Dorothy

Secretary of State Marco Rubio testified before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on Wednesday, addressing U.S. involvement in the removal of Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro, an event widely reported across sources as having occurred. Rubio stated that the Trump administration does not intend to use military force in Venezuela but explicitly reserved the right to do so if an “imminent threat” to U.S. national interests arises, a position echoed by Fox News and The Guardian US. Senators from both parties, including Republican Rand Paul and others, pressed Rubio on whether the U.S.-backed ouster of Maduro constitutes an act of war, raising constitutional and legal concerns about the legitimacy of the intervention under international law. While core facts — such as Rubio’s testimony, the removal of Maduro, and the administration’s non-intention to use force — are consistently reported across outlets, framing varies by source. Left-leaning The Guardian US emphasized the unprecedented nature of U.S. intervention and Rubio’s refusal to rule out future military action, suggesting potential concerns over escalation. Center sources like USA Today and PBS NewsHour focused on the procedural and legal questions raised by senators, particularly Paul’s challenge to classify the action as war. Right-leaning outlets such as Fox News and the New York Post highlighted Rubio’s assertions of U.S. resolve, framing the intervention as a necessary step against authoritarianism and linking it to broader foreign policy goals, including pressure on Iran. The New York Post also included unrelated commentary on Delcy Rodríguez and political prisoners, suggesting a broader narrative of regime illegitimacy not uniformly present in other reports.