In a stunning and unprecedented move, the United States has seized Venezuela’s President Nicolás Maduro in a nighttime operation in Caracas, raising immediate questions about who will govern the South American nation of nearly 30 million people. According to former President Donald Trump, the answer is not Venezuela’s democratic opposition, but the U.S. government itself, working alongside the country’s vice president, Delcy Rodríguez.
Speaking at a news conference at his Florida estate, Trump asserted that Washington would “run the country until such time as we can do a safe, proper and judicious transition.” He added that American companies would benefit from Venezuela’s vast oil reserves, which are the largest proven reserves in the world, following the operation.
Trump offered few specifics on how the U.S. would exercise control in a country where the American embassy remains shuttered and no ground troops are known to be deployed. He did, however, indicate that key U.S. officials, including Secretary of State Marco Rubio and senior military leaders, would play a central role in overseeing governance.
Rubio, a long-standing critic of Latin America’s leftist movements, has previously questioned Maduro’s legitimacy, citing elections widely regarded by international observers as fraudulent. Yet, hours after Maduro’s capture, Trump downplayed the prospects of Maria Corina Machado, a prominent opposition figure and Nobel Peace Prize laureate, as a potential leader.
“I think it would be very tough for her to be the leader,” Trump said. “She doesn’t have the support within or the respect within the country. She’s a very nice woman, but she doesn’t have the respect.”
Instead, Trump indicated that Rubio had contacted Vice President Delcy Rodríguez, a close ally of Maduro and the late Hugo Chávez. According to Trump, Rodríguez “is essentially willing to do what we think is necessary to make Venezuela great again. Very simple.”
However, Rodríguez quickly contradicted this narrative. In a televised address, she reaffirmed Maduro as the sole legitimate president and demanded his return, highlighting the deep uncertainty surrounding Venezuela’s immediate political future.
The U.S. move has left many of its allies scrambling to respond. While French President Emmanuel Macron welcomed the end of what he called “Maduro’s dictatorship,” he emphasized that the democratic will of Venezuelans remains represented by opposition figures such as Edmundo Gonzalez Urrutia, a Machado ally widely recognized internationally as the legitimate winner of the 2024 elections.
Former U.S. diplomat Kevin Whitaker, who spent years dealing with Venezuela, expressed alarm at the Trump administration’s stance. “This seems to be a case where the United States, at least by appearance, is making decisions about the democratic future of Venezuela without referring back to the democratic result,” he said, now speaking from his position at the Atlantic Council think tank.
Under the Venezuelan constitution, Rodríguez would be required to call new elections to legitimize her authority. Analysts, however, caution that her willingness to cede power remains untested. Iria Puyosa, a Venezuelan scholar at the Atlantic Council, suggested that while Rodríguez’s elevation may improve relations with the United States, it “may not be a significant change for Venezuelans” in terms of governance or day-to-day life.
For decades, Maduro and Chávez openly defied the United States, denouncing Washington as imperialist while pursuing a socialist economic model that ultimately led to widespread shortages, hyperinflation, and the migration of millions of Venezuelans. The latest U.S. intervention, especially with explicit economic incentives for American companies, has reignited fears of modern-day imperialism among critics.
Democratic lawmakers in the U.S. voiced strong opposition. Senator Brian Schatz condemned the operation, calling it a “throwback to imperialism at its most egregious.” He added, “The United States should not be running other countries for any reason. We should have learned by now not to get involved in endless wars and regime change missions that carry catastrophic consequences for Americans.”
The seizure of Maduro also raises pressing logistical questions. Caracas, the capital, is a sprawling city with a complex security environment. How the U.S. intends to maintain order and manage essential services in the absence of a functioning embassy or established occupation force remains unclear.
Furthermore, the operation complicates an already fractious political landscape. Venezuela’s opposition, which had previously gained international recognition for its democratic legitimacy, now faces an uncertain future. Machado herself celebrated the operation as “the hour of freedom,” yet she has reportedly had no direct contact with U.S. officials regarding governance plans.
Economic interests loom large in Washington’s approach. Venezuela’s oil, long coveted by global powers, is central to the Trump administration’s plans. The explicit promise of American corporate involvement in extracting and profiting from these resources has drawn swift criticism and raises the specter of foreign exploitation in a country already reeling from decades of mismanagement.
As international reactions unfold and Venezuelans face an uncertain political reality, one fact is clear: the U.S. seizure of Maduro has upended the country’s political order, and the path to a legitimate, democratic transition remains deeply uncertain. For now, the world watches as Washington and Rodríguez navigate an unprecedented, high-stakes experiment in foreign administration.
