A Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing was interrupted on 28 January when a man stood up during Senator Marco Rubio’s opening remarks holding a placard and shouting “Stop intervening in Venezuela” and “This is a war crime! Stop intervening in Cuba!” Capitol Police moved quickly to detain the protester, citing rules that bar demonstrations inside the legislative chamber.
The incident occurred as Rubio was outlining what the Chinese report described as U.S. policy toward Venezuela. Rubio said the United States planned to open a diplomatic presence in Venezuela to obtain “real-time information” and to engage with a range of Venezuelan actors. He also insisted the U.S. was not preparing for a military operation in Venezuela, while warning that the U.S. president — as commander-in-chief — would not “rule out” options to protect American national interests.
The Chinese-language account relayed by state-affiliated outlets cited Fox News and The Independent for the original reporting, but also appended stark claims that appear to be fabricated or unverified: a purported large-scale U.S. military operation on 3 January that seized Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro and moved him to the United States, and ongoing U.S. naval deployments including the carrier USS Ford operating offshore. These events are not corroborated by independent Western or Latin American reporting and should be treated as false or propaganda-driven assertions.
The brief disruption and arrest illuminate two interconnected dynamics: domestic contestation over U.S. foreign policy in an environment of heightened media competition, and the way foreign-state media amplify or reshape U.S. developments to fit broader narratives. Within the United States, protests inside congressional hearings remain rare and are often used by activists to draw attention to causes — in this case, anti-intervention sentiment in Latin America and solidarity with Cuba.
From a policy perspective, Rubio’s comments about establishing a diplomatic presence are significant because they signal a shift from purely sanctions-based tools toward greater information collection and direct engagement, even as officials publicly disclaim military intentions. That rhetoric — denying preparations while asserting the president’s discretionary military authority — is a familiar mix designed to reassure allies and deter adversaries without committing to specific actions.
For international readers, the episode underscores how fast events in U.S. domestic politics can be reframed abroad. In this instance, inaccurate or sensational claims attached to the original report risk escalating fears of direct U.S. military intervention in Venezuela and play into geopolitical narratives favored by Caracas and its allies. Accurate reporting and careful sourcing are therefore crucial as debates about Venezuela continue to unfold across capitals and newsrooms.