Physical Address
304 North Cardinal St.
Dorchester Center, MA 02124
The following is the transcript of the interview with Representative Jim Himes, Democrat of Connecticut, which aired on “Face the Nation with Margaret Brennan” on January 4, 2026.
MARGARET BRENNAN: We turn now to Connecticut Congressman Jim Himes. He’s the ranking Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee and he joins us this morning from Greenwich. Mr. Himes, Congressman, you are part of this “Gang of Eight,” which means that information about these covert operations is statutorily intended to be shared with you as a member of this very small group. Given this and what you need to know, can you clearly explain what the United States is doing?
REPRESENTATIVE. JIM HIMES: Yes, by the way, I was pleased to learn that Tom Cotton, chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, has been in regular contact with the administration. I had no awareness. And to my knowledge, no Democrat has done any outreach. Apparently we’re now in a world where the legal duty to keep Congress informed only applies to your party, which is really something. But yeah, no, look, I know exactly where we are, Margaret. We are in a period of euphoria where everyone recognizes that Maduro was a bad guy and that our army is absolutely incredible. This is exactly the euphoria we felt in 2002 when our military defeated the Taliban in Afghanistan. In 2003, when our military eliminated Saddam Hussein, and in 2011, when we helped remove Muammar Gaddafi from power in Libya. They were very, very bad people, much worse than Maduro in Venezuela, who never posed a significant threat to US national security. But we are in this phase of euphoria, and what we learned the day after the phase of euphoria is that it is much easier to break a country than to do what the president promised to do, which is to lead it. And so again, let my Republican colleagues enjoy their day of euphoria, but they’re going to wake up tomorrow morning knowing, oh my God, there is no plan here, any more than there was in Afghanistan or Iraq or Libya.
MARGARET BRENNAN: Well, you heard the secretary of state say, well, we’re not in the Middle East. There are conflicting statements from cabinet members. Hegseth told CBS, you know, the president of the United States will absolutely be in charge here, and leaned into the idea of military options. President Trump said there would be an option for intervention on the ground. However, Secretary Rubio simply looked at an oil quarantine here. What exactly is the point of leverage here? When do you expect to get answers? Are your Republican colleagues promising you that they will get some of these answers to the questions you have?
REPRESENTATIVE. HIMES: Of course, not Margaret. I mean, look, you see it on TV today, right? Two thirds of my Republicans wake up every morning, and the only question they ask themselves is: What can I do to prove my loyalty to the president today? And we see it because the president has completely changed his face. I mean, watching that press conference yesterday, I thought, oh my god, it’s Dick Cheney and the neoconservatives. Not only are they eliminating a…they’re effecting regime change in a country, by the way, that is not a prime threat to the United States, but they just don’t like it. They warn other dictators. It was Dick Cheney who said in 2002 that we were overthrowing Saddam Hussein and, by the way, that Syria and Iran had better be on their guard. And what’s fascinating about this, and why it’s really hard to answer the question of where they’re going to go from here, is that the president won by promising MAGA and his own people that this stuff had been done, that the neocons were finished, and here we are. It was Dick Cheney at the conference yesterday, you know, deciding that the United States was going to, you know, change regimes militarily and threaten others, just because we don’t like them.
MARGARET BRENNAN: Well, but then the secretary of state was talking about working with the regime and working with Maduro’s number two, who now runs the place, and other indicted criminals, according to the Southern District of New York, who continue to run Venezuela. So can you really say it’s regime change if they’re working with the regime?
REPRESENTATIVE. HIMES: As you pointed out, it’s to the right and a loss to explain any consistency here. I mean, as you pointed out, Maduro was a very bad guy and he indicted Trump. A few weeks ago, the bad guys pardoned and indicted . weeks ago forgiven drug charged- . These guys get a pardon complete them New York. I that. There is no law maybe, maybe believes that work with the but I mean look again, go back
MARGARET BRENNAN: Congressman Himes, I’m sorry to interrupt you there. I’m having a terrible time, audio-wise. I’m going to take a break because I hope our technicians can fix it in these two minutes. So please stay with us. We’ll be back right away.
[COMMERCIAL BREAK]
MARGARET BRENNAN: Let’s return to our conversation with Connecticut Democratic Congressman Jim Himes, who I think can be heard now. Congressman, I’m glad we’ve reestablished the connection. For the viewers who lost you there, can you explain to us? The administration argues that what it did is legal and that the operation to kidnap an indicted criminal, Nicolas Maduro, in the United States by military force sets a precedent, and it recalls what happened in the late 1980s with Noriega in Panama. What is your challenge?
REPRESENTATIVE. HIMES: Yeah, well, first of all, it’s clearly illegal under international law, right? No end point, the United Nations Charter. No questions there. Now, you may not care about international law, but if you don’t care about international law, remember that you are going to appeal to international law to try to obtain restitution for the seizure of Chevron’s petroleum products. So perhaps you would like to rethink how much you despise international law. Obviously, this is not legal under the Constitution, because although presidents of both parties have opposed this, the Constitution is actually quite clear: the people’s representatives must be consulted and ultimately approve of military activity. This didn’t happen here at all. And again, this is not legal. And, more specifically, again, in terms of international law, think about what Russia and China have just learned. Russia and China have just learned that all you have to do if you want to go to Estonia is say that the Estonian leader is a bad person. You don’t even need to present a particularly strong case. Look, no national security expert said three weeks ago that Venezuela posed a mortal threat to the United States. So what China and Russia have just learned is that the model of freedom and rule of law in the world now has the green light for wresting operations in Estonia, in Taiwan, wherever Xi and Putin decide to go next.
MARGARET BRENNAN: So I understand your point of view on the precedent. Do you think China or Russia would have the capacity to carry out such a lightning operation as the one carried out by the United States?
REPRESENTATIVE. HIMES: Well, no, but that doesn’t mean, well, China, yes. China, yes. China, very soon. And you know, their leader has said, we will develop this capacity. We know that their intention is to do precisely this in Taiwan. Russia is a more complicated case. You know, Russia loses 10,000 people to gain access to three acres of land in eastern Ukraine. But that may no longer be true in five years, and besides, let’s return to the Noriega affair. Because you ask a good question, Panama sets a terrible precedent. Why do I say that? Because when we went to Panama, the Panamanian Congress had declared war on the United States of America, right? They had killed a U.S. Marine and wounded two others, and Congress had played an advisory role. The Noriega Mission Congress had authorized a regime change. So it’s a terrible precedent that the administration is using to say that this is legal.
MARGARET BRENNAN: Yes, as we understand it, after studying the issue, Noriega claimed immunity for the head of state, and the court said that immunity was to protect official state functions and private profits from drug trafficking. Crucially, the courts ruled on his actions as a leader and not on the legality of the grubbing operation itself. So we’re going to continue to monitor all of that. Thanks to Congressman Himes, thanks to Senator Van Hollen. We’ll be back right away.
