ICYMI: Murphy to Rubio: Venezuela Is Not On The Path To Democracy
Press (Murphy)
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
January 28, 2026
CONTACT
Deni Kamper
IN CASE YOU MISSED IT
MURPHY TO RUBIO: VENEZUELA IS NOT ON THE PATH TO DEMOCRACY
Watch The Full Exchange Here
WASHINGTON - U.S. Senator Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) on Wednesday questioned U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio during a hearing of the U.S. Senate Foreign Relations Committee on the Trump administration’s military operation in Venezuela and plans to control the country going forward. Murphy grilled Rubio on the lack of progress towards a democratic transition while enabling the regime’s corruption, and enriching the president’s friends and donors in the oil industry.
Murphy emphasized Trump’s large-scale, long-term plans to run Venezuela indefinitely are unlikely to succeed: “I think the scope of the project that you are undertaking in Venezuela is without precedent. You are taking their oil at gunpoint. You are holding and selling that oil, putting for now the receipts in an offshore Middle Eastern account. You're deciding how and for what purposes that money is going to be used in a country of 30 million people. I think a lot of us believe that that is destined for failure.”
Murphy rebuffed Rubio’s premature claims of success in Venezuela: “A month later, we have no information on a timetable for a democratic transition. Maduro's people are still in charge. Most of the political prisoners are in jail - and by the way, those that have been let out have a gag order on them from the government. The opposition leader is still in exile. This looks already like it is a failure. You say you're in serious talks, but as you note, the Venezuelans are great at being in serious talks. They almost never deliver.”
Murphy questioned whether corruption is at the center of Trump’s Venezuela policy - and demanded Rubio put a stop to it: “We want to try to understand … whether this is just facilitating corruption, both in Venezuela and here at home. Reports are that you've given no bid licenses to two companies to sell Venezuela's oil. One of them is a massive donor to the President. To many Americans, that reeks. Can you commit that partners for future sales are going to be chosen through a fair, open selection process?”
Murphy highlighted Trump’s threats to deploy U.S. military forces to facilitate oil sales in Venezuela - and pressed Rubio to admit further action must receive congressional approval: “In your testimony, you suggest that you would use force to compel cooperation, for instance, with oil sales… Do you concede that if you're using military action simply to try to compel cooperation from the government, you absolutely need congressional authorization for that?”
A full transcript of the exchange is available below.
Murphy: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Listen, I think the scope of the project that you are undertaking in Venezuela is without precedent. You are taking their oil at gunpoint. You are holding and selling that oil, putting for now the receipts in an offshore Middle Eastern account. You're deciding how and for what purposes that money is going to be used in a country of 30 million people. I think a lot of us believe that that is destined for failure.
And I know that you're telling us today just to be patient, but a month later, we have no information on a timetable for a democratic transition. Maduro's people are still in charge. Most of the political prisoners are in jail - and by the way, those that have been let out have a gag order on them from the government. The opposition leader is still in exile. This looks already like it is a failure. You say you're in serious talks, but as you note, the Venezuelans are great at being in serious talks. They almost never deliver.
So I'm just going to give you my three questions and hope that you'll answer them, because I do think we want to try to understand how to judge the efficacy of this as time goes on, because I worry you won't be back before this committee anytime soon, and to understand whether this is just facilitating corruption, both in Venezuela and here at home. So here are my three questions.
First, reports are that you've given no bid licenses to two companies to sell Venezuela's oil. One of them is a massive donor to the President. To many Americans, that reeks. And so my question is, can you commit that partners for future sales are going to be chosen through a fair, open selection process?
Second, if Delcy Rodriguez, who is an unelected leader, the head of Maduro's torture operation, is still in power six months from now, does that mean that your policy is a success or failure? How do we judge when we've had enough of Rodriguez?
And third, [you said] in your testimony, you reserve the right to use force again in the future if the Venezuelan Government isn't complying with your requests. So if, for instance, they refuse to give you access to the oil in the future, if they said we're just going to keep it for ourselves, would this cause you to consider military action? And do you concede that if you're using military action simply to try to compel cooperation from the government, you absolutely need congressional authorization for that? So if you can answer those three-
Rubio: Yeah, so the first question was about the trading companies. The second is about Delcy still in power six months from now, and the third is on the use of force.
Murphy: Yes.
Rubio: Okay, on the first one: the two traders. So here's the problem we faced. The problem we face in the short term is they had no place to put oil. They were running out of storage capacity for their oil. We had to move that oil to market very quickly. The only way to move it to market very quickly is to plug into these two primary trade companies that could sell it in the open market. That is not the permanent outcome here. That is a short-term fix to a short-term problem, which is they were literally storing oil, they brought in tankers, and we had tankers sitting offshore just to hold their oil. At some point, their capacity to produce was going to be shut down and their ability to generate revenue. So we had to move that oil very quickly. The long-term plan is not those two trading companies. The long-term plan is for them to have a normal energy program that sells directly into the market, directly, to refineries and to companies that are exploiting and exploring it. For example, Chevron has operations there that never stopped. They seek to expand those operations. They don't use, they don't need those trading companies. So those trading companies were a short-term fix for a very acute problem because we wanted to prevent societal collapse because they had no money for revenue.
On the second point about her being still in power. Look, let me say a couple things. This is not unprecedented. I can point to a number of places, Spain, Paraguay, two examples of places in which there was a transition, you know, from an autocratic regime to a democratic regime, and it took time. I can't give you a timeline of how long it takes. It can't take forever. It can't. It's not even been four weeks -
Murphy: Six months? A year? two years?
Rubio: Well, I think we need to be, let me put you this way, we need to be much further along six months from now, even three months from now. That may not be satisfactory to you, but I'm saying we have to be much further along three, four or five months. Three or four or five months from now cannot look like what today looks like. And I think there's acknowledgement on both sides of that. I can probably give you a better answer, and this is not deflecting, when we finally have people on the ground like the ambassador and the team around her on a daily basis that are interacting. Because one thing is for me to pick up the phone and talk to Delcy Rodriguez three times a week. Another thing is to have someone on the ground on a daily basis that's following these events, is talking to civil society, but also engaging with interim authorities. But the fact of the matter is that, yes, we want to see quick progress.
As you said, it's unprecedented. Okay, all I'm saying to you is, before this, this was stagnant. Before this, we had spent 14 years - You were involved in some of those efforts - 14 years, trying to change the dynamic in Venezuela. ‘13, ‘12, ‘11, ‘10, a big part of my career in the Senate was spent on this. This is the first time in over a decade that we see even the glimmer of an opportunity to change conditions. A lot of that will depend on us, but a lot of that will depend on them, and it also depends on the rest of Venezuelan society. How quickly can we get all these Venezuelans that want to go back to Venezuela and participate in civic and economic life, back to Venezuela? That's going to be critical here. We recognize that. So yes, we have to be much further along. In six months, we expect to be further along. And if we're and if we're not, I'll tell you, we'll tell you.
On the third point of use of force. Look, the President never rules out his options as commander-in-chief to protect the national interest of the United States. I can tell you right now with full certainty, we are not postured to, nor do we intend or expect to have to take any military action in Venezuela at any time. The only military presence you will see in Venezuela is our marine guards at an embassy. Okay, that is our goal. That is our expectation, and that is what everything that outlines towards. But if that said, if an Iranian drone factory pops up and threatens our forces in the region, the President retains the option to eliminate that threat.
Murphy: I'm asking a more specific question, because in your testimony, you suggest that you would use force to compel cooperation, for instance, with oil sales. Do you agree that you have to come to Congress to get authorization if you were simply using force to try to compel cooperation?
Rubio: Well, there's two things. Look, there's under the War Powers Act, if we're going to be involved in something that's going to put us in there, involved in a sustained way, we have to notify you within 48 hours after the fact. And then if it's going to last longer than 60 days, we have to come to Congress with it. We don't anticipate either of these things having to happen. Everything is moving in a very different trajectory right now. On the other hand, if we tell them we don't want to see drones, from Iran as an example, pointed at the United States, or threatening our forces or our presence in the region, or our allies presence in the region, and they refuse to comply with that, the President does reserve the option in self-defense to eliminate that threat. We don't see that. We don't anticipate it. But it could happen. But we hope not. We don't want it to happen. On the contrary, if we had to take military action, it would set us back on all these other things that we're talking about. I can tell you, military action is not good for, you know, recovery and transition. That's not what we hope to see. It's certainly not our goal here. A lot of that will depend on them, but I think it would require the emergence of an imminent threat of the kind that we do not anticipate at this time. But that's not, they get a vote on that too.
###