Jennifer Jacobs et al. Updated January 5, 2026. CBS News.

Drug Trafficking Claims

“Death toll from US strikes on alleged drug boats reaches 126 people.” Ben Finley and Konstantin Toropin. January 26, 2026. AP News.

“Facts to inform the debate about the U.S. government’s anti-drug offensive in the Americas.” November 3, 2025. International Drug Policy Consortium.

“Venezuela and Fentanyl: Debunking the Myth with U.S. Government Data.” October 22, 2025. The Open Record.

“2025 National Drug Threat Assessment.” May 2025. Drug Enforcement Administration.

Maduro Removal Justification

“U.S. reward for Venezuela’s Maduro increased to $25 million in effort to capture him.” Mauricio Maldonado. January 10, 2025. CBS News.

“United States v. Nicolás Maduro Moros et al.” United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. U.S. Department of Justice.

New Hydrocarbon Law

“Venezuela Transforms Hydrocarbons Sector with New Hydrocarbons Law Amendment.” Alexandre R. Chequer et al. February 4, 2026. Mayer Brown.

OFAC Licenses and Oil Contracts

“OFAC Authorizes Certain Venezuelan Oil Sector Activities Following Venezuelan Reform.” Andres Fernandez et al. February 4, 2026. Holland & Knight.

“Ranking Member Robert Garcia Demands Answers from Big Oil After Trump Administration’s Half Billion Dollar Sale of Venezuelan Oil.” January 29, 2026. House Committee on Oversight Democrats.

“Vitol, Trafigura accelerate Venezuelan oil sales under US-backed $2 bln supply deal.” Marianna Parraga and Shariq Khan. January 22, 2026. Reuters.

“Letter from Robert Garcia to Russell Hardy and Richard Holtum.” January 29, 2026. House Committee on Oversight Democrats.

Audio Sources

The Annual Report of the Financial Stability Oversight Council

House Financial Services Committee
February 4, 2026

Watch on YouTube
Watch on C-SPAN

Witness:

Scott Bessent, Secretary, U.S. Department of Treasury; Chairperson, Financial Stability Oversight Council

Clips

2:25:50 Rep. Sean Casten (D-IL):
Since the US captured President Maduro, the Trump administration has been selling Venezuelan oil. Secretary Wright has said that’s going to continue indefinitely. The President’s January 9 Executive Order said that those funds are the sovereign property of Venezuela but has directed you, the Treasury Secretary, to hold those assets in custody to facilitate disbursements transfers as directed by the Secretary of State, as I’ve gone through the 91 specific trusts that you have the statutory authority to oversee, none of those have any relationship to Venezuelan oil. So can you help us understand, what statutory authority is Treasury relying on to exercise the discretionary control over natural resources and sovereign assets of another country?

Scott Bessent:
Treasury has no control over the —

Rep. Sean Casten (D-IL):
I’m just asking about what statutory authority you’re relying on.

Scott Bessent:
Again, we are operating under an agreement between State and Energy that we are not involved —

Rep. Sean Casten (D-IL):
The Executive Order said that the Treasury Secretary is holding those assets in custody — that’s a specific language there — and is facilitating disbursements. Under what authority are you acting?

Scott Bessent:
I will get back to you with the exact authority, but it is under agreement with State.

Rep. Sean Casten (D-IL):
Let me just clarify, because my concern is that the executive order cites IEEPA. IEEPA specifically says that you have to be engaged in hostilities with a country for IEEPA to trigger that claim. Secretary Rubio said that we are not at war with Venezuela. I would agree. I’m glad we’re not at war. So unless you disagree with Secretary Rubio, I’m unclear under what legal authority the United States has to control or disperse those assets.

Scott Bessent:
Well, I would believe that that IEEPA authority would act for a period of time for a —

Rep. Sean Casten (D-IL):
Not unless, we’re not, that’s not —

Scott Bessent:
— for a transition.

Rep. Sean Casten (D-IL):
Well, look, that’s not true. But please provide in writing what you’re doing there, because I want to get to why I think that’s material. Last week, Secretary Rubio also said that the $200 million in proceeds was sitting in a Qatari bank that was owned by Venezuela. He went on to say, the Treasury has a written agreement with Venezuela’s interim government to review the monthly budget request for payments from that account. I come back to where the authority comes from. What statutory authority are you using to exercise custody, indirectly, through a third country and direct the release of funds from those offshore accounts?

Scott Bessent:
IEEPA.

Rep. Sean Casten (D-IL):
That’s not in IEEPA. You’re managing, okay, so if you’re managing a third country, not in IEEPA. And please do provide us with the legal guidance, because this matters. What controls are you putting to audit those flows? Because, as you know, the Venezuelan government still has a lot of shady people. How are you controlling the dispersion of those flows so that they don’t go back to some of the shady characters that the President is concerned about in Venezuela? What is the audit process?

Scott Bessent:
Again, we will be bringing in outside auditors for this, and the Venezuelan Government will be —

Rep. Sean Casten (D-IL):
Do you have an agreement in place right now for those auditors?

Scott Bessent:
Sorry?

Rep. Sean Casten (D-IL):
Do you have an agreement for that audit in place right now?

Scott Bessent:
Not at present.

Rep. Sean Casten (D-IL):
Okay, because Secretary Rubio, when he was asked that question before the Senate, he said that the Treasury had handled the agreement that he would be providing to the Senate committee. Are you saying that Secretary Rubio was incorrect, or that you’re not aware of the agreement the Treasury directed according

Scott Bessent:
I’m saying I’m not aware of the agreement.

Rep. Sean Casten (D-IL):
Okay, so Secretary Rubio said he would provide that to the Senate committee. Can you please coordinate with Secretary Rubio and give us your word to provide us what Secretary Rubio has provided, because he is alleging that was done with your oversight.

Scott Bessent:
With pleasure, Congressman. And just so you know, the goal here, it’s been 30 days —

Rep. Sean Casten (D-IL):
I want to just move, reclaiming my time, because the concern I have is that this would be considered a fraudulent conveyance. I have a specific concern that we’ve entered into contracts with companies like Vitol, who have pled guilty to bribery and all sorts of nefarious actors. If I was a company buying stolen goods and we didn’t have statutory authority, I’m going to have a lot of creditors coming after me.

U.S. Policy Towards Venezuela

Senate Committee on Foreign Relations
January 28th, 2026

Watch on C-SPAN

Witness:

Marco Rubio, Secretary of State

Clips

17:55 Sen. Jim Risch (R-ID):
Before I start, I will tell everyone, those of you in the audience, we’re so glad to have you here. Thanks so much for coming. This is a public hearing. It is also the official business of the United States of America, and as a result of that, the committee has a zero tolerance policy for interruptions or for attempts by anyone in the room to communicate with somebody up here or the witness. So as a result of that, if you do disrupt, you will be arrested. You’ll be banned for a year. However, I’m told that we have some guests today who have completed their ban and are back with us again today. We hope you’ve had the time to think about your indiscretions and will behave yourself today. If you don’t, as a persistent violator, you’ll be banned for three years this time.

20:15 Sen. Jim Risch (R-ID):
Every American should be thanking Donald Trump and Marco Rubio for what they have done. There are a lot of Americans today who wouldn’t be alive if not for your commitment and dedication to stemming the flow of drugs into our country.

24:35 Sen. Jeanne Shaheen (D-NH):
But the US naval blockade around Venezuela and the raid have already cost American taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars — outside estimates are as high as a billion dollars — and yet, the Maduro regime is essentially still in power. All the same people are running the country. Maduro is Vice President now, the interim President has taken no steps to diminish Iran, China, or Russia’s considerable influence in Venezuela, one of the reasons that has been given for the mission. Her cooperation appears tactical and temporary and not a real shift in Venezuela’s alignment. In the process, we’ve traded one dictator for another.

32:15 Marco Rubio:
What is our goal going in? We had, in our hemisphere, a regime operated by an indicted narco trafficker that became a base of operation for virtually every competitor, adversary and enemy in the world. It was, for Iran, their primary spot of operation in the Western Hemisphere was Venezuela; for Russia, their primary base of operation in that Western Hemisphere, along with Cuba and Nicaragua, was Venezuela. In the case of China, China was receiving oil at a huge, about $20 a barrel, discount and they weren’t even paying money for it. It was being used to pay down debt that they were owed. This is the oil of the people of Venezuela, and it was being given to the Chinese as barter at a $20 discount per barrel, in some cases. And so you had basically three of our primary opponents in the world operating from our hemisphere from that spot. It was also a place where you had a narco trafficking regime that openly cooperated with the FARC and the ELN and other drug trafficking organizations using their national territory. It was an enormous strategic risk for the United States, not halfway around the world, not in another continent, but in the hemisphere in which we all live. And it was having dramatic impacts on us, but also on Colombia and on the Caribbean Basin and all sorts of other places. It was an untenable situation, and it had to be addressed, and it was addressed, and now the question becomes, what happens moving forward? As I’ve described to you in previous settings and in individual conversations, we had three objectives here. The final — I’ll work it backwards, because the end state here is we want to reach a phase of transition where we are left with a friendly, stable, prosperous Venezuela — and democratic — in which all elements of society are represented and free and fair elections. By the way, you can have elections all day, but if the opposition has no access to the media, if opposition candidates are routinely dismissed and unable to be on the ballot because the government, those aren’t free and fair elections. That’s the end state that we want: free, fair, prosperous, and friendly Venezuela. We’re not going to get there in three weeks. It’s going to take some time. And so objective number one was stability. In the aftermath of the removal of Maduro, the concern was, what happens in Venezuela? Is there civil war? Do the different factions start going at each other? Are a million people crossing the border into Colombia? All of that has been avoided, and one of the primary ways that it has been avoided is the ability to establish direct, honest, respectful, but very direct and honest conversations with the people who today control the elements of that nation, meaning the law enforcement, the government apparatus, etc. And one of the tools that’s available to us is the fact that we have sanctions on oil. There is oil that is sanctioned that cannot move from Venezuela because of our quarantine. And so what we did is we entered into an arrangement with them, and the arrangement is this, on the oil that is sanctioned and quarantined, we will allow you to move it to market. We will allow you to move it to market at market prices, not at the discount China was getting. In return, the funds from that will be deposited into an account that we will have oversight over, and you will spend that money for the benefit of the Venezuelan people. Why was that important? Venezuela was running out of storage capacity. Okay? They were producing oil. They were drilling oil. They had nowhere to put it. They had nowhere to move it, and they were facing a fiscal crunch. They needed money in the immediacy to fund the police officers, the sanitation workers, the daily operations of government. And so we’ve been able to create a short term mechanism. This is not going to be the permanent mechanism, but this is a short term mechanism in which the needs of the Venezuelan people can be met through a process that we’ve created where they will submit, every month, a budget of this is what we need funded. We will provide for them at the front end what that money cannot be used for. And they’ve been very cooperative in this regard. In fact, they have pledged to use a substantial amount of those funds to purchase medicine and equipment directly from the United States. In fact, one of the things they need is dilutent, and that basically is the light crude that you need to mix with their heavy crude in order for the oil to be able to be mixed and moved. They used to get 100% of that from Russia. They are now getting 100% of that from the United States. So we’re using that short term mechanism both to stabilize the country, but also to make sure that the oil proceeds that are currently being generated through the licenses we’ll now begin to issue on the sanctioned oil goes to the benefit of the Venezuelan people, not to fund the system that existed in the past. The second is a period of recovery, and that is the phase in which you want to see a normalized oil industry. Again, this is — look, we’ve got plenty of oil. There’s plenty of oil all over the world. Canada produces heavy crude. So it’s not like Venezuela’s oil is unique in that regard, despite the fact they have the largest known reserves in the world. It’s not irreplaceable, but we understand that that is the lifeline. Their natural resources are going to allow Venezuela to be stable and prosperous moving forward. And so we have created what we hope to do is transition to a mechanism that allows that to be sold in a normal way, a normal oil industry, not one dominated by cronies, not one dominated by graft and corruption. To that end, the authorities there deserve some credit. They have passed a new hydrocarbon law that basically eradicates many of the Chavez era restrictions on private investment in the oil industry. It probably doesn’t go far enough to attract sufficient investment, but it’s a big step from where they were three weeks ago. So that’s a major change.

Marco Rubio:
One contingency that had to be planned for is the fact that sitting in Venezuela with a $50 million reward on his head was an indicted narco trafficker. In fact, I believe it’s the largest reward we’ve ever issued for anybody. I remind everybody, the Biden administration had a $25 million reward on an indicted narco trafficker, the same person, and so multiple administrations from both parties have wanted this man arrested, and one of the options the President had before him was the opportunity, if things didn’t work out, to go in and remove this individual because he was wanted, as in a law enforcement operation. Now, obviously a law enforcement operation against the de facto head of you know, of a regime is not as simple as going after some fugitive hiding in a closet somewhere. It required planning, and it required eliminating anything that was a threat to the forces that were going in to extract them. I want to be clear, and I’ll share with you what I’ve shared publicly. We made multiple attempts to get Maduro to leave voluntarily and to avoid all of this, because we understood that he was an impediment to progress. You couldn’t make a deal with this guy. Okay, this guy has made multiple deals. He’s broken every one of them. As a point of example, he made a deal with the Biden administration, and here was the deal that he made. It was a bad deal. We knew he wouldn’t keep it. He made the following deal: pardon my nephews — his nephews who were convicted narco traffickers, convicted already and serving time in jail. Pardon them. Pardon and release Alex Saab, who was his money man, his bag man, primarily in charge of the portfolio with Iran. Release these people. He in turn, agreed to release some political prisoners, which he did. Many of them were subsequently exiled or re-arrested, and that he would hold free and fair elections, which he did not. In fact, he basically disqualified Maria Carina Machado and any other candidate, and Mundo Gonzalez ends up being the nominee for the opposition party simply because they forgot to ban him, and they forgot to put him on the ban list. And despite that, he loses an election that everyone around the world recognizes was a illegitimate election. So he’s made previous deals. In fact, he’s broken so many deals, not even the Vatican has been willing to interact with Maduro in the past because he’s broken so many of these deals. He’s just simply not a guy you can make a deal with. He had no intent of keeping it. What he wanted to do was tap us along and buy three years of time until he could deal with a new administration that he thought may be more favorable, etc. He was an impediment to progress. None of the things we’re talking about now, not the release of political prisoners, not the transition of their oil industry to a legitimate oil industry, not the erosion of Iranian, Russian, or Chinese influence. None of these things would have been possible as long as Maduro was there.

45:20 Marco Rubio:
We think very quickly we’ll be able to open a US diplomatic presence on the ground, which will allow us to have real time information and interact, by the way, not just with officials in the regime, and with the interim authorities, but also interact with members of civil society, the opposition. We think we’re going to be much further along when we get them along the way. They’ve been very cooperative on that.

48:05 Marco Rubio:
So on the sanctioned oil, the oil that requires US permission to move that oil, the proceeds of that oil, which, by the way, is being sold at market price, not at the discount Venezuela was being forced to sell, is being deposited into an account that ultimately will become a US Treasury blocked account here in the United States. We will, at the front end, say, this is what this money can be spent on, on these things, we will submit to them. They will submit to us a budget request: we want to use this money for these things. And part, and part of the proceeds will go to fund a audit process to make sure that that’s how the money is being spent. So that’s how we intend to handle those funds in the short term.

Sen. Jeanne Shaheen (D-NH):
So there’s an actual audit process that’s been set up? And who will be responsible for that?

Marco Rubio:
It will be set up. And we have a couple options. You know, one option is EXIM Bank. They have expertise as bankers and being able to do some of that option. There may be some others in place. We haven’t finalized what that audit process will be. We’ve only made one payment, and that payment we did, and retrospectively, will be audited, but it was important we made that payment, because they had to meet payroll. They had to keep sanitation workers, police officers, government workers, on staff. It was a $300 million.

Sen. Jeanne Shaheen (D-NH):
Right, so it’s been reported that the oil sold for $500 million. That $300 million went to the Venezuelan Government. What happened to the other 200 million?

Marco Rubio:
It’s still sitting in the account, is my understanding at this time.

Sen. Jeanne Shaheen (D-NH):
The account in Qatar?

Marco Rubio:
Well, the account, yes, but that will ultimately be trans — that’s a short term account. Ultimately it will be a US Treasury blocked account in the United States.

Sen. Jeanne Shaheen (D-NH):
And will it also be audited?

Marco Rubio:
Correct. Well, the audit will be on the expenditures. At the front end, we’ll tell them, this is what the money can be spent on. Again, I’m not talking about all the other revenues the Venezuelan government may have. We’re talking about the revenues from the sanctioned oil. At the front end, we will say this is what the allowable expenses are. And then they will agree to fund, as part of the overall cost, they will pay for and fund an audit system acceptable to us to ensure that that’s how the money was spent.

Sen. Jeanne Shaheen (D-NH):
And can you report to this committee once that audit system is set up?

Marco Rubio:
Oh, absolutely, yeah.

55:10 Sen. Pete Ricketts (R-NE):
But I want to at least offer my personal congratulations to you and everybody who helped carry this out, because the world is better off without Nicolas Maduro.

55:35 Marco Rubio:
In order to stabilize it, for example, we’re going to have to begin to provide some licenses to OFAC. So as an example, if a company wants to go down and explore the opportunity to do some economic activity in Venezuela, they will require a license from Treasury to be able to do that.

56:45 Marco Rubio:
But we don’t expect that this is going to require any spending on our part. On the contrary, unlike many of the other parts of the world where we have gotten involved, we’re not spending any money in Venezuela right now, other than whatever it costs to stand up our embassy.

59:35 Sen. Chris Coons (D-DE):
Of course the Commander in Chief has, under Article Two, the power to defend the American people against an imminent threat or an incoming attack. How else could we be kept safe? But our Article One power requires consultation. I’ll agree with all of my colleagues: Nicolas Maduro is a bad guy. He was indicted. There was a bounty on his head over several administrations. His removal flawlessly executed by American troops, thankfully, none of them hurt, did cost the lives of 75 to 100 Venezuelans and Cubans. Was a dangerous and high risk maneuver. I am glad that it ended as well as it possibly could. But the point here that I want to make first is that it was rehearsed for months. The administration had a number of contingencies it was trying to navigate through. But over the course of months, when the administration was taking strike after strike after strike against drug trafficking boats, in several instances where senior leaders of the administration briefed this committee and others, we were told that military action to remove Maduro was not on the table, that the campaign to try and deter drug trafficking was not going to include the exact military action that followed. Yet it was being rehearsed. If there was time to practice, there was time to consult. And consulting with Congress is not just some high minded principle, not some abstract thing, not a nice to have. It’s a got to have. And look, the Chairman opened by saying that this was limited in scope and duration, that it was executed flawlessly, and we should all be happy about the result. That much I agree with. But our President continues to threaten Delcy Rodriguez and the remnant of the Maduro regime with military force if they don’t comply. We should know, what are the policies, what is the path, what is the plan forward? You and I both know the long and painful history of wars that began and seemed to be resolved and then opened up into excruciating, expensive, years long conflicts, in Iraq, in particular, in Libya and elsewhere. Things do not always go as planned, and so consultation with Congress that is truthful and forthcoming and transparent is critical. In your service in this body, you knew that, you experienced it. I was in the room as you held to account members of previous administrations for not coming forward as they should have.

1:05:45 Marco Rubio:
The truth of the matter is that this mission could not have been briefed to Congress, because it wasn’t even in the realm of possible until very late in December when the when all of our efforts to negotiate with Maduro had failed and the President was finally presented these options and made these decisions. It was also a trigger based operation. It may never have happened. It required a number of factors to all align at the right place, at the right time, in a very limited window, and it wasn’t even clear if it was ever going to be possible. There’s also the aspect which I do not control, and that is deference to the Department of War on operational security. Despite the fact that we had kept this quite constrained, the truth of the matter is that this was leaked. We now know it was leaked by a contractor at the Department of War that, had it been published, would have endangered the lives of people and/or would have probably canceled the ability to carry out the mission. So this is a real tension, and one that I’m doing the best I can to try to manage within the constraints of two things, operational security and also decisions being made.

1:13:05 Sen. Dave McCormick (R-PA):
You touched on my second question, which is this long, very sordid history of outside investors coming into Venezuela. The President and you had a meeting with our energy leaders in the Oval Office to talk about the opportunity to invest and there was, you know, worries about the safety of investing. What steps, beyond what you just described in terms of the hydrocarbon law, security guarantees for workers, any sorts of certainty that investors are gaining which is going to allow them to have the confidence to move on the opportunities of investment?

Marco Rubio:
Yeah. I mean, the first step is some of these investors, or potential investors, need to get a license from OFAC to be able to even explore this. Then they need to be able to be able to go down there and meet with people and see what’s happening and make that determination. Here’s what I would say. Venezuela has a lot of oil, they do, but there’s a lot of oil in other places too. Companies are only going to invest somewhere if they know we’re going to invest, we’re going to make our money back with a profit, and our land isn’t going to be taken from us, and if you try to there’s a court we can go to and contracts we can enforce. That’s the level of certainty that we’re talking in terms in terms of security, and that’s part of this transition process. That’s part of this recovery process is to normalize their industry, because, if not, they’ll just invest the money in Guyana, or they’ll just invest the money in some other part of the world that has oil. They’re not going to risk it. So it’s to their benefit to have set up a normal, transparent process that encourages foreign investment, not just in oil, by the way, and other natural resources, but in other sectors of their economy. I mean, it’s unlimited, whether it’s retail, whether it’s banking, a country that’s prosperous and generating economic activity holds the promise of all sorts of economic activity.

1:16:10 Sen. Chris Murphy (D-CT):
Listen, I think the scope of the project that you are undertaking in Venezuela is without precedent. You are taking their oil at gunpoint. You are holding and selling that oil, putting, for now, the receipts in an offshore Middle Eastern account. You’re deciding how and for what purposes that money is going to be used in a country of 30 million people. I think a lot of us believe that that is destined for failure, and I know that you’re telling us today just to be patient, but a month later, we have no information on a timetable for a democratic transition. Maduro’s people are still in charge. Most of the political prisoners are in jail, and by the way, those that have been let out have a gag order on them from the government. The opposition leader is still in exile. This looks already like it is a failure. You say you’re in serious talks, but as you note, the Venezuelans are great at being in serious talks. They almost never deliver.

1:17:25 Sen. Chris Murphy (D-CT):
Reports are that you’ve given no bid licenses to two companies to sell Venezuela’s oil. One of them is a massive donor to the President. To many Americans, that reeks. And so my question is, can you commit that partners for future sales are going to be chosen through a fair, open selection process?

1:18:10 Sen. Chris Murphy (D-CT):
And third, in your testimony, you reserve the right to use force again in the future if the Venezuelan government isn’t complying with your requests. So if, for instance, they refuse to give you access to the oil in the future, if they said we’re just going to keep it for ourselves, would this cause you to consider military action? And do you concede that if you’re using military action simply to try to compel cooperation from the government, you absolutely need congressional authorization for that?

1:18:55 Marco Rubio:
On the first one, the two traders. So here’s the problem we faced. The problem we faced in the short term is they had no place to put oil. They were running out of storage capacity for their oil. We had to move that oil to market very quickly. The only way to move it to market very quickly is to plug into these two primary trade companies that could sell it in the open market. That is not the permanent outcome here. That is a short term fix to a short term problem, which is they were literally storing oil, they brought in tankers, and we had tankers sitting offshore just to hold their oil. At some point, their capacity to produce was going to be shut down and their ability to generate revenue. So we had to move that oil very quickly. The long term plan is not those two trading companies. The long term plan is for them to have a normal energy program that sells directly into the market, directly to refineries and to companies that are exploiting and exploring it. For example, Chevron has operations there that never stopped. They seek to expand those operations. They don’t need those trading companies. So those trading companies were a short term fix for a very acute problem, because we wanted to prevent societal collapse, because they had no money for revenue.

1:21:40 Marco Rubio:
On the third point of use of force. Look, the President never rules out his options as commander in chief to protect the national interest of the United States. 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. The only military presence you will see in Venezuela is our marine guards at an embassy. Okay, that is our goal, that is our expectation, and that is what everything outlines towards. But that said, if an Iranian drone factory pops up and threatens our forces in the region, the President retains the option to eliminate that threat.

Sen. Chris Murphy (D-CT):
I’m asking a more specific question, because in your testimony, you suggest that you would use force to compel cooperation, for instance, with oil sales. Do you agree that you have to come to Congress to get authorization if you are simply using force to try to compel cooperation?

Marco Rubio:
Well, there’s two things. There’s the constant, look, there’s a there’s —

Sen. Chris Murphy (D-CT):
It seems like —

Marco Rubio:
— no, under the War Powers Act, if we’re going to be involved in something that’s going to put us in there, involved in a sustained way, we have to notify you within 48 hours after the fact. And then, if it’s going to last longer than 60 days, we have to come to Congress with it. We don’t anticipate either of these things having to happen. Everything is moving in a very different trajectory right now. On the other hand, if we tell them we don’t want to see drones from Iran, as an example, pointed at the United States or threatening our forces or our presence in the region, or our allies’ presence in the region, and they refuse to comply with that, the President does reserve the option, in self defense, to eliminate that threat. We don’t see that. We don’t anticipate it, but it could happen, but we hope not. We don’t want it to happen. On the contrary, if we had to take military action, it would set us back on all these other things that we’re talking about. I can tell you, military action is not good for, you know, recovery and transition. That’s not what we hope to see. It’s certainly not our goal here. A lot of that will depend on them, but I think it would require the emergence of an imminent threat of the kind that we do not anticipate at this time. But that’s not — they get a vote on that too.

1:29:35 Sen. Tim Kaine (D-VA):
Finally, a public hearing, but even that hearing is constrained. I’d like to talk about the complete weakness of the legal rationale about the strikes on boats in international waters, but I can’t because the administration has only shared it with members in a classified setting. I can’t tell you why the domestic rationale is hollow and the International rationale is hollow. I can’t tell you why the rationale for attacking Venezuela is hollow because, again, the rationale has been shared with us in a closed setting. I can’t share with you the grim details of the murder of shipwrecked survivors in open waters that we all know because we’ve seen the videos and we’ve questioned the US military officials involved about legality, because the administration will not release that publicly. They released the boat strike videos publicly, but they hid the second strike that killed struggling shipwreck survivors, even from Congress, for nearly three months, but I can’t really talk to you about it. I can’t talk to you about the weakness of the targeting criteria being used to attack boats in the Caribbean and Pacific. I would encourage any colleague, if you have not, go to the classified setting and ask for a briefing on each strike and ask this question, what was the evidence that there were narcotics on that craft? You will be very surprised if you ask that question about every strike. And so even in this first public hearing, five months in, there’s a lot we can’t talk about.

1:35:50 Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY):
Our founders debated extensively over which branch of government should have the power to declare or initiate war. Virtually unanimously, they decided, and what was entered into the Constitution was that the declaration or initiation of war would be the power of Congress. Now we have many advocates, many of whom are here today, who have been advocates for an expansive notion of presidential power. They often argue that wars are not really wars, that they’re kinetic actions or drug busts. I think, though, if you reverse the circumstances, it becomes very difficult for these arguments to hold up. So I would ask you, if a foreign country bombed our air defense missiles, captured and removed our president, and blockaded our country, would that be considered an act of war?

Marco Rubio:
Well, I think your question is about the Con — and I will acknowledge you’ve been very consistent on all these points the entire career, no matter who the who’s in charge. So I will point to two things. The first is, it’s hard for us to conceive that an operation that lasted about four and a half hours and was a law enforcement operation to capture someone we don’t recognize as a head of state, indicted in the United States or wanted with a $50 million bounty —

Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY):
My question would be, if it only took four hours to take our president — very short, nobody dies on the our side, it’s perfect — would it be an act of war?

Marco Rubio:
We just don’t believe that this operation comes anywhere close to the constitutional definition of —

Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY):
But would it be an act of war if someone did it to us? Nobody dies, few casualties. They’re in and out. Boom. It’s a perfect military operation. Would that be an act of war? Of course it would be an act of war. I’m probably the most anti-war person in the Senate, and I would vote to declare war if someone invaded our country and took our president. So I think we need to at least acknowledge this is a one way argument. One way arguments that don’t rebound, that you can’t apply to yourselves, that cannot be universally applicable, are bad arguments. So my next question would be, let’s say it’s not a war. We’re just going to define it away and say it’s not a war. That’s one of the arguments. So it’s a drug bust. What if a foreign country indicts our president for violating a foreign law? Should we extradite our president? Should we be okay if they come in and get him by force?

Marco Rubio:
Look, I think ultimately, we’re always going to act in our national interest, and so if somebody comes after our national interest, like the case you’ve described, which obviously does not exist at this time, but the case you’ve described, the US always has the right to act in its national interest and to protect itself. So I don’t know about this equivalency. Does this justify them doing it? We’re always going to do what’s best for the United States and America. We’re always going to protect our system.

Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY):
But the point isn’t, and you’re exactly right, we will act in our national interest, and we should. So I’m not disagreeing with you at all. What I’m saying is, though, that our arguments are empty. Then the drug bust isn’t really an argument. It’s a ruse. The war argument, not a war, is a war, is a ruse. It’s not a real argument. And we do what we do because we have the force.

1:39:35 Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY):
We did get the legal opinion that Senator Kaine referred to, the OLC opinion, Office of Legal Counsel, and I think a lot of it’s been released, plus they came to our caucus and talked most of the open about everything they had classified. So I will talk about at least one of the arguments. They say this war wasn’t a constitutional war, therefore it doesn’t rise to the constitutional notion of us declaring or having to initiate the war, it just doesn’t rise. And one of their main arguments was not enough people died. And so there is some number that, they aren’t specific, but there is some number I would assume, although I’m not positive, but the 50,000-60,000 soldiers who died in Vietnam might be enough for them to call that a war. But here’s the problem, it isn’t the number, it’s that it happens in retrospect. See, our founders gave us the power to initiate or declare war. They didn’t give us other powers to execute the war. Those are left to the President. But if we have to wait to see how many people are killed, we have to wait. They describe it as the scope, nature and extent. If we have to wait to see the scope, nature and extent, the war has been going on for some time, it’s hard to vote to initiate a war that’s been going on. And we can say this war is over, but we’re still blockading it, and we may go back in and but there are no clear answers. You know, we lose 2,000 troops, are we going to call that war and initiate it? So the definition of war is very important, and I think we have to acknowledge the problems with our argument. Calling things kinetic action is a disservice to our soldiers. You weren’t really wounded in war. You don’t have a Medal of Honor for war. You have a Medal of Honor for a kinetic action. So I think let’s call it what it is, and let’s vote on these things, but I think we’re in violation of both the spirit and the law of the Constitution by bombing a capital, blockading a country, and removing elected officials. And we certainly wouldn’t tolerate it, nor would I if someone did it to us.

1:41:30 Marco Rubio:
We didn’t remove an elected official. We removed someone who was not elected, and it was actually an indicted drug trafficker in the United States and their system —

Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY):
Indicted under our laws. Look Bolsonaro says that de Silva is not really the president of Brazil. Our president said Biden wasn’t really the president. Hillary Clinton said in 2016 Trump wasn’t the president. So you have these arguments, and I agree with you, it probably was, and most likely was, most assuredly was, a bad election. He wasn’t really elected. But at the same time, if that’s our predicate, and you don’t have to come to us because it’s a drug bust, we’re just removing somebody, you can see where it leads to and it leads to chaos. And that’s why we have rules like the Constitution, so we don’t get so far out there that presidents can do whatever they want. It is this check and balance, and I would argue for 70 years, we’ve been going the wrong way. It isn’t just this president, but it’s a debate that I think is worth having.

1:48:15 Marco Rubio:
That’s not the permanent structure we want to see in the long term. We just want them to have a normal industry where the companies are involved in it, they’re selling it directly to the market, and we’re out of that game. What we’re talking about now is the sanctioned oil, the oil that’s under our sanction. So we have to monitor how that money moves. So yes, the first $300 million moved for the following reason: we would all agree, we didn’t want to see systemic collapse. One of the things a lot of you told me you were worried about on the short term is this is going to trigger internal chaos in Venezuela. A million people are going to storm the border with Colombia. Colombia even stood up troops to their border to prevent it. Brazil was worried about it as well. It’s going to lead to fighting in the streets between rival factions and shooting. None of that has happened, and key to that stabilization is ensuring that the government had enough money to meet payroll and meet their basic needs as part of the stabilization. We should not confuse stabilization with transition. This is not what the permanent structure is going to look like. I can’t — look, the Treasury is handling the structuring of that account. So I would refer you to them, and I can get you an answer for them as to what the legal framework of that Treasury —

Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-OR):
That would be very helpful, because what you just mentioned, money to meet payroll, is very different than what we’ve heard about, the money being used to give hard currency to key corporations inside of Venezuela, which would not be meeting payroll. This is where complete oversight is required. We’d like to see transparency over how that’s being —

Marco Rubio:
Yeah, remember, the first $300 million, we’re going to have to, on that one, because of the urgency and moving funds to keep the place stable, is going to require us to undertake a retroactive audit of how that money was spent, the first $300 million. But there’s probably another $2.5-3 billion down the pike at some point, which will have front end [auditing] through this process I described. I’m not sure if you were here where I described it, and we’re still finalizing it, but basically the way it would look is we would send them a letter saying, on the sanctioned oil proceeds, this is what it could be spent on, and you have to agree to contribute, you have to agree to pay for an auditing system to make sure that that’s how it’s being spent. That’s the process we’re trying to create.

2:10:40 Marco Rubio:
On the issue of our presence in the region, here’s the baseline I want to set for everybody. The baseline is this, we have 30,000-40,000 American troops stationed across eight or nine facilities in that region. All are within the reach, theoretically — not theoretically — in reality, all are within the reach of an array of thousands of Iranian one-way UAVs and Iranian short range ballistic missiles that threaten our troop presence. We have to have enough force and power in the region, just on a baseline, to defend against that possibility that at some point, as a result of something, the Iranian regime decides to strike at our troop presence in the region. The President always reserves the preemptive defensive option. In essence, if we have indications that, in fact, they’re going to attack our troops in the region, to defend our personnel in the region. We also have security agreements, the Defense of Israel Plan and others, that require us to have a force posture in the region to defend against that. And so I think it’s wise and prudent to have a force posture within the region that could respond, and potentially — not necessarily what’s going to happen, but if necessary — preemptively prevent the attack against thousands of American servicemen and other facilities in the region and our allies. I hope it doesn’t come to that, but that’s I think what you’re seeing now is the ability to posture assets in the region to defend against what could be an Iranian threat against our personnel. They certainly have the capability to do it because they’ve amassed thousands and thousands of ballistic missiles that they’ve built despite the fact that their economy is collapsing, they keep spending money on that.

2:12:30 Sen. Tammy Duckworth (D-IL):
Mr. Secretary, last March, the President invoked the Alien Enemies Act, a notorious wartime law last used for Japanese internment. He said that he was responding to the Maduro regime’s supposed invasion or other acts of war against the United States. But in recent weeks, you, the Department of Justice, and our friends across the aisle have repeatedly said that we are not at war with Venezuela. Secretary Rubio, if that is true, and we are not at war with Venezuela, will you advise the President to rescind his invocation of the Wartime Alien Enemies Act?

Marco Rubio:
Well, that was a mechanism to remove people from our country that prevent grave danger. So, for example, we know for a fact that Tren de Aragua is a very dangerous gang. In fact, I believe, if I’m not mistaken, I may have been the first member of Congress —

Sen. Tammy Duckworth (D-IL):
This is a wartime act, Mr. Secretary. Are we currently at war with Venezuela?

Marco Rubio:
No, we’re not in a state of war in Venezuela.

Sen. Tammy Duckworth (D-IL):
Okay. The Supreme Court has described the Alien Enemies Act as a wartime power. Our Supreme Court. And before now, the Alien Enemies Act was only invoked during the War of 1812, World War One, World War Two, when it was used to intern thousands of innocent civilians. Are you really arguing that the President should be able to wield an internment law?

Marco Rubio:
No, no, no, but we’re talking about two separate things here. So you’re talking about the state of Venezuela, or are describing the regime, and we’re talking about. No, no. But what the President —

Sen. Tammy Duckworth (D-IL):
The President invoked the Alien Enemy Act.

Marco Rubio:
I know, Senator, let me be clear with you. What the president was talking about are these gangs and these narco trafficking groups that are waging war on the United States. There’s no doubt these groups have waged war on the United States. For example, Tren de Aragua is not just a criminal gang presence in our street. It is a criminal gang responsible, directly responsible for narco trafficking

Sen. Tammy Duckworth (D-IL):
The Trump administration has acknowledged that the vast majority of the men it rounded up and deported to torture under this law, had no criminal records whatsoever, over 75%.

Marco Rubio:
We didn’t torture anybody. We did we torture? We haven’t tortured anybody. We’ve arrested people that are members of gangs, and we’ve deported them. We don’t want gang members in our country.

Sen. Tammy Duckworth (D-IL):
Independent investigations have found that many of the men were here legally. If the administration is willing to lie about who it’s targeting under this law, what protections do totally innocent people have against abuse? Again, I want to ask you, will you advise the President to rescind his invocation of the Wartime Alien Enemy Act?

Marco Rubio:
Of course not. I mean, these are people that are threats to the national security of the United States, but I’ve described this in hearings in the past, including before you guys —

Sen. Tammy Duckworth (D-IL):
So you’re saying that we are at war?

Marco Rubio:
We are absolutely, when it comes to narco trafficking groups and criminal gangs that are targeting the United States for criminal activity.

Sen. Tammy Duckworth (D-IL):
We’re in a state of war?

Marco Rubio:
There’s no doubt about the fact that we’re confronting them in a warlike setting —

Sen. Tammy Duckworth (D-IL):
So do the international laws of war apply and do the Geneva conventions apply?

Marco Rubio:
They are waging war against us, and they’re enemy combatants as a result of it. And the fact of the matter is that we are confronting these irregular groups, and that’s one of the great challenges of the new century, in this hemisphere in particular, is that these non-state actors who possess state-like capabilities in terms of their weaponry, pose a grave danger to the United States. I don’t think any American would dispute that we have cartels that pose a threat to national security of the United States.

Sen. Tammy Duckworth (D-IL):
Will the President comply with all of the other laws when it comes to warfare. I mean, you’re saying that he can invoke this wartime power?

Marco Rubio:
No, I’m saying you’re asking me, I’m here to discuss foreign policy and what’s in the realm of the Department of State. I think your question is better directed at the Department of Justice.

Sen. Tammy Duckworth (D-IL):
You don’t think that invoking the Alien Enemies Act, which is something that the Supreme Court said can be invoked during wartime, an it’s only been invoked during the war of 1812, World War One and World War Two? It’s been invoked three times, and this President is invoking it.

Marco Rubio:
Okay, you’re asking me a question about the domestic application of a law that’s best directed to the Department of Justice.

Sen. Tammy Duckworth (D-IL):
It’s not a complication, it’s very simple.

Marco Rubio:
No, because you’re asking to opine on something that’s in the realm of the Department of Justice in terms of its domestic application. I can tell you that the United States is most certainly confronting terrorist and criminal organizations operating in our hemisphere that pose a grave danger to the United States. Anyone who believes that gangs that flood our country with fentanyl or cocaine are not threats to the United States is not living in reality and certainly does not reflect the opinion of most Americans.

2:16:25 Sen. Tammy Duckworth (D-IL):
The President already said that he was ready to put American troops in Venezuela again. So we’re at war right now. So if things don’t go well with the Chavistas you’ve empowered —

Marco Rubio:
When did the President say he was putting troops in Venezuela?

Sen. Tammy Duckworth (D-IL):
— what is your criteria for returning to a military option and putting boots on the ground?

Marco Rubio:
Well, I don’t recall the President saying he’s going to put troops in Venezuela. Where did he say that?

Sen. Tammy Duckworth (D-IL):
I’m asking you, what are your —

Marco Rubio:
But that’s what you said. I don’t remember the President saying that.

Sen. Tammy Duckworth (D-IL):
The President has already said that he was ready to put American troops in Venezuela.

Marco Rubio:
No, I think the President has said that he retains the right as commander in chief to protect the United States against any imminent threats. Maybe that involves troops, maybe that involves air power, we hope, but we don’t anticipate that being the case in Venezuela.

Sen. Tammy Duckworth (D-IL):
I worry that you’re playing fast and loose with our nation.

Marco Rubio:
Well, I just gave you a testimony here —

Sen. Tammy Duckworth (D-IL):
I just want, I just want to conclude by saying —

Marco Rubio:
Yeah, but I just gave you testimony on how well things are moving forward, not as fast as everybody would like —

Sen. Tammy Duckworth (D-IL):
Yeah but you also said that in six or nine months, if things don’t go well, you’re gonna have to do something else. And the President’s already said that he has not ruled out the military option. And you’ve also just said that, yes, we are at war, the President has wartime powers

Marco Rubio:
Well every president retains the power to the military to protect —

Sen. Tammy Duckworth (D-IL):
Well I think it’s reasonable to ask you.

Marco Rubio:
And I gave you a very specific example. Every President retains the right to defend the United States against an imminent threat. Just give you an example, if there are Iranian drones deployed in Venezuela that could threaten the United States, we most certainly will address that, even if it’s located in Venezuela. But we hope we don’t get to that point. We don’t expect to get I don’t think that we’re not trending in that direction. That’s a fact. But that said, you know, people are unhappy we’re cooperating with Velezuela on the other hand —

Sen. Tammy Duckworth (D-IL):
The people of America are worried that this is another forever war, Mr. Secretary. We don’t need to be in another Forever War, and that is the path with we are going towards. And let me just say —

Marco Rubio:
How are we going towards a Forever War if we’re dealing with Delcy Rodríguez everyday?

Sen. Tammy Duckworth (D-IL):
You’re not ruling out a military option, you’re not going to ask him to rescind his invocation of the Alien Enemies Act. That puts Americans in jeopardy.

2:25:40 Sen. Brian Schatz (D-HI):
I want to ask about the oil. Under US law, funds received by the government must be deposited with the Treasury. Earlier, you testified that the funds are being held short term in Qatar, and then willmove to a Treasury blocked account. What is the statutory authority for the administration relying on Qatar to hold the funds?

Marco Rubio:
It’s not our funds. The funds are in an account that’s owned and signed. It’s an account that belongs to Venezuela, but it has US sanctions as a blocking mechanism on it, and one of the primary reasons why it was in a third country initially, until we could create the mechanism to move it to a US presence is twofold. One, we have an issue we’re working through on recognition. What is exactly? You have to recognize a government, but we don’t recognize this government. We recognize the 2015 National Assembly. So we have to find some creative way, legally, to meet that standard. The other is, frankly, creditors. If any of that money touched a US bank, even if it was an account in the name of the Venezuelans, it would immediately be seized upon by a number of creditors, who eventually we’ll have to take care of, but in the short term, that would impede the ability of the Venezuelan authorities to receive the funds they need to operate.

Sen. Brian Schatz (D-HI):
So do you have the authority? I mean, this is what I’m trying to get at, right? Either it’s American money, in which case it’s subject to the Miscellaneous Receipts Act, and there are all kinds of things that attend to that. You’re saying it’s Venezuela’s money, but it does sound like according to the EO, according to the President’s statements, you are in charge of that money. What authority are you relying on to be in charge, almost in a sort of receivership kind of arrangement, of how funds are both received and expended for a foreign country, like, wouldn’t you have to come to Congress to establish that kind of relationship?

Marco Rubio:
Well, no, because the money never enters our hands. We only control the disbursement of the money. We don’t control the actual money like it comes into our bank account.

Sen. Brian Schatz (D-HI):
Do you think that you have, somewhere in the statute or the Constitution, the authority to control disbursements of a foreign country?

Marco Rubio:
Well, they’ve agreed to this, and that’s the key. They’ve agreed to this arrangement in which the sanctions that are placed on this oil is what blocks its distribution. So we’ve agreed to release sanctions and allow the disbursement of the funding, as long as they’re spending it in a certain way. So understand, it’s novel, but it’s the best we could come up with in the short term.

Sen. Brian Schatz (D-HI):
Is there a written agreement that memorializes this?

Marco Rubio:
Yes, I believe there is, and there will have to be one, most certainly, once we transition that to us accounts

Sen. Brian Schatz (D-HI):
Secretary, my understanding is the committee doesn’t have this agreement.

Marco Rubio:
You probably wouldn’t, because it’s a treasury matter. Treasury’s handled it, but I can most certainly talk to Treasury about providing you the information.

Sen. Brian Schatz (D-HI):
Also, you’re the National Security Advisor, so you do have a role here in coordinating between the departments. So it’s not just like you can punt this to Treasury.

Marco Rubio:
Yeah, I just didn’t bring the document with me.

Sen. Brian Schatz (D-HI):
I got it. I just want you to land it and get it to the committee, because, look, you’re being transparent. I think this is novel. I think it’s funky. I think it may not even be permissible, but I don’t know until I see the document, and I’d like you to just land it for us, if that’s all right.

Marco Rubio:
Yeah, no, like I said, and by the way, by the time I get it to you, hopefully we won’t even have that account anymore. It’ll be in a one a bit more traditional, where we can use our sanctions as leverage on how the money’s being spent.

2:28:50 Sen. Brian Schatz (D-HI):
Your comments that Havana should be concerned about the Maduro operation is fueling speculation that this administration will turn its sights to Cuba next. Will you make a public commitment today to rule out US regime change in Cuba?

Marco Rubio:
Regime change?

Sen. Brian Schatz (D-HI):
Yes.

Marco Rubio:
Oh no. I think we would like to see the regime there change. That doesn’t mean that we’re going to make a change, but we would love to see it change. There’s no doubt about the fact that it would be of great benefit to the United States if Cuba was no longer governed by an autocratic regime.

Sen. Brian Schatz (D-HI):
But you know what we mean by regime change? We don’t mean I wish someone else were in charge. When we talk about regime change, we’re talking about using the power of the United States, usually kinetic power, but often other kinds of coercion. And I’m not even saying that that’s always not in our interest. I’m just saying, I’m not asking you whether we would prefer a different kind of government. I’m asking whether you’re trying to precipitate the fall of the current regime.

Marco Rubio:
Yeah, but that’s statutory. The Helms Burton Act, the US embargo on Cuba is codified. It was codified in law, and it requires regime change in order for us to lift the embargo.

2:46:05 Sen. Steve Daines (R-MT):
Secretary Rubio, as you’ve noted, there are numerous reasons and good reasons why the US is the arbiter of Venezuelan petroleum sales. With the new export sales framework, the Venezuelan government is now looking to other options to reimburse some of our adversaries — Iran, Russia, as well as Iran’s proxies — to include petroleum byproducts which contain valuable minerals and so forth, flexicoke. Has the administration considered expanding the export controls to additional petroleum byproducts?

Marco Rubio:
Well, I’m sure we would. Except that, I can tell you a couple things that are happening. They have, in essence, represented to us, and we have seen in action in the work that they’re doing directly with Secretary Wright, who’s handling this portfolio on a daily basis. He has a deep, historic and career knowledge of this field. On all of these things regarding natural resources, their preference and their partner of choice moving forward will be the United States and Western companies, that’s what they intend to do. As a point of example, and I said this earlier in the hearing, you may not have been here, they used to get 100% of the diluent, you know, they have very heavy crude, and so it has to be mixed with light crude in order to make it refinable and movable. And they were getting 100% of it from Russia, primarily because of sanctions. They prefer to have ours. Why? Number one, it’s closer. Number two, it’s higher quality. Today, 100% of that diluent is coming from the United States. They were involved in a very complex gold market in which they were mining for gold and silver, and it was being exported almost entirely through Turkey. And we believe the Iranians were using that as a laundering operation for themselves, ultimately as well, potentially and certainly we know that they had an interest in the oil industry as well. We are on the verge of a process in which that will be sold through US markets in a legitimate way that won’t go to finance and support.

2:47:55 Marco Rubio:
The end goal in all of this is, number one, not to spend any American money, and number two, for Venezuela to have a normal, legitimate economy that’s not benefiting cronies, that’s not benefiting corruption, and is not benefiting our geopolitical adversaries.

President Trump Gaggles with Press on Air Force One, Jan. 4, 2026

The White House on YouTube
January 4, 2025

Reporter: You weighed out another strike, another land strike, at least in Venezuela. You sound like you weighed that out.

President Donald Trump: Well, we didn’t need it. We were prepared to do a second strike if we needed. We were prepared. We’re still prepared.

Reporter: But that’s off the table now.

President Donald Trump: No, it’s not. If they don’t behave we will do a second strike.

Reporter: The question is, the American troops, are they going to be on the ground there doing any kind of peacekeeping? I think Americans are very —

President Donald Trump: It depends on what happens. It depends a little bit on the new administration, if you want to call it that.

Trump: US is ‘not afraid of boots on the ground’ in Venezuela

Associated Press on YouTube
January 3, 2026

President Donald Trump: Well, you know, they always say boots on the ground. Oh, so we’re not afraid of boots on the ground. If we have to have, we had boots on the ground last night at a very high level. Actually, we’re not afraid of it. We don’t mind saying it, but we’re going to make sure that that country is run properly. We’re not doing this in vain.

Evaluating U.S.-China Policy in the Era of Strategic Competition

Senate Foreign Relations Committee
February 9, 2023

Witnesses:

Wendy Sherman, Deputy Secretary of State, U.S. Department of State
Ely Ratner, Assistant Secretary of Defense for Indo-Pacific Security Affairs, U.S. Department of Defense

Clips

41:30 Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL): I want to get a little broader because I think it’s important to understand sort of the strategic vision behind our tactics on everything that we do. So if we go back to the late 80s, early 90s, end of the Cold War, and the gamble at the time was, if we created this international economic order, led by the US and the West, built on this global commitment to free trade, that this notion of that this trade and commerce would bind nations together via trade, via commerce and international interest and economic interest, that it would
lead to more wealth and prosperity, that it would lead to democracy and freedom, basically domestic changes in many countries, and that it would ultimately ensure peace. The famous saying now seems silly, that no two countries with McDonald’s have ever gone to war. That’s obviously no longer the case. But the point being is that was the notion behind it. It was what the then Director General of the WTO called a “world without walls,” rules based international order. Others call it globalization. And basically, our foreign policy has been built around that, even though it’s an economic theory it basically, is what we have built our foreign policy on.

r a lump sum via PayPal

Support Congressional Dish via Patreon (donations per episode)
Send Zelle payments to: Donation@congressionaldish.com
Send Venmo payments to: @Jennifer-Briney
Send Cash App payments to: $CongressionalDish or Donation@congressionaldish.com
Use your bank’s online bill pay function to mail contributions to: 5753 Hwy 85 North, Number 4576, Crestview, FL 32536.

Please make checks payable to Congressional Dish

Thank you for supporting truly independent media!

Contact Your Members of Congress: (202) 224-3121

Background Sources

Recommended Congressional Dish Episodes

CD190: A Coup for Capitalism

CD176: Target Venezuela: Regime Change in Progress

2026 Strike and Removal of Maduro

“Maduro raid killed about 75 in Venezuela, U.S. officials assess.” Dan Lamothe. January 6, 2026. The Washington Post.

“Trump says U.S. is ‘in charge’ of Venezuela, Maduro jailed in New York after U.S. military operation.” Jennifer Jacobs et al. Updated January 5, 2026. CBS News.

Drug Trafficking Claims

“Death toll from US strikes on alleged drug boats reaches 126 people.” Ben Finley and Konstantin Toropin. January 26, 2026. AP News.

“Facts to inform the debate about the U.S. government’s anti-drug offensive in the Americas.” November 3, 2025. International Drug Policy Consortium.

“Venezuela and Fentanyl: Debunking the Myth with U.S. Government Data.” October 22, 2025. The Open Record.

“2025 National Drug Threat Assessment.” May 2025. Drug Enforcement Administration.

Maduro Removal Justification

“U.S. reward for Venezuela’s Maduro increased to $25 million in effort to capture him.” Mauricio Maldonado. January 10, 2025. CBS News.

“United States v. Nicolás Maduro Moros et al.” United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. U.S. Department of Justice.

New Hydrocarbon Law

“Venezuela Transforms Hydrocarbons Sector with New Hydrocarbons Law Amendment.” Alexandre R. Chequer et al. February 4, 2026. Mayer Brown.

OFAC Licenses and Oil Contracts

“OFAC Authorizes Certain Venezuelan Oil Sector Activities Following Venezuelan Reform.” Andres Fernandez et al. February 4, 2026. Holland & Knight.

“Ranking Member Robert Garcia Demands Answers from Big Oil After Trump Administration’s Half Billion Dollar Sale of Venezuelan Oil.” January 29, 2026. House Committee on Oversight Democrats.

“Vitol, Trafigura accelerate Venezuelan oil sales under US-backed $2 bln supply deal.” Marianna Parraga and Shariq Khan. January 22, 2026. Reuters.

“Letter from Robert Garcia to Russell Hardy and Richard Holtum.” January 29, 2026. House Committee on Oversight Democrats.

Audio Sources

The Annual Report of the Financial Stability Oversight Council

House Financial Services Committee
February 4, 2026

Watch on YouTube
Watch on C-SPAN

Witness:

Scott Bessent, Secretary, U.S. Department of Treasury; Chairperson, Financial Stability Oversight Council

Clips

2:25:50 Rep. Sean Casten (D-IL):
Since the US captured President Maduro, the Trump administration has been selling Venezuelan oil. Secretary Wright has said that’s going to continue indefinitely. The President’s January 9 Executive Order said that those funds are the sovereign property of Venezuela but has directed you, the Treasury Secretary, to hold those assets in custody to facilitate disbursements transfers as directed by the Secretary of State, as I’ve gone through the 91 specific trusts that you have the statutory authority to oversee, none of those have any relationship to Venezuelan oil. So can you help us understand, what statutory authority is Treasury relying on to exercise the discretionary control over natural resources and sovereign assets of another country?

Scott Bessent:
Treasury has no control over the —

Rep. Sean Casten (D-IL):
I’m just asking about what statutory authority you’re relying on.

Scott Bessent:
Again, we are operating under an agreement between State and Energy that we are not involved —

Rep. Sean Casten (D-IL):
The Executive Order said that the Treasury Secretary is holding those assets in custody — that’s a specific language there — and is facilitating disbursements. Under what authority are you acting?

Scott Bessent:
I will get back to you with the exact authority, but it is under agreement with State.

Rep. Sean Casten (D-IL):
Let me just clarify, because my concern is that the executive order cites IEEPA. IEEPA specifically says that you have to be engaged in hostilities with a country for IEEPA to trigger that claim. Secretary Rubio said that we are not at war with Venezuela. I would agree. I’m glad we’re not at war. So unless you disagree with Secretary Rubio, I’m unclear under what legal authority the United States has to control or disperse those assets.

Scott Bessent:
Well, I would believe that that IEEPA authority would act for a period of time for a —

Rep. Sean Casten (D-IL):
Not unless, we’re not, that’s not —

Scott Bessent:
— for a transition.

Rep. Sean Casten (D-IL):
Well, look, that’s not true. But please provide in writing what you’re doing there, because I want to get to why I think that’s material. Last week, Secretary Rubio also said that the $200 million in proceeds was sitting in a Qatari bank that was owned by Venezuela. He went on to say, the Treasury has a written agreement with Venezuela’s interim government to review the monthly budget request for payments from that account. I come back to where the authority comes from. What statutory authority are you using to exercise custody, indirectly, through a third country and direct the release of funds from those offshore accounts?

Scott Bessent:
IEEPA.

Rep. Sean Casten (D-IL):
That’s not in IEEPA. You’re managing, okay, so if you’re managing a third country, not in IEEPA. And please do provide us with the legal guidance, because this matters. What controls are you putting to audit those flows? Because, as you know, the Venezuelan government still has a lot of shady people. How are you controlling the dispersion of those flows so that they don’t go back to some of the shady characters that the President is concerned about in Venezuela? What is the audit process?

Scott Bessent:
Again, we will be bringing in outside auditors for this, and the Venezuelan Government will be —

Rep. Sean Casten (D-IL):
Do you have an agreement in place right now for those auditors?

Scott Bessent:
Sorry?

Rep. Sean Casten (D-IL):
Do you have an agreement for that audit in place right now?

Scott Bessent:
Not at present.

Rep. Sean Casten (D-IL):
Okay, because Secretary Rubio, when he was asked that question before the Senate, he said that the Treasury had handled the agreement that he would be providing to the Senate committee. Are you saying that Secretary Rubio was incorrect, or that you’re not aware of the agreement the Treasury directed according

Scott Bessent:
I’m saying I’m not aware of the agreement.

Rep. Sean Casten (D-IL):
Okay, so Secretary Rubio said he would provide that to the Senate committee. Can you please coordinate with Secretary Rubio and give us your word to provide us what Secretary Rubio has provided, because he is alleging that was done with your oversight.

Scott Bessent:
With pleasure, Congressman. And just so you know, the goal here, it’s been 30 days —

Rep. Sean Casten (D-IL):
I want to just move, reclaiming my time, because the concern I have is that this would be considered a fraudulent conveyance. I have a specific concern that we’ve entered into contracts with companies like Vitol, who have pled guilty to bribery and all sorts of nefarious actors. If I was a company buying stolen goods and we didn’t have statutory authority, I’m going to have a lot of creditors coming after me.

U.S. Policy Towards Venezuela

Senate Committee on Foreign Relations
January 28th, 2026

Watch on C-SPAN

Witness:

Marco Rubio, Secretary of State