Furious Congressman Claims Trump Team Lied Straight To Congress Over Venezuela Plot

In a stunning escalation of political and military controversy, senior U.S. lawmakers have accused President Donald Trump's top officials of deliberately misleading Congress about the true nature of American actions in Venezuela, deepening a constitutional crisis over war powers and executive authority.

The allegations centre on a series of classified briefings delivered to members of Congress by Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth last year, during which lawmakers say they were assured that the administration had no intention of pursuing regime change. Days later, a US military raid in Caracas resulted in the capture of Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro.

Allegations Of Misleading Congress Over Military Intentions

Senior Democratic lawmakers have articulated their grievances in stark terms. Senator Andy Kim wrote on the social media platform X that Rubio and Hegseth 'looked every Senator in the eye a few weeks ago and said this wasn't about regime change,' only for events to unfold in a way that suggested otherwise.

Representative Jason Crow, serving on both the House Armed Services and Intelligence committees, joined the chorus of critics, stating: 'The Trump Administration repeatedly lied to Congress and the American people about Venezuela. Over and over, officials testified that this was not about regime change.'

Jeanne Shaheen, ranking Democrat on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, echoed these concerns, saying that the administration had 'consistently misled' lawmakers and left Congress in the dark about long-term strategy.

Senator Chris Coons of the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Defense described information given to lawmakers as 'false' and argued that the raid on Venezuela, which resulted in Maduro's ousting, was an act of war that required congressional authorisation under US law.

Democratic Representative Seth Moulton summarised the concerns in blunt terms: 'When we had briefings on Venezuela, we asked, 'Are you going to invade the country?' We were told no ... so in a sense we have been briefed, we've just been completely lied to.'

White House Defends 'Targeted Effort'

Republican leadership has largely defended the administration's actions, though even some within the party have acknowledged that communication with Congress could have been improved. House Speaker Mike Johnson insisted that the United States is 'not at war' with Venezuela and emphasised that no US troops are occupying the country, describing the mission instead as a targeted effort to address institutional failures and criminal networks linked to the Maduro regime.

Senate Majority Leader John Thune praised Trump's decisive action as an important step toward bringing Maduro to justice for alleged drug crimes, indicating continued Republican support for the outcome of the operation even as details remain politically fraught.

A Constitutional Crisis

Constitutional scholars and lawmakers alike have weighed in on the legal ramifications of the dispute. Under the US Constitution, only Congress holds the power to declare war or authorise extended military engagements abroad. Critics argue that the Maduro raid, which involved U.S. military assets and resulted in a forcible change in Venezuela's leadership, exceeds the limited scope permitted under existing authorisations for the use of military force.

This clash over executive power and legislative oversight has also intensified calls from lawmakers on both sides of the aisle for a new War Powers Resolution or similar legislative mechanism to circumscribe further military action without full congressional approval.

Global Condemnation

The controversy comes amid a backdrop of escalating tensions between the United States and Venezuela, which erupted into a direct military intervention following months of economic pressure, naval blockades, and targeted strikes on vessels alleged to be linked with drug trafficking. Globally, the raid has drawn significant condemnation. Countries across Latin America and beyond have questioned its legality and implications for international norms, particularly regarding sovereignty and the use of force.

Domestically, the fallout may extend beyond foreign policy. The dispute has become a flashpoint in ongoing debates about executive authority, constitutional safeguards, and the role of elected representatives in decisions that can lead nations into conflict. As the legal and political battles deepen, the question of trust between the executive branch and the legislature has never been more consequential.