Yves here. As we highlight in our upcoming Links, Trump’s claims regarding the U.S. handling and trading of Venezuelan oil are already showing cracks. Exxon’s CEO recently labeled Venezuela “uninvestible.” Despite this, the U.S. continues its blockade and has seized a fifth oil tanker, presenting the Biden Administration with tools to further pressure Venezuela.
Douglas Macgregor predicts that soon, the Administration will come to realize the complexity of the situation in Venezuela and will shift its focus away, possibly targeting countries like Iran or even Greenland. Given the volatile nature of U.S. foreign policy, we can only hope for a quiet withdrawal from its efforts to control Venezuela.
By Medea Benjamin, co-founder of Global Exchange and CODEPINK: Women for Peace, and co-author with Nicolas J.S. Davies of War in Ukraine: Making Sense of a Senseless Conflict; and Nicolas J. S. Davies, an independent journalist and author of Blood On Our Hands: The American Invasion and Destruction of Iraq.
On January 8th, as the Senate moved forward with a War Powers Resolution concerning Venezuela, Republican Senator Susan Collins expressed her disapproval of ongoing U.S. involvement in Venezuela.
The global community was taken aback when President Donald Trump first proclaimed the U.S. intention to “run” Venezuela. He subsequently clarified that his aim is to exercise control over Venezuelan oil sales, effectively establishing a U.S. monopoly that would enforce a subservient relationship between the Venezuelan government and the U.S.
The U.S. Energy Department has proposed a plan to market Venezuelan oil already seized, setting a precedent for future exports. This framework would enable the U.S. to determine revenue distribution between itself and Venezuela indefinitely. Trump is expected to meet with U.S. oil executives on January 9th to discuss this initiative.
Trump’s strategy aims to sever Venezuela’s trade relations with China, Russia, Iran, and other nations, mandating that oil revenues be spent on U.S. goods and services. This form of economic colonialism jeopardizes Venezuela’s social spending initiatives, which have successfully alleviated poverty for millions.
Nevertheless, as reported by the New York Times on January 7th, Venezuela appears to have alternative plans. The country’s state oil firm, Petróleos de Venezuela, announced that it is negotiating the “sale” of crude oil to the U.S. under arrangements similar to ones with international firms like Chevron, indicating a strictly commercial approach.
Trump has threatened further military action against acting president Delcy Rodriguez if she does not align with U.S. expectations for Venezuela. However, he has recognized the need to cooperate with Rodriguez, accepting that Maria Corina Machado, previously favored by the U.S., lacks popular support within Venezuela. Rodriguez’s presidency highlights the shortcomings of Trump’s regime change ambitions and his hesitance to engage in yet another unwinnable conflict.
After the U.S. abduction of President Maduro on January 3rd, Delcy Rodriguez took the oath as Acting President, affirming her allegiance to Maduro and stepping into his role in his absence. But just who is Delcy Rodriguez, and how might she govern Venezuela? Will she act as a U.S. puppet or as a leader of a resilient and autonomous Venezuela?
Delcy was just seven when her father, Jorge Antonio Rodriguez, a co-founder of the Socialist League, was killed as a political prisoner. The Venezuelan government, suspecting him of being involved in a kidnapping related to a CIA officer, arrested him. He died in detention, with authorities attributing his death to a heart attack, though an autopsy revealed signs of severe torture.
Delcy pursued a law degree in Caracas and Paris, ultimately becoming a labor lawyer, while her brother Jorge became a psychiatrist. During the failed U.S.-backed coup in Venezuela in 2003, they were in London, where they denounced the incident from the Venezuelan embassy in discussions with BBC and CNN reporters.
Both Rodriguez siblings later joined Hugo Chavez’s Bolivarian government, with Delcy climbing to high-ranking positions under both Chavez and Maduro. She held posts such as Minister of Foreign Affairs and Minister of Economy and Finance, among others; Jorge served as Vice President under Chavez and as the Mayor of Caracas for eight years.
On January 5th, 2026, it was Jorge, now president of the National Assembly, who swore in Delcy as acting president, following the unlawful U.S. invasion and capture of President Maduro. In her oath, she stated,
I come as the executive vice president of the constitutional president of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, Nicolas Maduro Moros, to take the oath of office. I come with pain for the suffering caused to our Venezuelan people by an illegitimate military aggression against our homeland. I also come with the honor to swear in the name of all Venezuelans, invoking our liberator Simon Bolivar.
In public addresses, acting president Rodriguez has emphasized Venezuela’s independence while showing a willingness to engage in peaceful cooperation with the United States.
On January 3rd, she asserted that Venezuela would “never again be anyone’s colony.” Yet, following her first cabinet meeting, she expressed interest in pursuing a “balanced and respectful” relationship with the U.S. and invited cooperation within the framework of international law.
In a direct message to Trump, Rodriguez stated, “Our peoples and our region deserve peace and dialogue, not war. This is the vision shared by President Nicolás Maduro and embraced by all Venezuelans. My aspiration is for Venezuela to become a great power where all decent Venezuelans unite. Venezuela has the right to peace, development, sovereignty, and a bright future.”
Alan McPherson, chair of the Center for the Study of Force and Diplomacy at Temple University, describes Delcy Rodriguez as “a pragmatist who has helped stabilize the Venezuelan economy in recent times.” However, he warned in a conversation with Al Jazeera that any perceived humiliation by the Trump administration could risk “backfiring” and disrupt amicability between the two nations.
Following the U.S. invasion on January 3rd, over a dozen oil tankers departed from Venezuela with disabled transponders, carrying an estimated 12 million barrels of oil primarily to China, effectively circumventing the U.S. blockade. Yet, on January 7th, U.S. forces boarded and seized two additional tankers associated with Venezuela, indicating Trump’s ongoing intention to selectively enforce the blockade.
Chevron resumed normal operations in Venezuela after temporarily recalling American employees, while other U.S. oil companies remain hesitant to re-enter the market, as Trump’s moves have heightened political uncertainties amid a global oversupply of oil and a shift towards renewable energy.
Meanwhile, the U.S. Department of Justice is scrambling to construct a case against President Maduro, following Trump’s arbitrary war plan that led to Maduro’s capture over purported drug cartel affiliations in a foreign land where U.S. law does not apply. In his initial court appearance in New York, Maduro asserted his position as the legitimate president of Venezuela and acknowledged being a prisoner of war.
Ongoing maritime seizures and attempts to wrench control over Venezuelan oil revenues fall short of the “balanced and respectful” relations that Delcy Rodriguez and the Venezuelan government seek. The U.S. position is weaker than what Trump and Rubio’s threats suggest. Encouraged by neoconservatives like Marco Rubio and Lindsey Graham, Trump has drawn the U.S. closer to a conflict in Latin America, a scenario few Americans support and one that the global majority stands against.
Building mutual respect and cooperation with progressive leaders across Latin America, such as Lula in Brazil, Gustavo Petro in Colombia, and Mexico’s Claudia Scheinbaum, could present Trump with dignified alternatives to the escalating crisis he finds himself in.
Trump can choose a more viable path, favoring “win-win cooperation,” a concept appreciated by the Chinese, as opposed to the zero-sum game of hegemonic imperialism that drains taxpayer dollars.
The primary barrier to the desired peaceful cooperation is Trump’s unwavering belief in U.S. militarism and military dominance. His strategy of redirecting American imperialism from Europe and Asia towards Latin America is neither winnable nor legitimate, and it garners little support domestically.
In fact, dissent against U.S. aggression “in our backyard” outweighs resistance to foreign conflicts. Countries such as Cuba, Venezuela, and Colombia are much closer to home, making the repercussions of conflict more apparent to the American populace.
Trump seems aware that continued warfare is unpopular, yet he persists in believing he can conduct “one-off” military operations like bombings or kidnappings without repercussions. Such actions only address fabricated issues—like Iran’s purported non-existent nuclear threats and Maduro’s supposed drug cartel affiliations—while deepening regional crises for which long-term solutions are required.
Strategic navigation of relations with Trump poses significant challenges for Delcy Rodriguez and her counterparts across Latin America. They must recognize that yielding to Trump or allowing him to isolate them individually leads to detrimental outcomes. A unified effort is essential to deter aggression and uphold the foundational principles of the UN Charter, which emphasizes peaceful dispute resolution over military intervention. Any prospects for a more peaceful world hinge on honoring these commitments, which have historically been overlooked by U.S. leadership.
There’s a burgeoning nationwide movement advocating protests against Trump’s authoritarian threats towards Latin America and around the globe. It’s crucial to amplify your voice now to help shift the tide against endless warfare.
