Rubio Says It’s in Venezuela’s Interest to Cooperate With the US in Heated Senate Testimony

Introduction

United States Secretary of State Marco Rubio told lawmakers that “it’s in Venezuela’s interest to cooperate with the United States” during a tense hearing before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. Rubio’s comments came as he outlined the current US policy toward Venezuela following the capture of former president Nicolás Maduro and ongoing diplomatic and security concerns.

Rubio’s testimony, which drew criticism from senators on both sides of the aisle, emphasised Washington’s expectations for cooperation from Venezuela’s interim leadership. He made clear that cooperation with the United States, rather than alignment with other countries, would benefit Venezuelans and supports broader US goals in the hemisphere.


---

Context of the Hearing

The hearing took place amid heightened scrutiny of US actions toward Venezuela, including a military operation that led to the capture of Nicolás Maduro earlier in January. Rubio appeared before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee to explain the Trump administration’s policies and to respond to questions from lawmakers.

In his prepared remarks, Rubio stressed that the United States is not at war with Venezuela and that its interim leaders have been cooperating with Washington’s objectives. However, he noted that the administration would not rule out “additional force” if necessary to secure cooperation.


---

Rubio’s Core Message to Congress

Throughout his testimony, Rubio repeatedly said that cooperation between Venezuela and the United States is in the South American nation’s interest. He argued that when Caracas aligns with Washington on key issues—such as oil exports and counter-narcotics efforts—it creates a better environment for stability and economic recovery.

Rubio also framed cooperation as preferable to alliances with countries the United States regards as adversaries, including Iran and others. He suggested that Venezuelans would benefit from a closer relationship with the United States compared to partnerships with nations whose interests diverge from those of the United States.


---

Military Force: On the Table but Not Imminent

During his remarks, Rubio said the Trump administration remains prepared to use force if needed to ensure “maximum cooperation,” but emphasised that no US troops are currently on the ground in Venezuela.

He also stated that the United States does not anticipate taking military action, further noting that it is not “postured” for such operations at this time. Still, he also declined to rule out future action if unforeseen circumstances emerge that threaten US interests.

Lawmakers pressed Rubio on what “maximum cooperation” means, with some raising concerns about the potential for military escalation or a broader conflict. Rubio’s response attempted to balance reassurance with clarity about US policy options.


---

Venezuela and Oil Policy

Rubio addressed the management of Venezuela’s oil resources as part of the broader policy discussion. The administration has taken steps to manage Venezuelan oil that is under US control following sanctions and the capture of Maduro. Rubio said proceeds from sanctioned oil would be overseen by the US Treasury and used for essential services in Venezuela.

He presented this as a temporary and controlled strategy meant to stabilise the economy during the transition. Critics on the committee questioned the legality and transparency of this approach, especially regarding how funds are managed and whether foreign companies might benefit.

Rubio argued that this arrangement was designed to prevent further economic collapse in Venezuela while creating conditions for normal energy market operations in the future.


---

Senatorial Reactions and Skepticism

Several senators expressed concern during the hearing. Some questioned whether US actions had been fully authorised by Congress and whether the administration was sufficiently transparent about its legal reasoning for military and diplomatic steps.

Senator Tim Kaine, a Democrat, criticised the administration’s refusal to disclose full legal justification for its actions, suggesting that the public and Congress deserve more clarity.

Other lawmakers raised human rights questions and the long-term implications of managing Venezuelan resources under US oversight. These discussions underscored tensions about how the United States balances strategic objectives with domestic and international legal norms.


---

Cooperation and Interim Leadership

Rubio portrayed Venezuela’s interim leadership, including acting president Delcy Rodríguez, as at least nominally cooperating with US goals. He said ongoing engagement suggests that cooperation is more beneficial than defiance, and that continued dialogue could help stabilise the country.

However, some lawmakers and international observers remain cautious about the depth of that cooperation and the interim leadership’s willingness to fully align with US expectations. Questions persist about whether internal Venezuelan politics will allow sustained support for Washington’s approach.


---

Regional Security and Counter-Narcotics

A significant part of Rubio’s testimony focused on broader security concerns in the Western Hemisphere, particularly the trafficking of narcotics. He said that for the first time in many years, the United States and Venezuela are talking seriously about counter-narcotics cooperation as part of a longer-term strategy.

Rubio described combating drug trafficking and criminal networks as critical for regional stability, with cooperation seen as essential for effective action. He argued that Venezuela’s alignment with such efforts is in its own national interest, as well as in that of its neighbours.


---

International Implications

Rubio’s testimony reflects a broader shift in US foreign policy toward Latin America, one that emphasises not only diplomatic engagement but also strategic pressure and leverage where necessary. Lawmakers cited concerns about Venezuela’s past cooperation with nations the US views as adversarial, including Iran and others, as part of the rationale for maintaining a firm approach.

These discussions signal that Washington’s interest in Venezuela extends beyond domestic policy to include global strategic considerations, such as regional security, energy markets, and the role of rival powers.


---

Conclusion

Marco Rubio’s testimony before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee highlighted both the complexity and contention surrounding current US policy toward Venezuela. His central message—that cooperation with the United States is in Venezuela’s interest—was part of a larger effort to explain and justify the administration’s actions since the removal of Nicolás Maduro.

At the same time, the hearing made clear that policymakers in Washington remain divided about the best approach to engagement, the use of force as a policy tool, and the long-term implications of US involvement in Venezuelan affairs. As the situation continues to develop, further debate over strategy, legality, and regional stability appears likely.