All posts tagged "marco rubio"

Republicans in 'knots' as Maduro’s capture could be 'secret' action: analysis

An analyst on Tuesday questioned the mixed messaging among Republicans over President Donald Trump's attack on Venezuela and ousting of Nicolás Maduro.

The Trump administration has called the invasion of Venezuela and capture of Maduro a "law enforcement operation carried out with the support of the U.S. military," and has announced that the U.S. has plans to control the South American country by way of its new vice president, who will be more friendly to oil production and American oil companies, The Bulwark reported.

Yet, that scenario has drawn more questions than answers.

"That’s the administration’s high-level story, at least. But as more context comes out, it gets less clear whether Maduro’s capture was a law enforcement action, a military operation, or some secret third thing," The Bulwark reported.

Secretary of State Marco Rubio has framed the actions in Venezuela from the law enforcement standpoint.

"The Department of War plays a very important role here along with the Department of Justice, for example, because they’ve got—they’re the ones that have to go to court," Rubio told NBC’s Meet the Press.

“And I assure you the people left behind in Venezuela now that are in charge of the police and everything else, I assure you they’re going to probably be a lot more compliant than Maduro was as a result of this,” Rubio said.

He also suggested that capturing Maduro would "convince the regime to follow America’s lead going forward without requiring an invading and occupying force."

But that's not quite what Trump said. Trump has signaled that the U.S. could escalate attacks in the country — and others.

“We are ready to stage a second and much larger attack if we need to do so,” Trump said. “So we were prepared to do a second wave if we need to do so.”

“We’re not afraid of boots on the ground,” Trump said.

So far, Republican lawmakers have used the law enforcement action as a means to defend the U.S. decision.

"The Maduro episode has provided yet another occasion for elected Republicans to twist themselves into knots to support the administration’s shifting, contradictory messaging on a high-stakes issue," The Bulwark reported. "If there is a legal case to be made for capturing a foreign leader and installing some kind of advisory board of Americans and oil company executives to preside over the regime’s holdovers, GOP senators did not bother to make that case. Instead, they blithely relinquished more authority to Trump, bending rules and ignoring precedent to avoid any disagreements with the White House."

Trump is being 'manipulated by underlings' pouncing on clear health 'decline': analyst

Donald Trump is being "manipulated by underlings," according to a political analyst who says his Cabinet can sense a "decline".

The president's health has come under scrutiny yet again, with both cognitive and physical worries aired by political commentators. Salon columnist Amanda Marcotte believes these suggestions of ill health are emboldening members of the Trump administration to act on their own accord, and that the president is too weak to stop them.

Writing in her Substack, Marcotte suggested, "There are increasing signs that the 79-year-old president is being manipulated by underlings exploiting his evident decline. He was clearly tricked — probably by Stephen Miller — by an obviously fake photo showing Kilmar Abrego Garcia’s hand emblazoned with gang tattoos."

"There’s been excellent reporting suggesting that Trump’s information sources are tightly controlled by people who would think nothing of lying to a dementia patient in order to get their way. It’s more than likely that people like Marco Rubio have simply made stuff up to get Trump to back this Venezuelan invasion."

Rubio, should he have coaxed Trump into the Venezuela strike, could feel it is "justified payback," according to Marcotte.

She continued, "Trump did all of this to himself by being such an a-- to people that they can’t wait to screw him over. If Rubio is lying to him, the secretary of state may feel this is justified payback for years of being called 'Little Marco.'”

"But it is concerning that an already-idiotic president is getting even dimmer," she went on. Rubio has also received criticism from Democratic Party representatives for his part in the Venezuela strikes and capture of President Nicolás Maduro.Senator

Sen. Cory Booker (D-NJ) called the strike a "constitutional crisis." Speaking to NOTUS, Senator Chris Van Hollen (D-MD) suggested a "Dear Leader syndrome" had spread through the White House.

Booker said, "We’re in a constitutional crisis, in my opinion. And it’s something that Marco, when he was in the Senate, wouldn’t have stood for."

Rubio said of the strikes, "This was not an action that required congressional approval. In fact, it couldn’t require congressional approval because this was not an invasion. This is not an extended military operation."

"This is a very precise operation that involved a couple of hours of action. It was a very delicate operation, too. It was one that required all these conditions to be in place at the right time, in the right place."

'Full MAGA-lobotomy': Marco Rubio bashed as having morality U-turn since leaving Senate

Marco Rubio got hammered Tuesday for his part in the Venezuela strike, with one Democratic Party representative saying the Secretary of State has undergone a "full MAGA-lobotomy".

Senator Chris Van Hollen (D- MD) blasted Rubio for doing what President Donald Trump "wants him to do," while fellow Democratic Party Sen. Cory Booker (NJ) called the strike a "constitutional crisis." Speaking to NOTUS, Van Hollen suggested a "Dear Leader syndrome" had spread through the White House.

While denouncing Rubio as having "had a full MAGA-lobotomy," Van Hollen added, "He essentially does what Donald Trump wants him to do. He has a little bit of the Dear Leader syndrome." Booker said Rubio has lost his principles.

Booker said, "We’re in a constitutional crisis, in my opinion. And it’s something that Marco, when he was in the Senate, wouldn’t have stood for."

The strike on Venezuela has been denounced by Democratic Party representatives, with Sen. Tim Kaine (VA) voicing his concern over the actions taken by the Trump administration.

The U.S. struck La Guaira, Caracas, and Higuerote while also capturing Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro. Kaine has suggested Rubio is doing as he's told by Trump and the administration.

He said, "He’s doing what Trump’s telling him to do. We don’t have much illusion that Cabinet secretaries end up doing their own thing. They usually do what the boss wants, and he’s doing what the boss wants, and so that is not completely surprising."

Van Hollen also said those who are "legally required" to know about military actions were not informed before or after the strikes took place.

He said, "I can only speak for myself. I haven’t heard from him, but they didn’t inform the people who they’re legally required to, they didn’t reach out to leadership." Rubio would appear on NBC News to defend the lack of dialogue with the Democratic Party.

Rubio said, "This was not an action that required congressional approval. In fact, it couldn’t require congressional approval because this was not an invasion. This is not an extended military operation."

Rubio accused of 'lying straight up' to Congress over Trump's military plans

A Democratic lawmaker Monday slammed Secretary of State Marco Rubio over his initial claims about the Trump administration's plans in Venezuela and how President Donald Trump has not sought a vote from Congress to increase military pressure on the country.

Rep. Ted Lieu (D-CA) claimed that Rubio misled congressional leaders during a private briefing about the lethal alleged drug boat strikes last month in Washington, D.C.

He also expressed concern that lawmakers do not know the president's long term strategy for U.S. operations in the country.

"So the military is basically supporting the same brutal regime that Maduro put in place," Lieu said. "And so I don't really understand what the administration's strategy is. And that's because the president hasn't articulated a strategy. Look, it's really easy to use our amazing military to accomplish amazing missions. It's always the day after that. America has a lot of problems figuring out. And this day after that, the president and the administration has not articulated as to what the end goals even are."

Lieu argued that Rubio would have to face questions from lawmakers after Trump announced that the U.S. had captured Venezuela's President Nicolás Maduro and his wife Cilia Flores over the weekend.

"Secretary Marco Rubio needs to explain why he lied straight up to Congress," Lieu said. "I was in the classified briefing where Secretary Rubio looked us in the eye and said, basically, the use of military force would not occur without first coming to Congress to get authorization for the use of military force. He straight up lied to Congress. He needs to explain to himself to to us why he did what he did."

'Fatal flaw' in Trump's Venezuela move threatens to trigger horrific spiral: analysis

President Donald Trump's strike on Venezuela and his capturing of President Nicolás Maduro has a "fatal flaw," according to a political analyst.

Trump's administration confirmed the capture of Maduro after military strikes Saturday. He has since been flown to the U.S. Though the attack and capture had been authorized by Trump, it sets a dangerous precedent for the U.S. and the administrations' involvement in future world politics, according to The New York Times' David French.

French suggested the admin's excuse for the strike is "laughable" and that the "fatal flaw" Trump and his team failed to note was the possibility of such an action spilling into all-out war.

French wrote, "Trump has embraced the Donroe Doctrine enthusiastically," giving a new name to the historic Monroe Doctrine that declared that the United States would not tolerate European colonial expansion or political interference in the Americas and would regard any such attempt as a threat to American peace and safety.

"He’s engaged in economic warfare against Canada and Mexico. He’s said that Canada should be America’s 51st state. He has designs on Greenland, part of the sovereign territory of Denmark, a NATO ally.

"That brings us back to the fatal flaw of running the world through spheres of influence and the amoral approach to war as an extension of policy. Smaller nations don’t want to be dominated by the strong, and strong nations don’t want to see their rivals get stronger. So they make alliances.

"In 1914, Serbia had Russia, and Belgium had Britain. In 1939, Poland had France and Britain. That’s exactly how regional conflict turned into global war."

The administration's excuse for the strike could set a dangerous precedent for future strikes, French noted. "This defense is laughable," he wrote. "Under that reasoning, a president could transform virtually any war into a law enforcement operation by indicting opposing leaders and claiming that the large military forces needed to secure the leader’s arrest were simply protecting law enforcement. That’s not an argument; it’s an excuse."

Not only could Trump have set a new standard for intervention from the US, but he could have bolstered the likes of China and Russia to act accordingly in Taiwan and Ukraine respectively.

French added, "The worse argument is to say that Trump set a precedent with his intervention in Venezuela — a precedent that nations such as Russia, China and Iran will be eager to follow in their own respective spheres of influence, and we will have no standing to object when our adversaries take the same approach to countries in their spheres of influence that we took in ours.

"But Vladimir Putin’s Russia, Xi Jinping’s China and revolutionary Iran have never had the slightest concern for just war theory or any moral argument. They’re held in check (to the extent they are) by deterrence, or, when deterrence fails, raw military force."

'Let me ask the question again': Marco Rubio stumbles when pressed on Venezuela takeover

Secretary of State Marco Rubio was pressed Sunday by ABC News’ George Stephanopoulos after dodging a question about the Trump administration’s authority to control a foreign nation following its hostile takeover of Venezuela on Saturday.

Stephanopoulos asked Rubio “under what legal authority” could the United States government control Venezuela, with President Donald Trump announcing Saturday that his administration would “run” Venezuela until a transfer of power can take place.

Rubio dodged that question, and instead spoke to how the Trump administration’s aggressive operation would halt Venezuela from acting as “the crossroads for many of our adversaries around the world, including Iran and Hezbollah.”

Undeterred, Stephanopoulos repeated his question.

“Let me ask the question again,” he said. “What is the legal authority for the United States to be running Venezuela?”

Rubio defended his previous response, but ultimately provided a single legal justification for the Trump administration’s hostile takeover.

“As far as what our legal authority is… it’s very simple, we have court orders!” Rubio proclaimed. “I don’t know, is a court not a legal authority? The legal authority is the court orders that we have!”

The only court order that could reasonably be construed as supporting the Trump administration’s hostile takeover of Venezuela is the Justice Department’s indictment of Venezuelan President Nicholas Maduro, though nothing in the order would authorize the U.S. government to seize control of a foreign nation, nor due U.S. courts have the authority to do so.

STEPHANOPOULOS: Trump said the US is going to 'run Venezuela.' Under what legal authority?

RUBIO: We want a better future for the people of Venezuela

STEPHANOPOULOS: I'll ask again -- what is the legal authority?

RUBIO: We have court orders pic.twitter.com/WFAQIQGcqK
— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) January 4, 2026

Rubio's shocking decision makes RFK Jr.'s cuts look like child's play

For much of 2025, public-health debates in the United States have focused on the damage being caused by Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. with his reckless vaccine policy decisions, deep funding cuts, the wholesale firing of experienced public health professionals across Health and Human Services agencies, and the loss of trust in public health institutions like the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

His actions weakened domestic health protections and further eroded trust in science, evidence based decision making and the scientific method itself.

But even accounting for all of Kennedy’s harm, the most destructive public health decision of 2025 didn’t come from his agency. It came from the Secretary of State Marco Rubio via elimination of the U.S. Agency for International Development.

That decision will cost more lives, undermine more health systems and increase global health risk more than any other public health policy choice made this year. It also delivered a severe blow to America’s ability to lead through diplomacy.

USAID provided key global public health infrastructure

For decades, USAID was one of the most important public-health institutions on the planet, arguably more consequential than the World Health Organization or the Gates Foundation. It served as a core pillar of global disease prevention and health-system stability. Today, it’s gone.

USAID funded (and held partners accountable for) infectious disease surveillance, HIV treatment, tuberculosis and malaria prevention, maternal and child health services, clean water and sanitation systems, nutrition programs for mothers and infants, vaccine delivery infrastructure and health workforce training in developing nations.

USAID’s work stopped outbreaks before they became pandemics. It reduced mass displacement. It stabilized regions where collapsing health systems fuel hunger, conflict and migration. It improved women’s health, helped families plan their futures and helped entire populations escape poverty.

USAID focused on upstream prevention on a global scale. It was also one of our most effective tools for building diplomatic influence.

Hard power, soft power: why USAID mattered

In international affairs, countries project power in two ways. Hard power relies on forces like military strength, sanctions and the threat of punishment. Soft power relies on trust, humanitarian aid, scientific cooperation and being seen as a reliable partner acting in good faith.

USAID was a cornerstone of American soft power. When the U.S. helped countries prevent disease, strengthen health systems, and keep children alive and families out of poverty, it built credibility. We earned cooperation and trust. It made American leadership legitimate rather than coercive.

Eliminating USAID didn’t just dismantle public health infrastructure; it dramatically weakened our soft power. It broadcasts that the U.S. is transactional, unreliable and disinterested in shared global responsibility.

That erosion of trust will make cooperation during future emergencies far more difficult not only for this administration, but for future ones that may want to restore America’s role as a force for good.

Damage is under way

Thanks to Secretary Rubio disease surveillance is collapsing, meaning outbreaks are detected later or not at all. Interruptions in HIV and tuberculosis treatment are fueling drug resistance, which will inevitably reach us as well.

Gaps in maternal and child health services are translating into preventable deaths. Weakening vaccine infrastructure invites the return of diseases that were on the decline.

Responsibility for this decision is clear. As Secretary of State, Rubio presided over, defended, and even trumpeted the dismantling of USAID. President Donald Trump supported it. Elon Musk helped drive the ideological and operational wrecking ball that made it possible.

Together, they reframed global public health as expendable “foreign aid” rather than what it is: A frontline defense against disease, instability, humanitarian catastrophe and a key source of American soft power.

What history will remember

Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has done real damage to public health in 2025. But history will judge the elimination of USAID as something even worse: an abdication of public health responsibility trading several decades of disease prevention and diplomacy for personal ambition and professional survival.

History will remember Rubio’s decision as an abandonment of global public health and soft power, not dollars “saved.”

Will Humble is a long-time public health enthusiast and is currently the Executive Director for the Arizona Public Health Association (AzPHA). His 40 years in public health include more than 2 decades at the Arizona Department of Health Services, where he served in various roles including as the Director from 2009 to 2015. He continues to be involved in health policy in his role as the Executive Director for the Arizona Public Health Association.

'Failed this moral moment' CNN analyst bashes JD Vance's speech at MAGA 'Super Bowl'

A CNN analyst on Monday described how Vice President JD Vance dropped the ball during his address at the Turning Point USA event this weekend, an event billed as the MAGA "Super Bowl."

Vance was speaking at the right-wing group's AmericaFest and had the opportunity to denounce MAGA influencers who are anti-semitic or racist — and that he missed the mark, said CNN analyst Kate Bedingfield, former White House communications director under the Biden administration.

Vance has signaled a potential 2028 presidential run — possibly with Secretary of State Marco Rubio as a running mate — which Trump has said would have his full support. During the MAGA event this weekend, Charlie Kirk's widow, Erika Kirk, noted that the conservative group would endorse Vance in the upcoming presidential election.

"Well, it does seem to me like an all eyes on JD Vance situation, and Marco Rubio and Donald Trump, frankly, if the leaders of the MAGA movement are willing to tolerate the platforming of an avowed Hitler apologist in Nick Fuentes, that seems to me like where the pressure should be," Bedingfield said. "I certainly agree with Scott [Jennings] that Ben Shapiro and others who are calling out the anti-semitism, the conspiracy theories of the likes of Nick Fuentes, Candace Owens, frankly, Megyn Kelly as well, you know, I think that is an important and good thing for them to be doing."

"JD Vance, to me, he really failed this moral moment. He failed in this moral moment," Bedingfield added. "He had the opportunity to say, 'I disavow this.' He has said that in the past, by the way. He has said he disavows Nick Fuentes. This was clearly a stage where that was called for, and he did not do it. And that I think he is going to have to continue to answer for."

The MAGA movement has been marked by recurring incidents of antisemitism and racist rhetoric, with critics pointing to antisemitic conspiracy theories, white nationalist rhetoric, and exclusionary messaging circulating online and among some prominent figures. Civil rights organizations and watchdog groups have documented a rise in hate speech and extremist content associated with MAGA rallies and online spaces, including antisemitic tropes about Jewish control of media and finance, as well as racist attacks targeting immigrants, Black American,s and other minority groups.

‘Say that’s what it is’: Dems demand answers on Trump's Venezuela regime change push

WASHINGTON — Turns out, Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth aren’t very good actors.

Congress doesn’t agree on much, but when it comes to Venezuela and U.S. military strikes on purported drug smugglers, on Tuesday Congress was basically all questions, even after receiving classified briefings from the two members of the Trump cabinet.

Only after President Donald Trump took to Truth Social in the evening, to announce "a total and complete" blockade of oil tankers entering and leaving Venezuela, did Congress finally get the clarity lawmakers had demanded.

Now members of Congress say they know the real goal of U.S. intervention in Venezuela — and lawmakers on both sides of the Capitol are vowing to hold President Trump accountable.

‘More questions than answers’

Rubio and Hegseth, along with a phalanx of aides and security, traversed the U.S. Capitol, trying to sell Congress on President Trump’s war footing in the waters off Venezuela.

“This briefing left me with more questions than answers,” Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-CT) told reporters after a classified briefing.

It was the same on the other side of the Capitol, where lawmakers complained the two powerful secretaries provided “no real answers about whether or not what we’re about to enter into is a war in Venezuela,” Rep. Gregory W. Meeks (D-NY), the ranking member of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, told reporters after his own chamber’s briefing.

“If this is about regime change, it seems to me that the administration should say that’s what it is, and should come to Congress to ask for that authorization, which has not taken place.”

It wasn’t just Democrats who were left confused as to what the Trump administration is trying to accomplish with regards to Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro.

“Most Americans want to know what’s gonna happen next. I want to know what’s gonna happen next. Is it the policy to take Maduro down? It should be,” Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) told reporters.

“If it’s not, and if he goes, what’s gonna happen next? I’d like a better answer as to what happens when Maduro goes.”

For his part, Secretary Rubio told the congressional press corps the briefings were on the “counter-drug mission” that is “killing Americans, poisoning Americans.”

For his part, Secretary Hegseth tried to tamp down criticism as he promised to let members of the House and Senate Armed Services Committees view a controversial video of a second missile strike on alleged drug smugglers in the Caribbean Sea, on Sept. 2.

“This is the 22nd bipartisan briefing on a highly successful mission to counter designated terrorist organizations, cartels, bringing weapons — weapons meaning drugs — to the American people and poisoning the American people for far too long,” Hegseth told reporters.

But last night, when President Trump announced a blockade of Venezuelan oil — arguing the South American nation is “completely surrounded by the largest Armada ever assembled in the History of South America” — lawmakers got the clarity they’d been seeking.

And many weren’t happy.

‘Unquestionably an act of war’

While Congress is demanding answers to more questions, many members also feel lied to, if not duped.

“Trump is threatening a naval blockade of Venezuelan oil, an act of War,” Rep. Nydia Velazquez (D-NY) wrote on X.

“We have seen this playbook before. This is not about drugs or making America safer; it’s about regime change.

“Americans do not want war with Venezuela. Congress must act now and stop this.”

While the administration likened targeting alleged drug smugglers to going after pirates of old — thus evoking all the lenient maritime laws regarding marauders on the high seas — Democrats say the gig is up.

They’re demanding the administration halt intervention unless Congress explicitly grants the president war powers.

“A naval blockade is unquestionably an act of war,” Rep. Joaquin Castro (D-TX) wrote. “A war that the Congress never authorized and the American people do not want.

“On Thursday, the House will vote on Rep. Jim McGovern (D-MA), Rep. Thomas Massie (R-KY), and my resolution directing the President to end hostilities with Venezuela.

“Every member of the House of Representatives will have the opportunity to decide if they support sending Americans into yet another regime change war.”

'Heated dust-up' erupts between Pete Hegseth and top Senate Dem

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth and Sen. Mark Kelly (D-AZ) got into a fiery argument Tuesday over the Trump administration's lethal boat strikes in the Caribbean, off the coast of Venezuela.

The two were at a classified briefing with Secretary of State Marco Rubio, Hegseth and House lawmakers when Kelly, who was apparently sitting in the front row, asked about the ongoing operations, Punchbowl News reporter Andrew Desiderio wrote on X.

Hegseth — whose Department of Defense is investigating Kelly over a video he made with other Democratic lawmakers warning active military members not to follow unlawful orders — reportedly responded and referenced the difference between lawful and unlawful orders. The lawmakers in the video, including Kelly, are all veterans.

"Kelly interrupted Hegseth as Hegseth was going after him for the video, noting his question had nothing to do with that," Desiderio wrote.

"INSIDE THE ROOM -- MARK KELLY and PETE HEGSETH get into heated dust up during classified briefing," Jake Sherman, Punchbowl News founder, wrote on X.

An attorney representing Kelly, who has questioned Hegseth's decisions, fired off a warning letter to the Department of Defense on Monday, saying the Arizona Democrat is prepared to take whatever legal action is necessary to stop what they regard as an illegal and politically motivated investigation into him.

Hegseth has faced scrutiny over his role in the lethal boat strikes in the Caribbean during military operations, which some legal experts warned amounted to war crimes or outright murder. The boat strike incidents raised concerns among lawmakers and military observers about rules of engagement, civilian casualties, and whether appropriate oversight and accountability measures were followed during these operations under Hegseth's command or purview.