Secretary of State Marco Rubio described Venezuela’s interim authorities as cooperative and responsive to American demands during Senate testimony Wednesday, outlining an economic framework that grants Washington unprecedented oversight of the nation’s petroleum revenue. The assessment came as he defended President Trump’s military operation to forcibly remove Nicolas Maduro from power.
The Secretary explained that Venezuela will soon regain authorization to sell oil currently blocked by sanctions, with all proceeds channeled through Treasury-controlled accounts. Monthly budgets submitted by Caracas must receive American approval before funds are released for essential government services. Rubio emphasized that interim leaders understand compliance brings tangible benefits and suggested they are willing to meet American requirements including privileged energy sector access for United States companies.
He projected continued improvements in Venezuela’s situation over coming months, arguing that conditions have already demonstrably improved compared to four weeks earlier. Rubio characterized the relationship with interim authorities as productive while acknowledging that recovery cannot occur overnight. The Secretary backed away from prepared remarks suggesting additional military action might be necessary, instead assuring senators that no further operations are currently anticipated.
Democrats questioned whether replacing Maduro with his former vice president and associates constitutes meaningful change. Senator Cory Booker challenged cooperation with former regime members, while Senator Shaheen criticized presidential focus on foreign interventions when Americans face domestic economic pressures. They characterized the approach as spending more and risking more while achieving diminishing returns.
The hearing also addressed Greenland, NATO tensions, Iran, and China. Rubio reported that initial alliance uproar over Trump’s Greenland demands has subsided and productive diplomatic discussions are underway. He dismissed suggestions that presidential rhetoric uniquely damages alliances while defending demands for increased defense spending as longstanding American policy delivered with greater volume.