URGENT: Palmer Report has raised $928 out of our $10,000 goal for our 2026 operating expenses. Donate Now
Secretary of State Marco Rubio defended the attacks on Caracas ordered by Trump during a round of Sunday television interviews. His lame rationalisations drew sharp criticism and heavy scrutiny, even from members of his own party. It also highlighted tensions within the Trump cabal’s own messaging.
On ABC’s “This Week,” George Stephanopoulos pressed Rubio on the legal basis for US control over Venezuela, after Trump said the United States would run the country. Rubio avoided a direct answer, arguing instead that Washington held leverage through its ability to seize sanctioned Venezuelan oil tankers. He suggested that such actions could pressure the government in Caracas to comply with American demands. That account differed from Trump’s remarks a day earlier, when Trump said people standing with him on stage, including Rubio, would be running Venezuela.
When Stephanopoulos asked whether Rubio himself was running the country, Rubio again framed his country’s actions as economic pressure tied to sanctions enforcement and said he was involved in shaping that policy.
On NBC’s Meet the Press, Kristen Welker raised the same question. Rubio responded with visible irritation, saying, “People [are] fixating on that. Here’s the bottom line on it is we expect to see changes in Venezuela.” Historian Kevin Kruse reacted online, writing, “Yeah, people are fixating on a Cabinet Secretary being given a sovereign country to run because the president waged war without congressional approval and kidnapped the old leader. Weird that they’d get hung up on that.”
Rubio also argued that congressional authorisation was not required because the United States had not invaded or occupied Venezuela. He described the strikes as a law enforcement action aimed at arresting Nicolás Maduro. That explanation echoed comments Rubio made the previous day, but Trump appeared to contradict it by saying the United States planned to take over Venezuela’s oil fields and run the country.
If the operation was a law enforcement action, officials may face questions about civilian casualties. Reporting by Mariana Martinez of the New York Times said the death toll from the strikes has risen to 80, including civilians and members of Venezuelan security forces.
In his interviews, Rubio reiterated that the administration seeks to assert US control across the Western Hemisphere and issued warnings to Rubio’s personal nemesis Cuba. Simon Rosenberg of The Hopium Chronicles criticized the administration’s outlook, writing, “We must also marvel at the titanic idiocy of our new ‘Donroe Doctrine’ for it turns America from a global power into a regional one by choice. I still can’t really believe they are going through with this for it is so batshit fucking crazy, and does so much lasting harm to our interests.”
After Trump said that Venezuela’s former vice president and current president, Delcy Rodríguez, was “essentially willing to do what we think is necessary to make Venezuela great again,” Rodríguez demanded Maduro’s return and said Venezuela would “never again be a colony of any empire, whatever its nature.” Analysts noted that the removal of Maduro and claims of US control could strengthen nationalist support for the Venezuelan government rather than weaken it.
In a phone call with Michael Scherer of The Atlantic, Trump threatened Rodríguez, saying that “if she doesn’t do what’s right, she is going to pay a very big price, probably bigger than Maduro.” Later aboard Air Force One, Trump said the United States, not Rodríguez, was in charge of Venezuela.
Trump also confirmed to Scherer that he intended to expand US influence in the region, saying, “we do need Greenland, absolutely. We need it for defense.” Greenland is part of NATO and already covered by US defense commitments.
Although Trump campaigned on reducing foreign interventions, he openly embraced regime change in Venezuela. He told Scherer, “You know, rebuilding there and regime change, anything you want to call it, is better than what you have right now. Can’t get any worse.” He added, “Rebuilding is not a bad thing in Venezuela’s case. The country’s gone to hell. It’s a failed country. It’s a totally failed country. It’s a country that’s a disaster in every way.”
Public opinion appears firmly opposed. G. Elliott Morris of Strength in Numbers reported that military action in Venezuela is less popular than Trump’s tariffs and health care cuts. Polls last year showed large majorities opposing an invasion or the deployment of U.S. troops, with even limited strikes failing to gain majority support. Morris wrote, “By the time American forces touched Venezuelan soil early Saturday morning, Trump had already lost the public.”
Despite that opposition, lawmakers said Congress had been sidelined. Representative Jim Himes, a member of the congressional leadership group known as the Gang of Eight, said neither he nor House minority leader Hakeem Jeffries had been briefed. Himes said, “I was delighted to hear that Tom Cotton, chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, has been in regular contact with the administration. I’ve had zero outreach, and no Democrat that I’m aware of has had any outreach whatsoever. So apparently we’re now in a world where the legal obligation to keep the Congress informed only applies to your party, which is really something.”
Senate minority leader Chuck Schumer said he also had not been briefed and accused the administration of misleading Congress ahead of the strikes. “They’ve kept everyone in the total dark,” he said.
Himes warned that early confidence could fade quickly. He said, “We’re in the euphoria period of…acknowledging across the board that Maduro was a bad guy and that our military is absolutely incredible.” He compared the moment to earlier interventions in Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya, adding that it was easier to break a country than to govern it.
Representative Ted Lieu was more blunt. “The U.S. attack on Venezuela is illegal,” he wrote. “Congress never authorized this use of military force. I will vote to stop it. This is insane. Health care costs and food prices are surging. Trump’s response is we’re going to run another country.”
Trump tears down countries as blithely as he tears down the White House. Trump sets tariffs on countries with the same brutal indifference he sets ICE agents on innocent Americans. He openly steals and corruptly profits. He does everything he threatened to do and nothing he promised to do. Now he sends little Marco Rubio out in the world to defend his latest indefensible crossing of the Rubicon.
