>> Continued From the Previous Page <<
Reuters reported that Delta Force operatives constructed an exact replica of Maduro’s fortified safe house and rehearsed the operation extensively before executing the mission. The report also revealed that the CIA had successfully placed an asset inside Maduro’s inner circle, giving U.S. intelligence real-time insight into his movements and security routines.
That intelligence proved decisive. By closely monitoring Maduro’s location, U.S. forces were able to pinpoint the optimal moment to move in, extract him, and remove him from power without prolonged conflict on the ground.
Maduro’s capture follows a long-standing federal case against him in the United States. A grand jury in the Southern District of New York previously indicted Maduro on four serious criminal counts. The charges include narco-terrorism conspiracy, conspiracy to import cocaine into the United States, possession of machine guns and destructive devices, and conspiracy to possess those weapons.
The indictment also named Maduro’s wife, Cilia Flores, along with four other associates, underscoring what prosecutors described as a criminal enterprise masquerading as a government. For years, critics have argued that Venezuela under Maduro functioned less like a sovereign nation and more like a cartel-controlled state.
Predictably, Democrats and their allies in the corporate media immediately objected to the operation. Their central claim is that President Trump lacked congressional authorization to carry out strikes on Venezuela or order the arrest of Maduro. These same voices, critics note, were largely silent during previous administrations’ unilateral foreign interventions.
Adding fuel to the controversy, President Trump stated that the United States would temporarily “run” Venezuela and impose a quarantine on its oil exports until specific conditions are met. That declaration triggered a fresh round of media outrage, with pundits portraying it as unprecedented and unlawful.
Stephanopoulos echoed those talking points during his interview with Rubio, repeatedly demanding to know the legal basis for U.S. actions.
“Let me ask this again. What is the legal authority for the United States to be running Venezuela?” Stephanopoulos asked Rubio.
Rubio did not hesitate to respond.
“Well, I explained to you what our goals are and how we’re going to use the leverage to make it happen. As far as what our legal authority is, is on the quarantine -it’s very simple. We have court orders. These are sanctioned boats. We get orders from courts to go after and seize these sanctions. So, I don’t know. Is a court not a legal authority?” Rubio said.
That answer appeared to frustrate Stephanopoulos, who struggled to counter Rubio’s point that U.S. courts had already authorized enforcement actions against sanctioned Venezuelan assets. Rather than retreat, Rubio doubled down, emphasizing his direct involvement in shaping and executing the policy.
“I’m obviously very intricately involved in these policies. And by the way, very intricately involved in moving forward and what we hope to see some of these changes being addressed,” Rubio said.
He then took aim at the previous administration’s handling of Venezuela, drawing a sharp contrast between Trump’s approach and what he described as failed diplomacy under President Biden.
“Unfortunately, the person that was there before who was not the legitimate president of the country was someone we could not work with, was someone that we could not. He had already suckered the Biden administration a couple of years ago!” Rubio added.
WATCH:
For many conservative viewers, the exchange symbolized a broader shift in Washington: a White House willing to act decisively abroad and a secretary of state unafraid to challenge hostile media narratives head-on. Whether critics like it or not, the Trump administration appears determined to reshape Venezuela—and Marco Rubio made clear it believes the law is firmly on its side.
