Secretary of State Marco Rubio testified in federal court Tuesday in the criminal trial of former Florida Congressman David Rivera, who stands accused of secretly lobbying on behalf of the Venezuelan government of Nicolás Maduro. Rubio appeared as a witness, not a subject, and delivered testimony that painted a picture of a former colleague who came to him with grandiose claims about regime change in Caracas that ultimately went nowhere.
Rivera and his codefendant, political adviser Esther Nuhfer, were indicted in 2022 by a grand jury in the Southern District of Florida on charges of money laundering and failure to register as foreign agents. Prosecutors allege the pair entered into a $50 million contract to secretly lobby for Maduro and his then-foreign minister Delcy Rodríguez over a three-month period in 2017.
Rivera left Congress in 2013. What he did next, according to federal prosecutors, was far worse than anything he accomplished while in it.
Prosecutor Roger Cruz did not mince words in his opening statement:
This case is about two things: greed and betrayal. The evidence will show that for $50 million these two defendants made a pact to secretly lobby for Nicolás Maduro, the communist director, and his second-in-command Delcy Rodríguez.
The core of the government's case is straightforward, CBS News reported. Federal law requires anyone lobbying on behalf of a foreign government to register as a foreign agent. Rivera and Nuhfer allegedly never did. Instead, prosecutors argue, they leveraged Rivera's political connections, including his long relationship with Rubio, to carry water for Maduro's regime while concealing who was actually paying the bills.
Rubio's testimony offered the jury a window into how that alleged scheme played out in practice.
Rubio described receiving an urgent call from Rivera in July 2017 and agreeing to meet him in Washington in "less than 24 hours." Rivera, according to Rubio, came bearing dramatic claims.
David said there were insiders in the regime in Venezuela… who had convinced Maduro to step aside.
Rubio told the court he was not persuaded. He testified that he was "skeptical that it was true," explaining that over the years he'd dealt with "double dealers who were constantly making these claims." He said he "questioned whether this was real and whether it was worth my time."
That first meeting lasted about two hours. During it, Rivera allegedly "showed me a bunch of money," according to Rubio. The Secretary of State described taking Rivera's claims as "a data point" rather than anything actionable, but said Rivera "told me it had to be me" who brought the information forward.
Rubio testified that he contacted the White House and "briefly spoke to the president" the next morning, telling him "there might be something going on in Venezuela." That was the extent of it.
The most important part of Rubio's testimony may be what he said he was never told. He testified that had he known Rivera was representing a foreign entity, the entire dynamic would have been different:
"It would have been of interest to me because I would have known…. He was representing an entity."
He went further, stating plainly that he "would not have taken any subsequent action on this matter" had he known the truth. This is the hinge of the case from Rubio's perspective. He was, by his own account, used. Rivera allegedly exploited a personal relationship to gain access to one of the most powerful voices on Venezuela policy in Washington without disclosing who was pulling the strings.
A second meeting between the two men apparently confirmed Rubio's suspicions that something was off. He described it as a "total waste of my time" that "didn't last very long," adding bluntly, "I didn't understand frankly why we had to meet." By the end of it, he said he was "frankly angry" and that "it just didn't make any sense."
Defense attorney Ed Shohat offered the jury a different frame entirely. He argued that whatever Rivera was doing, it produced no policy results and therefore amounted to nothing criminal:
"This is like a murder case without a murder, a drugs case without drugs, a kidnapping case without a kidnapping."
Shohat contended that Rivera influenced "not one single policy" through his alleged activities. It's a bold argument, essentially conceding the meetings happened while insisting they were meaningless. Whether a jury finds that persuasive is another matter. The law requiring foreign agent registration does not include a "but nothing came of it" exception. You register or you don't. Rivera allegedly didn't.
This trial lands at a moment when Venezuela policy carries more weight than usual. Maduro has reportedly been removed from power and brought to the United States for prosecution on charges including narco-terrorism conspiracy. Delcy Rodríguez, the other Venezuelan official prosecutors say Rivera and Nuhfer were lobbying for, now serves as interim president.
Rubio himself has lived with the consequences of his hawkish stance on the Maduro regime. His testimony revealed that Capitol police provided him a protection detail for over a year, a detail connected to an alleged assassination contract linked to Diosdado Cabello, a figure associated with the so-called Cartel of the Suns.
The man who allegedly tried to use Rubio as an unwitting channel to the White House on behalf of a narco-terrorist dictator was, until 2013, a member of the United States Congress. That fact alone tells you something about the kind of rot that foreign lobbying laws are designed to prevent.
Rubio made his position clear under oath. He described Rivera as "someone I've known for a very long time" but drew a hard line:
"He's someone I've known for a very long time. We've worked closely but not on this. And there's not a single person claiming otherwise."
The Secretary of State walked into a federal courtroom, testified against a former ally, and did so without hedging. That is not the behavior of someone with something to hide. It is the behavior of someone who got played and is willing to say so under oath.
The question for the jury is simpler than the defense wants to make it. Did David Rivera secretly lobby for a hostile foreign government without registering? If the answer is yes, the fact that he failed at it doesn't make it legal. It just makes it pathetic.
