Democratic lawmakers accused the administration of President Donald Trump on Saturday (Jan 3) of misleading Congress about its intentions toward Venezuela, saying senior officials had repeatedly denied any plan for regime change or major military action just weeks before the United States launched a dramatic overnight operation that deposed President Nicolas Maduro.
The US attack, which culminated in Maduro’s capture and removal from power, marked Washington’s most direct military intervention in Latin America since the 1989 invasion of Panama. The operation followed months of rising tension between Washington and Caracas and has ignited a fierce debate in Congress over presidential war powers, transparency, and the legality of the action.
Senator Chuck Schumer of New York, the Democratic leader in the Senate, said he had been assured in three classified briefings that the Trump administration was not pursuing regime change in Venezuela and had no plans to take military action there.
“They assured me that they were not pursuing those things,” Schumer said during a call with reporters. “Clearly, they’re not being straight with the American people.”
Schumer said that as of Saturday afternoon he had not received a detailed briefing on the operation itself and called on the administration to brief not only congressional and intelligence committee leaders but all members of Congress by early next week.
“They’ve kept everyone in the total dark,” he said, adding that lawmakers were now being asked to react to events after the fact rather than exercise their constitutional role in advance.
The criticism intensified after Trump told reporters that the United States would, for now, place Venezuela under US control — a statement that alarmed lawmakers from both parties and raised questions about the scope, duration, and cost of the intervention.
“No serious plan has been presented for how such an extraordinary undertaking would work or what it will cost the American people,” said Senator Jack Reed of Rhode Island, the top Democrat on the Senate Armed Services Committee. “History offers no shortage of warnings about the costs — human, strategic, and moral — of assuming we can govern another nation by force.”
The Senate is scheduled to vote next week on a measure that would block further US military action in Venezuela without explicit congressional authorization. The vote is expected to test bipartisan unease about the administration’s approach, even as many Republicans publicly support Trump’s decision to act.
Trump has said he is open to sending US ground troops into Venezuela, a prospect that has rattled some lawmakers, including members of his own party. Representative Mariannette Miller-Meeks, a Republican from Iowa who faces a potentially difficult re-election campaign in November, described the situation as a national security issue but cautioned against a deeper military commitment.
“Iowans do not want troops on the ground in Venezuela,” Miller-Meeks said in an interview on Fox News.
Democratic lawmakers say the administration’s statements before the operation directly contradict what unfolded overnight. In briefings held in November and December, officials including Secretary of State Marco Rubio and War Secretary Pete Hegseth repeatedly told lawmakers that there were no plans for a land invasion of Venezuela and that regime change was not the focus of US policy.
“Instead, the administration consistently misled the American people and their elected representatives,” said Senator Jeanne Shaheen of New Hampshire, the top Democrat on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, in a statement. “That undermines trust at home and damages US credibility abroad.”
Several lawmakers went further, accusing the administration of outright deception. Democratic Representative Don Beyer of Virginia, whose district includes the Pentagon, said on social media that the administration had “lied to Congress and launched an illegal war for regime change and oil.”
Neither the Pentagon, the State Department nor the White House immediately responded to requests for comment on the allegations.
At a news conference on Saturday, Trump defended his decision not to fully brief Congress in advance, arguing that secrecy was necessary to prevent leaks.
“Congress does have a tendency to leak,” Trump told reporters, suggesting that wider disclosure could have jeopardized the operation.
That explanation has done little to calm lawmakers who say they have been pressing for clarity on Venezuela since at least September, when the administration began a military build-up in the Caribbean and ordered strikes on boats Trump said were involved in drug trafficking.
“When we had briefings on Venezuela, we asked, ‘Are you going to invade the country?’ We were told no. ‘Do you plan to put troops on the ground?’ We were told no. ‘Do you intend regime change in Venezuela?’ We were told no,” said Democratic Representative Seth Moulton of Massachusetts in an interview on CNN. “So in a sense, we have been briefed — we’ve just been completely lied to.”
Lawmakers from both parties said they were not notified before the operation began, though Rubio contacted some members of Congress after it had concluded. Democratic and Republican congressional leaders said they hoped to arrange comprehensive briefings once lawmakers return to Washington on Jan 5 following the year-end recess.
Republican leaders have largely praised Trump’s action and declined to discuss details of classified briefings. Senate Republican Majority Leader John Thune of South Dakota described the operation as a necessary step to disrupt what he called an unacceptable status quo in Venezuela.
“President Trump’s decisive action to apprehend Maduro, through the execution of a valid Department of Justice warrant, is an important first step to bring him to justice for the drug crimes for which he has been indicted in the United States,” Thune said in a statement.
Other Republicans framed the move as part of a broader effort to roll back leftist governments in the region. Representative Mario Diaz-Balart of Florida said at a press conference in his home state that with Maduro removed from power, the leaders of Cuba and Nicaragua were also vulnerable.
“The next two, their days are also counted,” Diaz-Balart said, a remark likely to heighten concerns in Latin America about broader US intervention.
The unfolding dispute has revived a long-running debate in Washington over the balance of war powers between Congress and the president. Members of Congress from both parties have for years accused successive administrations of sidestepping the Constitution’s requirement that Congress authorize anything beyond brief and limited military action necessary to defend the United States.
Democrats argue that the scale and consequences of the Venezuela operation go far beyond such limits. They say Congress should have been consulted and given the opportunity to debate and vote on an action that could commit the United States to a prolonged and costly engagement.
Republicans counter that the president has broad authority to act swiftly in the interest of national security and that Maduro’s alleged criminal activities and the instability in Venezuela justified decisive action.
As the Senate prepares to vote on curbing further military action, the administration faces growing pressure to articulate a clear strategy for Venezuela, including how long US forces might remain involved, who would govern the country in the interim, and how Washington plans to manage the diplomatic fallout across the region.
For now, lawmakers say they are being asked to trust an administration that, in their view, told them one thing behind closed doors and did another in the field.
“That’s not how a democracy is supposed to work,” Schumer said. “Congress has a responsibility to the American people, and we can’t fulfill it if we’re deliberately kept in the dark.”
