Question: "When you described Maduro as a lawless president who profits from his position as President, doesn’t that also describe President Trump at this point?"
Senator Reed: We’re here at the Rhode Island Blood Center, and it’s National
Blood Donor Month, so I want to urge all Rhode Islanders to come and
donate blood. I also want to thank Rhode Island, because in the wake of the
Brown tragedy, there was an incredible outpouring of individual Rhode Islanders
giving blood to help those who were injured. It demonstrates Rhode Island’s
community vitality. The officials here told me we have a higher donation rate
than most places in the country, and that contributes to Rhode Island. So let
me salute everyone who donates and the wonderful people here at the Rhode
Island Blood Center.
Turning to Venezuela
Senator Reed: First, you have to commend the
incredible courage and skill of the men and women of the armed forces who
conducted a well-conceived and courageously executed operation. There’s no
question about that. You also have to recognize, and no one should have any
illusions, that Nicolás Maduro was
a despicable figure. He had been governing Venezuela without regard for the law
and liberties. He probably was also profiting directly and indirectly from some
of the drug dealers, so there’s nothing admirable about the gentleman that I
could find. But we need to understand what this means on a larger scale.
It was very clear, when President Trump spoke Saturday, that
in his mind, this wasn’t about drugs. To many American families who have
suffered through drugs, that’s a very important topic, and they’re very
concerned about drugs. Trump indicated that he is essentially taking over a
government, regime change, taking over the country, taking their natural
resources, oil principally, for the benefit of the big oil companies that are
going in right now. This whole campaign, which started with attacks on small vessels
bearing cocaine, which also has legal issues, has transformed and now been
revealed to be Trump’s desire to not only take over a country, which is
illegal, but to extract its precious resources. That’s not appropriate. It’s
not legal either - under international or United States law.
It sets a very dangerous precedent for people like Russian
President Vladimir
Putin, who can now ask, “Why are they complaining about my attack in
Ukraine? They do it themselves.”
The Chinese, I’m sure, are very interested in what’s
happening in Venezuela because they have their eyes on Taiwan. We’re looking at
a situation that is upending the international order established after World
War II, following significant suffering by Americans and their victory in the
war. We created an international order with a primary rule: you cannot use
force against another sovereign nation. That’s Article 24 of the
U.N. Charter, and that article was totally ignored.
In domestic law, Congress has the authority to declare war.
This looks very much like a war-like effort, and Congress was not consulted.
Congress has not been informed of many operational details. In fact, under the
law, the Secretary of Defense, Peter Hegseth, is required to issue us execute
orders (ex-ords) for all these operations: all the boat strikes and everything
else. He’s refused to do that, even though it’s the law.
You have an administration that repeatedly defies the law,
destabilizes international relations, and whose efforts will lead to a very
complicated situation. You have the President, on one hand, saying he’s going
to occupy Venezuela. You have Secretary of State Marco Rubio trying to walk it
back, saying, “Oh no, we’re going to cooperate with them.”
We’ve seen this story before. There was a great military
triumph in Iraq under George W. Bush.
Twenty years later, we were still trying to extricate ourselves from what
turned out to be a major geopolitical mistake that cost the lives of many
service members. We have to be conscious of that now.
For weeks now, I’ve been telling everyone in the
administration, the real question is, “What are you going to do when you win?
Mr. President, what are you going to do? Are you going to occupy? Are you going
to cooperate? Are you going to send troops in again, as he threatened last
Saturday?” We’re in a very precarious situation, one that demonstrates the
Trump Administration’s disregard not only for international law but also for
the laws of the United States. It’s now time for Congress to step up and make sure
that what is done in the future is both legal and in the best interest of the
United States - not just for a weekend of headlines, but for the future of the
country.
Reporter: You said that Maduro is a despicable figure. Do you give President Trump any credit for removing someone like that from power?
Senator Reed: Credit has to be assessed in the
future. Everyone felt that Saddam Hussein was
a despicable character. I agreed. But the way they did it - very quickly, the
American public reacted and said, “This was a terrible, strategic mistake.”
The other factor, often overlooked, is that President Trump
took a sworn oath, under the Constitution, to see that the laws be faithfully
executed, and part of those laws are the treaties we signed, particularly the
United Nations Treaty. As a result, we must ask ourselves, “Is he following the
law according to his oath?” There’s no question about the character of Maduro.
There are serious questions about whether Trump’s approach made sense both
legally and long-term strategically for the United States.
Steve Ahlquist: Military leaders also took an
oath to uphold the Constitution, and in conducting an illegal action, are they
equally responsible? They could have told the President, “No.”
Senator Reed: The President is Commander in
Chief, and there is the question, which has to be addressed, of whether some of
these [orders] were legal, and if they were illegal, then you’re right: There
is responsibility for military officers who carried them out. That can’t be
avoided.
Reporter: You mentioned a lack of communication,
a violation of the Constitution. It seems like there was probably no heads-up
that this operation was going to happen. Were you aware beforehand? Tell me how
you reacted when you heard about it.
Senator Reed: There was absolutely no prior
communication. Part of it was a consideration for the safety of the troops.
They did not want this information to be disclosed because it could jeopardize
the troops. I’m not going to question their judgment on that at all. If troop
safety is involved, then protect the troops. That’s my view.
My staff was contacted at about 6 am and learned that an
operation was underway. At about 7:30, I spoke with my staff, but we had
received no prior briefings; no one in Congress had, which is unusual. There
are typically ways in which the administration can brief at least the Big Eight:
they’re called on pending operations in a way that doesn’t disclose operational
details. That was not done. My reaction was like most people: surprise and
shock. I then looked at President Trump’s press conference and heard the claims
he was making about occupying Venezuela, sending our big oil companies in to
get the oil out, and other discussions, and I thought, “My God, he seems out of
control.”
Reporter: But Senator, the Biden
Administration offered a $25 million reward for Maduro, but didn’t
follow through on it. The Trump Administration followed up on that with this
operation. Is there any other way that you would have done it? Because it seems
like we had it out for Maduro. We wanted to bring him to American justice.
Isn’t this American justice, today?
Senator Reed: First of all, I think Trump
increased the reward to $50 million, so he was attempting to do what President
Biden did: have someone in Colombia or elsewhere apprehend Maduro and turn him
over to the United States, which would be a much more appropriate process. The
issue, though, is that you can’t avoid the legal precedents and legal
structures that the President had to follow.
Reporter: Would President Barack Obama brief
you before ordering Middle East drone strikes?
Senator Reed: There were briefings, yes,
particularly to what is known to the Big Eight, as I mentioned before. But I
think you have to understand that President Obama, President George W. Bush,
and others were operating under congressional authorization. They authorized
the use of military force in Iraq and Afghanistan. They included wide-based
authorization to go after terrorist groups that were harming the United States.
No such authorization exists today regarding Venezuela.
Reporter: You spoke about the next steps that
Congress can take. Can you be more specific about that, especially since the
President has shown, time and again, that he’s not interested in what Congress
has to say?
Senator Reed: We have to get the facts first.
That’s why we’re being briefed this afternoon. Second, we have to look very
clearly at the law and our responsibilities to support the federal Constitution
of the United States. What is our responsibility? If the President has taken
steps that are illegal, or steps that are arguably legal but strategically
detrimental to the United States, we have to stand up and speak out, and we
have to take legislative action. Senator Tim Kaine will
again propose authorized
use of military force legislation to constrain the President from
further military operations in Venezuela. I’ve supported that in the past and
will continue to support it in the future. Unless the President comes to
Congress and explains why he needs military action to settle an issue, and
gets, if not approval, at least our acknowledgement that we’ve been briefed,
then we’re not doing our job, frankly.
Reporter: You’re wearing the flag of Ukraine
today. Russian President Vladimir Putin was very close to Maduro. Maduro would
supply oil to Russia to support its war effort. Regardless of what we do with
the oil, the fact that we have control of it now isn’t a crippling blow to
Putin’s army?
Senator Reed: I don’t think so. As I understand
it, most of the Venezuelan oil is purchased by China, not Russia. Russia
produces oil and sells it. President Trump has seized sanctioned ships coming
out of Venezuela. I don’t recall any Russian ships being seized by the United
States. So if Trump were serious about helping Ukraine, he’d have a more
vigorous enforcement of the sanctions against Russian oil, and they’ve been
rather mild at best. Again, this issue is not so much about disrupting oil flow
to Russia. More precisely, it’s probably trying to prevent China from getting
more access to oil.
Reporter: Isn’t that good, since they have eyes
on Taiwan?
Senator Reed: It would be good if you could go
to Congress and say, “I need the authority to take action against China.” I
don’t think President Trump would do that.
At the same time Trump is attacking Venezuela, he’s
negotiating with China about tariffs and precious minerals. China is a regime
that’s as hostile to us as Venezuela was, but that’s a case of exercising
international relations and preparing us for activities.
Another contrast with China is that we have more ships,
planes, Marines, and army assets in the Caribbean than at any time since 1962,
during the Cuban Missile Crisis. There are no military threats to the United
States emanating from Venezuela. Those are not the threats. But if you believe,
as most experts and I do, that China poses potentially the greatest threat to
the United States militarily, and we’re taking resources away from the Pacific
and putting them in the Caribbean, from a strategic sense, the President’s
policy makes no sense.
He’s essentially creating, and he said this in his national
security statement, “spheres of influence,” going back to the good old days
where gunboat diplomacy in the Caribbean was a way of life. We would seize the
country, hold on for a while, extract the minerals, and put the American
companies in place in the good old days, while letting the Europeans do what
they want to do, which means that Putin can continue to disregard the law and
attack Ukraine, or let China maybe do this. Again, what signal has this sent to
China about using military force to achieve political objectives?
Reporter: Senator, do you accept Secretary
Rubio’s explanation that they couldn’t brief members of Congress because it
would put the mission at risk?
Senator Reed: I will accept that. Yes. Anything
that would jeopardize the lives of American service members, I’m not going to
argue with it.
Steve Ahlquist: When you described Maduro as a
lawless president who profits from his position as President, doesn’t that also
describe President Trump at this point?
Senator Reed: No. I’m just going to say it’s my
responsibility to do my duty, which is to ensure, like the President, that the
laws of the United States are faithfully enforced. We have to do that. I don’t
want to make ad hominem attacks against the President. I
should also point out that the last intelligence estimate I read, published in
April by the National Intelligence Council, clearly indicated that Maduro did
not have operational control of Tren de Aragua,
which President Trump specifically mentioned in his remarks on Saturday. That
report made it clear that this is one of many groups that are operating,
selling drugs, etc. Maduro probably profits from them, but he has no direct
control over them. One of the questions we’ll have to ask is whether there is
additional intelligence that hasn’t been made public to us that would change
that?
The Trump Administration has exaggerated the notion that
Maduro runs the Tren de Aragua. Maduro probably had relationships
with these organizations, in that they gave him money when they wanted to.
Also, he probably sometimes disputes with them because they might threaten his
control, or did in the past.
The other interesting point is that when President Trump
arrested Maduro, he immediately embraced the Vice President of Venezuela, Delcy Rodríguez,
as his successor. She is also a committed
socialist and has come out very strongly in support of Maduro.
Again, it isn’t easy to understand Trump’s plan. Frankly, based on what he,
Rubio, and others have said, they don’t have a plan. This is just day-to-day.
Reporter: In your role in Congress, you approve
funding. Would you consider providing additional military aid for this
operation in Venezuela?
Senator Reed: The first question is the Authorization
for Use of Military Force (AUMF), which would say you’ve got to
stop all actions unless Congress can approve those actions, in general, and in
many specific cases. That’s step one.
Step two is that I’ve heard estimates that this whole
buildup in the Caribbean has already cost a billion dollars, probably from very
creative use of funds they already have by the Department of Defense - and
they’ll continue to do that, probably to the detriment of other areas in the
world and to other important priorities of public defense. Another issue we
have to address strategically is whether the investment we’re making there is
worth it for overall international security. And those answers would likely be
no.
Steve Ahlquist: Can you talk about how many
people died in Venezuela? I’ve heard estimates of about 80 people, maybe.
Senator Reed: It may be. There are-
Steve Ahlquist: But I mean, was that worth the
cost? That’s a terrible thing to do to ostensibly innocent people who may or
may not have supported Maduro.
Senator Reed: There are reported civilian
casualties of people who had no role in drug dealing or anything else, and that
has to be considered. I think at this point, it’s too early to come down until
we have more facts about what happened. But again, mercifully, thank God, none
of our forces were lost. We had six wounded personnel, but they’re stable, and
they’ll recover.
I will stop where I began: One thing you cannot deny is that
this was an incredible demonstration of the courage, competence, and skill of
our military forces and their bravery. This was a tough mission, and they did
it brilliantly.
