Secretary of State Marco Rubio faced mounting scrutiny on Sunday as the Trump administration struggled to justify its unilateral military operation against Venezuela, an operation President Donald Trump has openly described as a bid to seize control of the country’s oil and “run” it indefinitely.

Appearing on ABC’s This Week and NBC’s Meet the Press, Rubio repeatedly deflected questions about the legal authority under which the United States intends to govern Venezuela, at times contradicting Trump’s own statements.

Rubio argued that the US had not invaded or occupied Venezuela and therefore did not require congressional authorisation, describing the strikes and seizure of President Nicolás Maduro as a law enforcement action.

“People are fixating on that,” Rubio said when asked whether he or other US officials would be running Venezuela. “Here’s the bottom line: we expect to see changes in Venezuela.”

The explanation did little to quiet criticism. Historian Kevin Kruse remarked that Americans were “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.”

Rubio’s claims also clashed directly with Trump’s own words. On Saturday, the president declared that the US would take over Venezuela’s oil industry, oversee a political transition, and “run the country” until Washington deemed it stable, language Rubio conspicuously avoided on Sunday.

If the operation was merely law enforcement, critics noted, the administration has yet to explain how it resulted in mass casualties. By Sunday afternoon, the New York Times reported that at least 80 civilians and members of Venezuela’s security forces had been killed in the strikes.

Congress Cut Out

Lawmakers from both chambers said the administration failed to meet its legal obligations to inform Congress before or after the strikes. Members of the so-called Gang of Eight, the top bipartisan congressional and intelligence leaders, said they received no advance warning.

Representative Jim Himes (D-CT), the ranking Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, said neither he nor House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries had been briefed. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer said the administration had deliberately misled Congress in classified briefings prior to the operation.

“They’ve kept everyone in total dark,” Schumer said.

Representative Ted Lieu (D-CA) was blunt: “The US attack on Venezuela is illegal. Congress never authorised this use of military force. This is insane.”

Public opinion appears firmly against the intervention. Polling conducted in late 2025 showed strong majorities opposing US military action in Venezuela, including sending troops or launching strikes. Analysts note that Trump entered the operation having already lost public support.

The Caracas Raid

The controversy stems from the early-morning raid on Saturday, January 3, when US forces struck targets in Caracas and seized President Nicolás Maduro and his wife, Cilia Flores. Both were flown to New York City to face newly announced federal drug trafficking charges.

The administration alleges Maduro collaborated with the Venezuelan gang Tren de Aragua to traffic narcotics into the United States. Officials initially suggested illicit fentanyl was involved, though Congress had previously been told intercepted shipments were cocaine: the substance named in Maduro’s indictment.

Trump publicly detailed the raid during a call-in appearance on Fox & Friends, praising its speed and violence. “I watched it literally like I was watching a television show,” he said, calling it an “amazing job.”

Later that day, Trump abandoned the law enforcement framing entirely. In a rambling press conference, he described the attack as “one of the most stunning, effective and powerful displays of American military might” and announced plans for US oversight of Venezuela’s government and oil sector.

Oil, Regime Change, and a New Worldview

Trump repeatedly returned to Venezuela’s oil, calling its industry “a total bust” and promising to deploy major US oil companies to rebuild infrastructure and extract petroleum.

He claimed Venezuela had “stolen” American oil assets during past nationalisations, despite international law clearly establishing national ownership of natural resources.

The president also unveiled what he called the “Donroe Document,” explicitly replacing the Monroe Doctrine with a doctrine of American dominance in the Western Hemisphere. Critics say the move represents a rejection of the post–World War II international order and an embrace of spheres-of-influence politics similar to those advanced by Russian President Vladimir Putin.

The New York Times editorial board warned that the action risks legitimising authoritarian aggression worldwide. Trump appeared to welcome the comparison, issuing threats toward Colombia, Cuba, Mexico, and Greenland.

Greenland Drawn In

In interviews following the Venezuela operation, Trump reiterated his interest in asserting US control over Greenland, telling The Atlantic that “we do need Greenland, absolutely. We need it for defence,” despite Greenland already being covered by NATO’s collective security framework.

The remarks triggered a swift and unusually blunt rebuke from Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen, whose government retains sovereignty over Greenland as part of the Kingdom of Denmark.

“I must say this very clearly to the United States,” Frederiksen said in a statement. “It makes absolutely no sense to speak of any necessity for the United States to take over Greenland. The United States has no legal basis to annex one of the three countries of the Kingdom of Denmark.”

She noted that Denmark and Greenland are NATO members and already maintain a defence agreement with Washington, granting the US broad access to Greenland.

“I therefore strongly urge the United States to cease its threats against a historically close ally, and against another country and another people who have stated very clearly that they are not for sale,” Frederiksen said.

Resistance and Uncertainty

In Venezuela, Trump’s claims of cooperation from the post-Maduro government quickly unravelled.

Vice President Delcy Rodríguez, whom Trump initially suggested had been sworn in and was willing to work with Washington, denied any such agreement in a televised address, demanding Maduro’s release and condemning the US for “unprecedented military aggression.”

Meanwhile, reporting by Politico and The Wall Street Journal suggests the administration has no coherent plan for governing or rebuilding Venezuela. Oil companies are reportedly wary of investing billions amid political chaos and uncertainty over who will ultimately control the country.

Trump acknowledged the improvisation, telling reporters the administration was still “designating various people” to run Venezuela.

A Familiar Arc

Democratic lawmakers warn the situation mirrors past US interventions that began with military success and ended in prolonged instability.

“We’re in the euphoria phase,” Himes said, comparing the moment to Iraq, Afghanistan, and Libya. “It’s a lot easier to break a country than it is to run it.”

As Rubio struggled Sunday to reconcile the administration’s shifting explanations, the scope of Trump’s ambitions, from Caracas to Greenland, came into sharper focus.

Critics warn the United States has embarked on one of its most consequential foreign interventions in decades, without congressional approval, international legitimacy, or a clear plan for what comes next.