Secretary of State Marco Rubio told senators on Wednesday, January 28, 2026, that the United States has no plans to use military force in Venezuela and is not postured for additional action there.
Testifying before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Rubio said any future use of force would be limited to self-defense if an “imminent threat” emerged, and he emphasized that the only U.S. military personnel in the country are Marine security guards assigned to diplomatic facilities.
He underscored that the president, as commander in chief, never rules out options to protect the national interest, but he added that Washington does not anticipate such a scenario.
Rubio’s live remarks contrasted with tougher language in prepared testimony that referenced the possibility of using force to secure cooperation from Venezuelan authorities if other methods failed. He did not read that passage at the hearing, and instead framed the current posture as diplomatic and law enforcement focused.
What Rubio told senators
Responding to questions about red lines, Rubio described a narrow set of circumstances that could justify force. He cited a hypothetical case in which an adversary established a facility in Venezuela that directly threatened U.S. personnel or allies in the region. In that event, he said, the president would reserve the option to remove the threat in self-defense.
Rubio stressed that such an outcome is not expected and that the administration hopes it will never be necessary.
Committee members pressed him on whether the administration is preparing covert or overt operations. Rubio said the United States is not positioning additional forces for action in Venezuela and repeated that embassy Marines are the only uniformed U.S. presence. He added that diplomacy, sanctions and cooperation with regional partners remain the primary tools.
Prepared testimony versus live remarks
Rubio’s submitted statement for the record included a line that read, “We are prepared to use force to ensure maximum cooperation if other methods fail.” He did not deliver that sentence in the hearing room.
Instead, he reiterated that there are no U.S. troops on the ground conducting combat missions and characterized the recent operation tied to Caracas as support to law enforcement rather than a declaration of war. He said the administration does not consider the situation a war against Venezuela or an occupation.
The distinction matters because it shapes legal thresholds. Lawmakers asked whether the administration would notify Congress under the War Powers Resolution if military activity became sustained. Rubio said that if U.S. forces were engaged in a sustained way, the White House would provide notification within 48 hours and would require congressional authorization to continue beyond 60 days.
He also said lawmakers were not consulted in advance about the potential raid due to operational security concerns and because the mission was trigger-based and might never have been possible.
The January 3 operation and its aftermath
On January 3, the president announced that U.S. special forces executed a “large-scale strike” in Caracas. Authorities said Nicolás Maduro and Cilia Flores were taken into custody and transported to New York, where both appeared in federal court on January 5 on narcotics charges and pleaded not guilty.
The administration has argued for months that it did not recognize Maduro as a head of state and instead viewed him as the head of a criminal enterprise. Shortly before the operation, the president publicly urged Maduro to step down.
Since the raid, U.S. forces and partners have continued maritime interdictions against alleged drug trafficking networks in Latin American waters. Officials said at least one additional strike has occurred against vessels in the region.
The administration has backed Delcy Rodríguez, Maduro’s vice president, to lead an interim government while institutions transition. That position drew scrutiny from some lawmakers, who questioned the legal basis for recognizing an interim leadership structure after a forcible removal.
