“Rick Scott and Lindsey Graham ramped up threats of invasion against Venezuela and invoked the Monroe Doctrine to justify U.S. intervention.”
This fact-check may be outdated. Consider refreshing it to get the most current information.
Executive summary
Both Sen. Rick Scott and Sen. Lindsey Graham publicly pushed for tougher U.S. action against Nicolás Maduro’s Venezuela, including language that supported or did not rule out military options, and both and their allies explicitly framed the situation in hemispheric terms invoking or echoing the Monroe Doctrine [1] [2] [3]. Reporting shows a mix of forceful rhetoric, policy pressure, and public statements about briefings and potential expansion of military activity, but the record does not show a single formal congressional declaration authorizing invasion led by those senators [4] [5].
1. Public rhetoric that escalated toward threats of force
Sen. Rick Scott said “This is our chance to get Maduro out, and we’ve got to do it. We’ve got to do everything we can,” language that outlets characterized as part of a broader cohort of Republican “war hawks” agitating for more forceful measures against Venezuela [1]. Lindsey Graham publicly signaled support for expanding military options, telling outlets he backs briefings on possible shifts “from the sea to the land” and praising the administration’s use of military pressure, statements that outlets reported as explicit backing for possible kinetic action [4] [5]. Multiple outlets, including Military.com and VICE, framed those comments as a marked escalation in tone from some congressional Republicans and linked them to an administration already using military means in the region [1] [4].
2. Monroe Doctrine invoked or echoed as a justification
Both senators and allied officials have referenced the Monroe Doctrine or its logic when describing Venezuela as within U.S. strategic interest: Jim Risch told VICE “The Monroe Doctrine is alive and well,” and Scott has explicitly described Venezuela as a 21st‑century test of whether the Monroe Doctrine still applies [1] [2]. Scott’s office and past statements accuse foreign actors like Russia and Cuba of using Venezuela as a “foothold” and cite Monroe‑Doctrine style language to justify pushback [3] [2]. The invocation appears rhetorically aimed at framing Venezuela as part of the U.S. hemisphere rather than as a purely internal Latin American matter [1] [3].
3. Concrete actions, policy tools and limits of the record
Beyond rhetoric, Scott has sponsored sanctions‑oriented legislation and advocacy — for instance, bills to keep sanctions on Maduro and to deny visas to allied officials — which reflect tools short of outright invasion that he has pursued to pressure Caracas [6]. Graham and Scott’s public statements and calls for briefings coincided with administration military moves and congressional interest in updates, but the available reporting documents statements of support for potential expansion of force rather than a completed congressional authorization or an executed large‑scale invasion ordered by those senators [4] [5]. The record shows advocacy and alignment with executive action, not unilateral power to invade.
4. Dissenting takes, regional pushback and possible agendas
Critics and regional governments view the rhetoric as a revival of interventionist policy and warn it mirrors classical Monroe Doctrine interventionism; Cuban and left‑leaning outlets described U.S. posture as a renewed imperial dominance scheme and accused U.S. actors of using drug‑war and democracy frames to justify intervention [7] [8]. Some commentators question whether senators’ threats aim primarily to pressure the Maduro regime or to appeal to domestic constituencies — especially Florida’s Venezuelan and Cuban exile communities — and pressuring the administration toward harder measures aligns with those political incentives [6] [2]. Reporting also includes caution that dramatic pronouncements can be “scare tactics” meant to coerce without necessarily signaling imminent invasion [8].
5. Bottom line: escalation in rhetoric; mixed record on actual steps toward invasion
The evidence supports the claim that Rick Scott and Lindsey Graham ramped up forceful rhetoric and openly supported military options against Venezuela while invoking Monroe Doctrine‑style reasoning [1] [2] [3]. However, reporting shows those moves were part of a broader policy push combining sanctions, diplomatic pressure and public exhortation rather than documenting a direct, sole or immediate congressional or senatorial decision to launch an invasion — the floor of action remained with the executive branch and with the unresolved question of formal congressional authorization [4] [5]. Where sources disagree is in motive and immediacy: allies frame the rhetoric as needed hemispheric defense, critics as interventionist brinkmanship, and some analysts caution the statements may be strategic posturing rather than a literal invasion blueprint [7] [8].