Trump, Venezuela, and the Politics of Power

WASHINGTON — As President Trump prepared to meet Venezuela’s opposition leader at the White House this week, the moment carried a strange mixture of triumphalism, improvisation and unresolved contradictions. Fresh from a Senate Republican vote that blocked efforts to limit his war powers, Mr. Trump arrived emboldened — convinced, aides say, that Washington’s leverage in Caracas is finally paying dividends.

Yet the scene unfolding around Venezuela’s future suggests something far more complicated than a simple victory lap. At its center is María Corina Machado, the long‑time opposition figure who was widely expected to play a central role in Venezuela’s post‑Maduro transition — and who now finds herself maneuvering to regain influence with a president who publicly sidelined her only weeks ago.

The meeting comes after Mr. Trump stunned allies and critics alike by signaling his preference for continuity inside Venezuela’s governing apparatus, endorsing the country’s interim leadership under Delcy Rodríguez, Nicolás Maduro’s former vice president. The decision has ignited fierce debate across Washington, Miami and Caracas: Is the United States facilitating a cautious transition designed to avoid chaos — or merely rebranding the old regime while securing strategic and economic concessions?

A Presidency Fueled by Leverage

For Mr. Trump, Venezuela has become a theater where foreign policy, domestic politics and personal ambition intersect. In public remarks and social‑media posts, he has portrayed the fall of Mr. Maduro as a decisive American success, even sharing a doctored image of a Wikipedia page briefly labeling him the “acting president” of Venezuela — a gesture that drew ridicule but underscored his desire to own the outcome.

Administration officials insist the reality is far more restrained. There has been no U.S. occupation, no formal regime change operation, and no commitment to nation‑building. Instead, they describe what one senior official called “leadership adjustment”: removing Mr. Maduro while preserving enough of the existing power structure to prevent mass unrest or civil conflict.

That logic, however, places the White House in uneasy alignment with figures the Venezuelan opposition considers deeply compromised.

Machado’s Awkward Courtship

Ms. Machado, who spent years positioning herself as the democratic alternative to Chavismo, arrived in Washington bearing an extraordinary symbolic offering: her Nobel Peace Prize. Though the Nobel Committee has made clear that the prize cannot be transferred or shared, her public suggestion that she would be willing to “share” the honor with Mr. Trump was widely interpreted as an attempt to flatter a president who has long expressed resentment at never receiving the award himself.

The gambit reflected her weakened standing. After Mr. Maduro’s removal, many expected Ms. Machado to emerge as the natural interim leader. Instead, Mr. Trump dismissed her publicly, saying she lacked sufficient support inside Venezuela — and turned instead to Ms. Rodríguez, a figure Ms. Machado has repeatedly warned cannot be trusted.

“She was the architect of repression,” Ms. Machado said in a recent interview with conservative media, arguing that replacing Mr. Maduro with his former deputy amounted to cosmetic change.

Inside the White House, aides acknowledge the meeting with Ms. Machado was expected to be tense. Just a day earlier, Mr. Trump had praised Ms. Rodríguez as “a terrific person,” emphasizing her cooperation with U.S. demands.

Stability Over Transformation

The administration’s rationale is rooted in fear of disorder. Intelligence briefings have repeatedly warned that abruptly empowering the opposition could provoke violent resistance from armed civilian militias and security forces still loyal to the old system.

“There’s a sequencing problem,” said Richard Haass, the former president of the Council on Foreign Relations, in a television interview. “You don’t want to throw the opposition under the bus, but you also don’t want to move so fast that you trigger civil unrest.”

Under the current approach, Washington is applying pressure incrementally. Sanctions remain partially in place. U.S. naval assets continue to patrol the Caribbean as a reminder of American leverage. In exchange, the interim Venezuelan government has been cooperative — particularly on energy.

American oil companies, long sidelined by sanctions and mismanagement, are now exploring pathways back into Venezuela’s vast reserves. Administration officials argue that restoring oil production is essential to stabilizing the economy, reducing migration pressures and, eventually, creating conditions for political reform.

Critics counter that the strategy risks entrenching the very system it claims to reform.

The Nobel Controversy

The Nobel episode has become a revealing sideshow. Norwegian media have reported domestic criticism that the Peace Prize is being drawn into partisan geopolitics, undermining its moral authority.

To some analysts, the symbolism mattered less than the underlying reality: a weakened opposition leader attempting to appeal to a transactional president.

“Sometimes sideshows matter in this White House,” Mr. Haass said. “If a photo op or a symbolic gesture nudges the president toward accepting a meaningful role for the opposition, then it serves a purpose. But it doesn’t substitute for a real political roadmap.”

That roadmap, so far, remains undefined.

An Unclear Endgame

White House briefings have offered no timeline for elections, no guarantees of political opening and no clear benchmarks for democratic reform. Press Secretary Caroline Leavitt said this week only that the interim Venezuelan government had been “extremely cooperative” and had “met all the demands and requests of the United States.”

In Caracas, Ms. Rodríguez has struck a defiant tone. In her State of the Nation address, she urged Venezuelans to wage a “diplomatic battle” with Washington and declared that if she were to visit the U.S. as acting president, she would do so “standing tall, walking — not crawling.”

The rhetoric suggests a leader confident she holds leverage of her own.

A Proxy for Bigger Battles

For Mr. Trump’s critics, Venezuela has become a convenient distraction. Progressive commentators argue that the crisis is being used to divert attention from domestic controversies and legal scrutiny, while enriching politically connected energy interests.

Some on the left go further, questioning the moral legitimacy of both Washington’s intervention and Ms. Machado’s international accolades, noting her past calls for foreign military action.

Supporters of the administration reject that framing, insisting the alternative — leaving Mr. Maduro in power — was far worse.

Between Pragmatism and Principle

What emerges is a portrait of an administration prioritizing leverage and optics over ideology. Mr. Trump appears less interested in the architecture of Venezuelan democracy than in outcomes he can claim: stability, oil flows and the image of decisive leadership.

For Venezuela, the risk is that a fragile moment of transition hardens into a new equilibrium — one that looks uncomfortably like the old regime, minus its most polarizing figure.

For Ms. Machado, the meeting represents both a lifeline and a warning. Her future relevance depends not on symbolic gestures or international prizes, but on whether Washington is willing to press beyond stability toward genuine political inclusion.

And for Mr. Trump, Venezuela remains what it has increasingly become: not just a foreign policy challenge, but a stage — one where power, ego and strategy blur, and where the ending is still very much unwritten.