US threatens force in Venezuela as Democrats accuse Trump of targeting oil

WASHINGTON — Secretary of State Marco Rubio said Tuesday that the United States is prepared to use military force in Venezuela if alternative measures fail to secure cooperation.

Speaking at a Senate hearing, Rubio emphasized that Washington would not shy away from its responsibility to protect national interests within the Western Hemisphere. The testimony marked his first public appearance since the Jan. 3 U.S. military operation that captured leader Nicolas Maduro in Caracas.

Maduro is currently being held in New York on narco-terrorism charges.

Rubio told lawmakers that Venezuela's new government has pledged to open its energy sector to American firms and use oil revenues to purchase U.S. goods.

However, congressional Democrats criticized the recent raid as an unauthorized act of war. They warned that the intervention risks dragging the U.S. into a lengthy and costly rebuilding commitment.

Democratic lawmakers also expressed concerns that the administration's true objective is control over Venezuelan oil rather than its stated mission of combating drug trafficking.

The Trump administration’s approach toward Venezuela has undergone a profound shift, escalating from the use of economic leverage to the threshold of direct military intervention. The unprecedented move to detain a foreign head of state—coupled with explicit threats of force to secure energy concessions—marks a stark return to muscular U.S. interventionism in the Western Hemisphere.

Washington’s stated justification of counter-narcotics operations is facing increasing scrutiny, even among domestic policy analysts. Data indicates that the fentanyl crisis is predominantly linked to Mexican supply chains rather than Venezuelan transit, lending weight to criticisms from Congressional Democrats that the campaign is a thinly veiled effort to seize control of Venezuela’s vast oil reserves. Success would deliver a significant geopolitical dividend: securing energy supplies within the U.S. "backyard" while dismantling a key regional adversary.

However, the strategy is fraught with significant risks. Domestically, it has ignited a fierce debate over executive overreach and the circumvention of Congressional authority. Geopolitically, the use of force threatens to mire the United States in a costly, long-term stabilization and reconstruction effort. Perhaps most critically, the move risks provoking a resurgence of anti-American sentiment across Latin America, potentially undermining decades of diplomatic engagement in the region.