Which US senators have disclosed gifts or payments linked to Venezuela in the last 10 years?

1. What the records and reporting actually show — legislation and sanctions, not senator payment disclosures

Most of the material in the search results concerns senators’ public actions on Venezuela: introducing bills (VALOR Act sponsors including Michael Bennet, Jim Risch, John Barrasso, Rick Scott, Bill Cassidy, Dan Sullivan, Pete Ricketts), proposing sanctions or asset-use legislation (Sen. Ted Cruz, Rick Scott, Marco Rubio cited), and pushing war‑powers and funding measures (Tim Kaine, Jeff Merkley, Chuck Schumer, Adam Schiff) — not disclosures of personal gifts or payments from Venezuelan sources ^{[4] [5] [6] [2] [3]}.

2. The one case that hints at a senator but stops short — David Rivera’s indictment

NPR’s reporting on the 2022 Rivera indictment describes a $50 million contract and alleges Rivera communicated with U.S. officials; prosecutors’ documents refer to an unnamed “U.S. Senator 1” in Florida but do not identify a specific senator by name in the public reporting cited here ^[1]. That means current sources link the criminal case to meetings and unnamed congressional contacts but do not document a named senator’s public financial disclosure of Venezuelan-linked payments ^[1].

3. Where journalists and public records would show disclosures — and what’s missing here

Federal disclosure rules and public reporting usually surface when an elected official receives reportable gifts, payments, or consulting fees tied to foreign actors; none of the supplied sources present a senator’s personal financial-disclosure entry showing payments from Venezuela or Venezuelan entities in the last decade. Available sources do not mention a named U.S. senator filing a disclosure of Venezuelan-linked gifts or payments (not found in current reporting).

4. Alternative explanations and competing interpretations in the reporting

The available sources portray two different patterns that can be conflated in public debate: (a) private operatives or former officials contracting with Venezuelan entities (the Rivera case) and (b) sitting senators legislating, sanctioning, or criticizing Venezuela (VALOR Act sponsors; sanctions and aid bills). Reporting clearly separates private lobbying and criminal allegations from congressional sponsorship of Venezuela-related policy; conflating them risks implying official disclosure violations that the sources do not establish ^{[1] [2] [4]}.

5. What to look for next — records and reporting that would answer your question definitively

To answer definitively you need: the senator’s public financial-disclosure reports (OGE Form 278e or Senate equivalents) showing a payment or gift tied to a Venezuelan source; court or DOJ filings that name a senator in connection with Venezuela-linked payments; or investigative reporting that names a senator and cites documentation. None of those appear in the provided search results; available sources do not mention any senator’s disclosure of Venezuelan-linked gifts or payments (not found in current reporting) ^[1].

6. Implicit agendas and why this distinction matters

Sources emphasize national-security posture and legislative responses to Venezuela (e.g., bills to use seized Venezuelan assets for humanitarian or democracy programs) and political positioning around potential U.S. strikes — narratives that can motivate claims of improper influence. The Rivera indictment and prosecution of private lobbyists draws attention but does not equate to proven payments to named sitting senators in the materials supplied; readers and researchers should be cautious about inferring culpability from association unless primary documents or named-source reporting confirm it ^{[1] [6] [7]}.

Limitations: this analysis uses only the search results you supplied; if there are other investigations, disclosures, or documents naming a specific senator, they are not included here and therefore not reflected in this report.