Rubio Testifies He Was Unaware of Alleged Venezuela Lobbying in Federal Trial of Former Congressman

BY EMMANUEL OGBONNA

U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio told a federal court that he had no knowledge his longtime associate, former congressman David Rivera, was allegedly lobbying on behalf of Venezuela’s government when the two met repeatedly in the early months of the first Trump administration to discuss U.S. policy toward the South American nation.

Speaking for nearly three hours under oath in a Miami courtroom, Rubio said he would have been “shocked” had he known Rivera was engaged in such activities. His testimony forms a central part of a closely watched trial examining whether Rivera and a co-defendant violated federal law by secretly representing foreign interests while attempting to influence U.S. policy.

Rivera was charged in 2022 alongside political consultant Esther Nuhfer with money laundering and failing to register as a foreign agent. Prosecutors allege the pair secured a $50 million contract tied to the government of Venezuelan leader Nicolás Maduro and sought to persuade U.S. officials to normalize relations with Caracas.

The defense has pushed back strongly, arguing that the contract was short-lived and focused narrowly on commercial objectives—specifically, efforts to encourage ExxonMobil to re-enter Venezuela’s energy sector. Such work, Rivera’s attorneys contend, would not necessarily fall under the disclosure requirements of the Foreign Agents Registration Act.

During his testimony, Rubio described a longstanding personal and political relationship with Rivera, dating back to their early careers in Florida politics. The two Cuban-American Republicans served together in the state legislature, shared a residence in Tallahassee, and maintained close ties as their careers advanced to Washington—Rubio to the Senate and Rivera to the House of Representatives.

Rubio recounted that in July 2017, Rivera contacted him urgently seeking a meeting to discuss developments in Venezuela. The two met the following day at a private residence in Washington, where Rivera outlined what he described as a potential plan involving Venezuelan media figure Raúl Gorrín aimed at facilitating the possible departure of Maduro from power.

Rubio testified that he approached the proposal with skepticism, citing what he described as a pattern of unreliable overtures from figures connected to the Venezuelan government. Nonetheless, he said he remained open to the possibility, however remote, that the plan could represent a genuine opportunity to influence political change.

“If there was even a small chance it was legitimate, I believed it was worth informing the appropriate authorities,” Rubio told the court.

At no point during the discussions, Rubio said, was he made aware of any arrangement in which Rivera was acting on behalf of the Maduro government. He recalled being shown financial figures on a laptop during the meeting—millions of dollars that he was told were intended to support Venezuela’s opposition—but said he was not informed of the account’s ownership.

In the days that followed, Rubio incorporated language provided by Rivera into remarks delivered on the Senate floor, signaling that the United States would not retaliate against Venezuelan insiders who might assist in efforts to remove Maduro from power. Rubio said the phrasing was intended to reassure potential defectors within the regime.

He also communicated directly with Donald Trump, then in his first term, to flag what he described as potential developments involving Venezuela.

However, Rubio testified that the initiative quickly unraveled. At a subsequent meeting in a Washington hotel, Gorrín failed to produce a promised letter from Maduro addressed to Trump—an omission Rubio described as a turning point that led him to dismiss the effort entirely.

“It was a total waste of my time,” Rubio said, characterizing the episode as another in a series of unsuccessful attempts to broker political change in Venezuela.

Shortly thereafter, the Trump administration adopted a more aggressive posture, imposing sweeping sanctions on Maduro and key figures in his government following a controversial election widely criticized by the international community.

Rubio aligned himself closely with that policy, even delivering a televised address directed at the Venezuelan public that aired on a network associated with Gorrín. In court, Rubio stated that he would not have participated in that broadcast had he known of any alleged ties between Rivera and the Maduro government.

Rivera, in response to Rubio’s testimony, argued that it supports his defense. In a statement, he maintained that all of his efforts were aimed at weakening Maduro’s hold on power, not strengthening it.

The proceedings have drawn attention not only for the allegations themselves but also for Rubio’s role as a high-ranking government official taking the witness stand. Such appearances are rare; legal observers note that it has been decades since a sitting Cabinet member testified in a criminal trial.

Throughout his testimony, Rubio presented a detailed account of U.S. policy toward Venezuela, demonstrating familiarity with diplomatic and political developments over the past decade. At the same time, he acknowledged difficulty recalling certain specifics, including the precise contents of text message exchanges with Rivera.

The trial continues as prosecutors seek to establish that Rivera knowingly engaged in undisclosed lobbying on behalf of a foreign government, while the defense argues his actions were consistent with long-held opposition to Venezuela’s leadership and fell within legal bounds.