Transcript: Rep. Jim Himes on “Face the Nation with Margaret Brennan,” Jan. 4, 2026

The following is the transcript of the interview with Rep. Jim Himes, Democrat of Connecticut, aired on “Face the Nation with Margaret Brennan” on Jan. 4, 2026.

---

MARGARET BRENNAN: We now turn to Connecticut Congressman Jim Himes. He’s the top Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, and he’s joining us this morning from Greenwich. Congressman Himes, you are part of that “Gang of Eight,” which means that information about this secret operation is legally intended to be shared with you as part of this very small group, given that and what you should know, can you explain clearly what the United States is doing?

REP. JIM HIMES: Yes, in a way, I was glad to hear that Tom Cotton, the chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, has been in constant communication with the administration. I never reached. And no Democrat I know has gotten anywhere. So obviously, we’re now in a world where the legal obligation to keep Congress informed only applies, to your party, which it really is. But yes, no, look, I know exactly where we are, Margaret. We are in a happy moment to admit that Maduro was a bad guy and that our soldiers are amazing. This is the same joy we felt in 2002 when our troops took down the Taliban in Afghanistan. In 2003 when our troops removed Saddam Hussein, and in 2011 when we helped remove Muammar Gaddafi from power in Libya. These were very bad people, by the way, worse than Venezuela’s Maduro, who was never a major national security threat to the United States. But we are in that euphoria phase, and what we learned the day after the euphoria phase is that it is much easier to break the country than to actually do what the president promised to do, which is to run it. And so, let’s let our fellow Republicans enjoy their day of happiness, but they will wake up tomorrow morning, knowing, oh my God, there is no plan here like there was in Afghanistan, Iraq or Libya.

MARGARET BRENNAN: Well, you heard the secretary of state say, this is not the Middle East. There are conflicting statements by members of the cabinet. Hegseth told CBS, you know, the president of the United States is going to be in charge here, and he leaned into the idea of ​​military options. President Trump said there would be a boots-on-the-ground option. Secretary Rubio, however, simply leaned on the oil embargo here. What- what exactly is the point of using force here? When do you expect to get answers? Are your Republican colleagues promising to get some of these answers to your questions?

REP. HIMES: Yes, not Margaret. I mean, look, you see it on TV today, right? Two-thirds of my Republicans they wake up every morning, the only question they have is, what can I do to show my loyalty to the president today? And we see this because the president has completely changed who he was. I mean, as I watched that news conference yesterday, I thought, oh my god, this is Dick Cheney and the neocons. It’s not just that they’re out- they’re doing regime change in the country, by the way, not a Tier 1 threat to the United States, but what they don’t like. They warned other dictators. This is Dick Cheney in 2002 saying we’re taking down Saddam Hussein and, by the way, Syria and Iran better watch out. And the interesting thing about that, 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 people that this kind of thing is done, that the neocons are gone, and here we are. That was Dick Cheney in a conference yesterday, you know, deciding that the United States is going to militarily change regimes and threaten others, just because we don’t like it.

MARGARET BRENNAN: Well, but then the secretary of state was talking about working with the regime and working with Maduro’s number two, who is now in charge of the area, and other indicted criminals, according to the Southern District of New York who continue to run Venezuela. Can you really say that the regime change if they cooperate with the regime?

REP. HIMES: As you said, of course right again at a loss to explain any consensus here. I mean, as you pointed out that Maduro was a very bad person and blamed Trump. In the past weeks, wrongs were forgiven and blamed . A few weeks ago you are forgiven drug accused- . These guys got amnesty full see New York. I that. There is no law maybe, maybe you believe that work with but, I mean, look again, go back

MARGARET BRENNAN: Congressman Himes, I’m sorry to interrupt you here. I’m having a terrible time, sound wise. I’m going to take a break because I hope our technicians can fix it in those two minutes. So please stay with us. We will be right back.

[COMMERCIAL BREAK]

MARGARET BRENNAN: Back to our conversation with Connecticut Democratic Congressman Jim Himes, which I think can be heard now. Congressman, I’m glad the link is back. For those viewers who lost you there, can you explain? The administration argued that what they did was legal, and that the seizure and seizure of a convicted criminal, Nicolas Maduro, to the United States by military force had precedent, and pointed back to what happened in the late 80s with Noriega in Panama. What is your challenge to that?

REP. HIMES: Well, first of all, it’s illegal under international law, right? There is no stop, the UN Charter. No question there. Now you may not care about international law, but if you don’t care about international law, remember, you will be appealing to international law to try to get restitution for the confiscation of Chevron’s oil assets. So maybe you want to rethink how much contempt you show for international law. Obviously, not legally under the Constitution because although the Presidents of both parties have argued against this, the Constitution is very clear that the representatives of the people must be consulted and ultimately approve military action. That has not happened here at all. And, so again, there is nothing official about this. And, more to the point, and, under the point of international law, think about what Russia and China have just learned. Russia and China have just learned that all you need to do if you want to enter Estonia is that the Estonian leader is a bad person. You don’t even need to make a very good case. Look, no national security expert is saying Venezuela was a serious threat to the United States three weeks ago. So what China and Russia have just learned is that the beacon of freedom and rule of law in the world now has bright and shining rapturous activities in Estonia, Taiwan, wherever Xi and Putin decide they want to go next.

MARGARET BRENNAN: So I take your point about the precedent there. Do you think that China or Russia would have the power to make the kind of lightning that the United States does?

REP. HIMES: No, but that doesn’t mean, China, yes. China, yes. China, soon. And you know, their leader said, we will develop this skill. We know that their intention is to do this in Taiwan. Russia is a very complicated case. It’s, you know, Russia loses 10,000 people to get, you know, three acres of land in eastern Ukraine. But that may not be true five years from now, and by the way, back to Noriega’s case. Because you ask a good question there, Panama is a bad precedent. What do I mean by that? Because when we entered Panama, the Congress of Panama had declared war on the United States of America, right? They killed a United States Marine and wounded two others, and Congress had been a mediator. Congress in Noriega’s mission, had approved the change of regime. So it is a bad example that the administration is using to say that this is legal.

MARGARET BRENNAN: Yes, as we understand it, because we looked at this, Noriega said he was the head of state, and the court said that immunity was designed to protect the official functions of the government and to make private profits from the drug trade. In fact, the courts were deciding on his actions as a leader and not on the legality of the extortion and extortion itself. So we will continue to track all of this. Thank you Congressman Himes, thank you Senator Van Hollen. We’ll be right back.