GOP Senator tells Axios: Congress in the dark on Venezuela strikes
4 Min Read
At the Axios Future of Defense Summit, Sen. Todd Young criticized the lack of congressional oversight on recent US military operations near Venezuela.
-
US Sen. Todd Young, R-Ind., speaks at the Hanwha Philly Shipyard for a ceremony Tuesday, Aug. 26, 2025, in Philadelphia. (AP)
US Senator Todd Young (R-Ind.) has raised concerns that Congress remains largely uninformed about recent US military actions off the coast of Venezuela. Speaking Wednesday at Axios’ Future of Defense Summit, Young said lawmakers have been “left in the dark” regarding the strikes.
The US military has carried out several strikes in the Caribbean Sea as part of an operation allegedly aimed at curbing drug trafficking, though some officials suspect a broader goal of destabilizing Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro’s rule.
In a related development, the US struck another vessel Tuesday night, this time on the Pacific side of South America, Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth confirmed on Wednesday.
Hegseth stated that this incident, which a defense official confirmed occurred in international waters off Colombia and resulted in two fatalities aboard the vessel, marks the eighth known US attack on a boat since September 2.
Congress questioning legality of strikes
The previous seven strikes have all targeted vessels in the Caribbean, and in all eight strikes, the same unfounded pretext was used: striking vessels allegedly engaged in the narcotics trade with no proof provided to back this claim, sparking backlash.
The strike carried out for the first time on the Pacific side of South America killed at least two people. Previous attacks have hit seven vessels in the Caribbean and killed at least 32 people.
Meanwhile, members of Congress have questioned the legal and strategic basis of these actions.
“Congress isn't hearing enough, in any form, including a public forum,” Young told Axios’ Stef Kight during the event in Washington, D.C. The senator emphasized that the constitutional and legal implications of military operations should be a matter of open dialogue with legislators.
“If there's been any takeaway from me from the last roughly 25 years of congressional action and inaction, it's not that Congress needs to be more hands-off, that Congress needs to get out of the way,” he stressed.
“I think Congress needs to go further. Rather than just asserting our ability to authorize military force, which we certainly need to do, we also need to officially bring to a close these conflicts and make clear that we have constitutional prerogatives that need to be consistently asserted,” Young emphasized.
Next steps
Young said he has reached out to Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Defense Secretary Hegseth to arrange a meeting about the Venezuela operation. He also urged the Senate Foreign Relations Committee to conduct oversight hearings to ensure transparency.
“We need to learn more,” he added.
The Indiana senator has been increasingly vocal on US defense and foreign policy issues. Recently, he called on President Trump to send Tomahawk missiles to Ukraine, describing the move as a possible turning point in the conflict with Russia.
“I think he really needs to ratchet up the pressure more, not just through sanctions, ... but also by delivering the long-term weapons, standoff weapons that are really needed. I think that's what Putin responds to,” Young said.
Wider context
The United States has a long and controversial history of meddling in Latin America, often under the pretext of combating drug trafficking or promoting democracy. In practice, many of these operations, from covert CIA-backed coups to open military aggression, have been aimed at installing or protecting governments aligned with US interests, often at the expense of popular sovereignty and regional stability.
Washington’s actions near Venezuela are widely viewed across Latin America as part of this legacy. Although framed as anti-narcotics operations, the recent strikes near Venezuela’s coast come amid ongoing efforts by the US to isolate and destabilize the government of Nicolás Maduro, which it has refused to recognize as legitimate. These moves have drawn condemnation from various Latin American governments, as well as international bodies that see them as violations of Venezuelan sovereignty.
Critics argue that such military maneuvers are not only provocative but risk triggering broader conflict in a region already shaped by centuries of foreign interference. The lack of transparency surrounding these operations, including their legal basis and strategic objectives, has also alarmed members of the US Congress, not out of solidarity with Venezuela, but due to concerns about unchecked executive power and the erosion of constitutional oversight.
