Rep. Jim Himes: Democrats Were Not Briefed on Venezuela Operation; Calls It Illegal and Risky Precedent

The following is an edited and cleaned transcript of the interview with Representative Jim Himes (D-Conn.), the top Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, which aired on Face the Nation with Margaret Brennan on Jan. 4, 2026. The interview focuses on a recent U.S. operation in Venezuela and congressional access to classified information.

MARGARET BRENNAN: We turn now to Connecticut Congressman Jim Himes. You are part of the "Gang of Eight," which by statute should receive sensitive briefings about secret operations. Given what you should know, can you clearly explain what the United States is doing?

REP. JIM HIMES: I should note — and I was delighted to hear this — that Senator Tom Cotton, chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, has been in regular contact with the administration. By contrast, I have had zero outreach. No Democrat that I'm aware of has been briefed. So apparently, we're in a world where the legal obligation to keep Congress informed only applies selectively. But yes, Margaret, I know exactly where we are: we're in a period of euphoria. People are celebrating that Maduro was a "bad guy" and praising our military. It reminds me of the immediate aftermath of the Taliban removal in 2002, Saddam in 2003, and Gaddafi in 2011 — moments of celebration that were followed by the hard reality that it's much easier to break a country than to run one. My concern is that like those cases, there appears to be no plan for governance after the operation.

MARGARET BRENNAN: There were divergent statements from cabinet members and administration allies — some leaning toward military options, others mentioning measures such as an oil quarantine. What leverage exists, and when do you expect answers? Have Republican colleagues promised to provide the briefings you seek?

REP. JIM HIMES: No. Television coverage today shows many Republicans focused primarily on displaying loyalty to the president. I watched the administration's news conference and was struck by its tone: it sounded like the neoconservative, Dick Cheney-era approach to regime change. That's a striking turn given prior promises from the president to move away from that style of foreign policy. The administration appears to be pivoting toward active regime-change rhetoric while claiming the same political mantle that opposed such interventions.

MARGARET BRENNAN: The secretary of state also spoke about working with elements of the existing Venezuelan regime, including Maduro's number two and others reportedly indicted by U.S. prosecutors. If the administration is engaging with those figures, is this really regime change?

REP. JIM HIMES: The public record is inconsistent — the transcript contains multiple [audio gap] notations where full statements were not captured. But the key point is the inconsistency itself: actions and pronouncements that appear to both cooperate with and remove elements of the regime. That creates confusion about intent and legality.

[Production interruption; audio resumed.]

MARGARET BRENNAN: The administration contends the operation is legal and cites the 1989 Noriega precedent in Panama. What's your challenge to that claim?

REP. JIM HIMES: First, it's clearly illegal under international law — the U.N. Charter prohibits forcible seizure of another country's leader. Even if policymakers choose to disregard international law, they should remember that international law will be the framework other states use to press claims. Second, it's likely unconstitutional because the Constitution envisions a role for Congress in authorizing or being consulted about uses of military force; here, the congressional consultation required by longstanding practice did not occur. The Noriega case is not a straightforward analogue: Panama in 1989 involved different circumstances, including armed attacks on U.S. personnel and specific congressional actions at the time. Using Noriega as a blanket justification is legally and factually weak.

MARGARET BRENNAN: You warned this could set a dangerous precedent. Do you believe adversaries such as China or Russia could replicate a similar operation?

REP. JIM HIMES: The immediate capability gap may limit others today, but China has explicitly stated intentions to develop such capabilities, and it is rapidly advancing. Russia's operational choices are different, but we cannot assume capability or intent will remain static. The broader point is strategic: by greenlighting a "snatch-and-grab" operation, the United States signals to other powers that similar actions are permissible — a troubling erosion of norms that protect state sovereignty and international order.

MARGARET BRENNAN: Thank you, Congressman Himes. We will continue to follow oversight and legal questions around this operation.

Postscript: The interview makes clear that Democratic members of the Gang of Eight say they were not briefed, that Rep. Himes considers the operation illegal under international law and likely unconstitutional, and that he fears the action creates a dangerous international precedent. Several points in the televised exchange were affected by audio gaps; this cleaned transcript indicates such interruptions where they occurred.