Fresh debates are erupting around the course of the U.S. administration: at the center are tough moves in foreign policy, sanctions measures, and regional pressure which, according to critics, could push events toward escalation. A special focus is on discussions about Cuba and Iran—where some observers see an effort to secure political concessions, while others fear that a “governance by pressure” logic could lead to destabilization and complicate balances in a region that is already fragile. Against this backdrop, there is also a public “trade” of interpretations: some argue for the need to deliver a “hard response,” while others say Washington is effectively taking on the role of an external arbiter, intervening in processes that require more careful political decisions. This material was prepared based on data from www.facebook.com (Venezuela) and www.instagram.com (Venezuela).
Venezuela Sees U.S. Decisions as a Threat and Double Standards
In Venezuela’s information landscape, several international storylines are quickly coming together into a single picture of distrust toward the United States—its foreign policy and the way Washington uses issues of security, sanctions, and the legitimacy of power in its own interests. From a possible nuclear deal with Saudi Arabia to disputes over what grounds someone remains in power, all these topics in Venezuela are read not as separate news items, but as part of the same conversation about double standards and politicized rules.
One of the most alarming signals for Venezuelan audiences was a publication by FRANCE 24 Español, which reports on a possible agreement supported by the Donald Trump administration that would allow Saudi Arabia to enrich uranium and reprocess spent nuclear fuel. In the region, this can easily be seen as a step that may spur a new nuclear arms race in the Middle East—especially since the deal involves no “strict guarantees.” For Venezuela, what matters here is not only the Middle East storyline itself, but also the fundamental question: the United States, which typically acts as an arbiter in the field of nonproliferation, is simultaneously backing arrangements that worry its own lawmakers, Israel, and neighboring countries. Against this backdrop, traditional distrust of U.S. foreign policy is intensifying in the country, along with the idea that Washington is consistent and acts “according to rules.”
The same logic of distrust can be seen in another reaction related to the question of on what grounds someone continues to remain in power when such “temporariness” is not spelled out in law or the Constitution. The material linked here in the Venezuelan context reads as a critique of arbitrary retention of power and a call for a clear legal basis. For Venezuela, this is not an abstract debate: issues of legitimacy, constitutional validity of decisions, and abuse of authority have long been at the center of the country’s political life. That is why the demand to explain exactly which article enshrines the right to “remain” in power is perceived as a defense of the supremacy of the Constitution—and as an accusation that elites are holding onto the helm not on a direct mandate, but through political arrangements or external support.
Another important storyline concerns Cuba and criticism of the report by Marco Rubio. In a piece published on Cubadebate, Venezuela’s and, more broadly, Latin American media space sees not just a dispute over a particular report, but a continuation of the United States’ years-long pressure on countries that do not align with its political line. For Venezuela, this topic is especially sensitive because Cuban and Venezuelan narratives have long run in parallel: both countries live under sanctions pressure and view such actions as part of a broader campaign against the region’s sovereignty. At the same time, the quotation included in the text also reflects another, tougher position: “El pueblo cubano agradece que al menos en un informe se plasme toda la realidad de la mierda que constituye el régimen cubano…”. The phrase shows that even among people who traditionally criticize the United States, there are also those who believe that external criticism of the Cuban regime is fair—even if harsh.
For Venezuela, all these storylines converge on one idea: when the United States talks about security, democracy, or international norms, but acts selectively, it strengthens the belief that global rules are politicized. In one case, it is about nuclear technologies for an ally without strict guarantees; in another, it is about the legitimacy of power and constitutional grounds; in a third, it is about sanctions and reports used as a tool of pressure. In local political culture, such news reinforces both anti-imperialist rhetoric and concern about the militarization of international relations—along with the conviction that major powers make decisions primarily based on their own interests.
That is why in Venezuela these messages are perceived not as scattered external news items, but as elements of a broader picture: the United States formally talks about security and order, but in practice—according to many in the region—creates new risk zones, maintains double standards, and leaves other countries to face the consequences of decisions made by others.
