Democratic lawmakers say the Trump administration misled Congress about its Venezuela invasion plans, claiming no regime change was intended — even as U.S. forces ousted President Nicolas Maduro in a surprise operation.
WASHINGTON — Democratic members of Congress have accused the Trump administration of deception, claiming senior officials repeatedly assured them there were no plans for regime change in Venezuela — a statement that directly contradicts the reality of a U.S.-led military operation that ousted President Nicolas Maduro.
The operation, which took place overnight, marked Washington’s most direct intervention in Latin America since the 1989 invasion of Panama. Lawmakers said they were told during briefings in November and December by officials including Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth that the administration had no intention of a land invasion or regime change.
“Because the President and his Cabinet repeatedly denied any intention of conducting regime change in Venezuela when briefing Congress, we are left with no understanding of how the Administration is preparing to mitigate risks to the U.S. and we have no information regarding a long-term strategy following today’s extraordinary escalation,” Senator Jeanne Shaheen of New Hampshire, the top Democrat on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, said in a statement.
Shaheen added: “Instead, the Administration consistently misled the American people and their elected representatives by offering three differing and contradictory explanations for its actions.”
Democratic Representative Don Beyer of Virginia called the operation “illegal” and said it was driven by a desire for regime change and access to Venezuela’s oil reserves. “The Administration lied to Congress and launched an illegal war for regime change and oil,” he posted on X, noting his district includes the Pentagon.
Trump, speaking at a news conference, defended the administration’s actions, saying Congress had not been fully briefed because of concerns about leaks. “Congress does have a tendency to leak,” he told reporters.
Lawmakers had been seeking clarity for months. Trump’s military build-up in the southern Caribbean and his order to strike boats he claimed were carrying drugs had prompted questions from both parties. Democratic Representative Seth Moulton of Massachusetts said during a CNN interview: “When we had briefings on Venezuela, we asked, ‘Are you going to invade the country?’ We were told no. ‘Do you plan to put troops on the ground?’ We were told no. ‘Do you intend regime change in Venezuela?’ We were told no. So in a sense, we have been briefed, we’ve just been completely lied to.”
Despite the lack of prior briefings, Rubio called several members of Congress on Saturday morning after the operation. No briefings were scheduled for Saturday afternoon, though Republican leaders said they hoped to arrange some after lawmakers returned to Washington on January 5.
Most Republicans praised the action. Senate Republican Majority Leader John Thune of South Dakota said: “President Trump’s decisive action to disrupt the unacceptable status quo and apprehend Maduro, through the execution of a valid Department of Justice warrant, is an important first step to bring him to justice for the drug crimes for which he has been indicted in the United States.”
Democratic lawmakers and some Republicans had warned for weeks that Trump was conducting a four-month-long military campaign without congressional authorization. They cited the Constitution’s requirement that Congress approve anything beyond brief and limited foreign military action.
“We were told no,” said Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer of New York, referring to the briefings. “I asked them what their strategy is, and what they were doing, and again, did not get satisfying answers at all.”
While the Pentagon, State Department, and White House did not immediately respond to requests for comment, the incident has reignited debate over executive power, congressional oversight, and the legality of unilateral military interventions.
Historically, the U.S. has intervened in Latin America with varying degrees of success — from the 1989 Panama invasion to the 2003 Iraq War. The Venezuela operation is the most significant since the Cold War, raising questions about whether the U.S. is prepared for the consequences of such actions — both politically and diplomatically.
For now, the administration’s explanation — that Maduro was apprehended under a valid U.S. Department of Justice warrant — appears to be the official line. But for many lawmakers, it is not enough. “We were told no,” said Moulton. “That’s not just a misstatement — it’s a lie.”
What comes next remains uncertain. The U.S. may now face legal challenges, international condemnation, and domestic backlash. The administration’s failure to provide transparency before the operation could further erode public trust in its foreign policy decisions.
Onlytrustedinfo.com is your source for the fastest, most authoritative analysis of breaking news. Subscribe for daily updates on global events that matter.
