• Marco Rubio defends U.S. military operation against Maduro before Senate.
• Lawmakers express concerns over costs and legality of U.S. actions.
• Rubio insists there is no war with Venezuela, framing actions as law enforcement.
• Senator Jeanne Shaheen questions the cost of military interventions in Venezuela.
• The operation is critiqued for potential violation of international law.

U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio is set to testify before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, where he will defend the recent military operation that ousted Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro. As he prepares for questioning, Rubio emphasizes that there has been no war against Venezuela, claiming instead that the operation is framed as a "targeted law enforcement action" rather than a military occupation, with no U.S. troops on the ground involved, according to Reuters and NPR.

Rubio aims to highlight the "strategic" significance of the operation, citing Venezuela’s links with adversarial states such as Iran, Russia, and Cuba. He asserts that the situation in Venezuela posed a significant risk to U.S. national security and was rectified through the military operation, although such actions are criticized for their legality under international law. He states that U.S. objectives include avoiding civil war and establishing direct communication with current Venezuelan authorities, according to Al Jazeera.

During the hearing, Democratic Senator Jeanne Shaheen confronts Rubio regarding the financial implications of the U.S. military presence and the ongoing naval blockade, which have reportedly cost around $1 billion. Shaheen questions whether the operations justify their financial burden, especially in light of pressing domestic economic issues that concern her constituents, as stated in NPR and Al Jazeera.

Rubio's testimony is anticipated to be a pivotal moment as he deals with lawmakers who are increasingly skeptical about the administration's approach to Venezuela. Some members have asserted that the operation reflects a broader trend of executive overreach regarding military engagements and foreign policy, echoing concerns that Congress should reclaim its role in authorizing military action, according to Reuters and NPR.