Venezuela’s information space is closely following Donald Trump, portraying him simultaneously as an unpredictable leader, a source of domestic political upheaval and an initiator of a hard-line foreign policy. The focus is on promises of direct payments to the public, concerns about inflation and energy prices, trade disputes with Canada, pressure on Ford, and a confrontational course toward Iran, Israel and Ukraine. Strategic rivalry in the Pacific, political mobilization, violence and the crisis of confidence in American institutions are also being discussed separately.
The material is based on publications on Instagram and Facebook (Venezuela).
Venezuelans Link Migration, Oil and the Cost of the Economic Crisis
Venezuelan and Latin American social media are simultaneously discussing two painful issues: the vulnerability of migrants in the United States and the social cost of economic policy in the region. Although the discussions concern different countries and circumstances, they share a common question: how fair is it to demand complete personal responsibility from people when their decisions are shaped by crisis, poverty, forced emigration and the absence of safe alternatives?
In an emotional Instagram post, the author calls on the United States to “once and for all stop persecuting all decent Venezuelans in the United States.” The author views U.S. measures against Venezuelan and other Latin American migrants not as ordinary enforcement of immigration rules, but as a continuation of the experience of political arbitrariness that many people tried to escape by leaving their homeland.
The author emphasizes the contribution of Latin Americans to the U.S. economy and expresses outrage that, instead of recognition, migrants allegedly face pressure, threats of prosecution and deportation. The post calls on people to “raise their voice with many voices,” seeking protection and justice for the Venezuelan community.
Oil occupies a separate place in the discussion. The phrase “but they like our country’s oil” reflects the distrust of Washington’s policies that is widespread among some sectors of Venezuelan society. In this view, the United States may be interested in Venezuela’s natural resources, especially its vast oil reserves, while simultaneously restricting the rights and security of Venezuelans themselves abroad. Oil becomes a symbol not only of the country’s economic wealth but also of unequal relations: despite possessing enormous resources, Venezuela has endured a prolonged crisis, mass emigration and external pressure, while its citizens remain particularly vulnerable in other countries.
The comparison between “persecution in Venezuela” and what is happening in the United States is primarily emotional rather than literal. For many members of the diaspora, migration was not a free life choice: they left because of instability, poverty, repression, a lack of prospects, and problems accessing goods and services. As a result, any uncertainty over documentation, threats of expulsion or tighter immigration policies may be perceived as a renewed loss of security.
A similar perception of crisis and forced choices can be seen in the dispute that unfolded in Argentina over household debt and purchases made on credit. Although the material published by the Argentine channel PUE is formally unrelated to Venezuela and is even titled in connection with the issue of the Falkland Islands, its content focuses on a social debate about household debt. The video is available on PUE’s page.
At the center of the controversy were remarks by an official spokesperson who called debt “an agreement between private individuals in which no one can interfere in any way.” She supported President Javier Milei’s formulation: “No one held a revolver to anyone’s head to make people go into debt.” In her words, a person “often makes mistakes out of desperation, bears the consequences and learns.”
The statements prompted a sharp reaction, as critics saw them as an attempt to portray debt solely as the result of individual irresponsibility. The government representative also rejected the notion of “pathological indebtedness” caused by the crisis and questioned interpretations of statistics on food purchases made on credit. According to her, supermarket cards are used not only to buy food but also clothing and household appliances, meaning that speaking of “monstrous debts” would be an exaggeration.
For a Venezuelan audience, this dispute is especially easy to understand. Amid prolonged economic instability, people often cover everyday expenses not through stable incomes but with money sent by relatives abroad, informal employment, dollar-denominated transactions and a constant search for cheaper goods. In this context, Argentine credit cards used by families to pay for groceries are perceived not as tools of reckless consumption but as a means of surviving a period when earnings are no longer enough to cover basic needs.
Critics of the authorities’ hard-line position point out that decisions about debt during a crisis are rarely entirely free. When food, medicine, housing or transportation are at stake, the choice between using credit and going without is not a financial strategy but a forced measure. That is why statements about personal mistakes and the need to “bear the consequences” acquire not only an economic but also a moral meaning.
Argentina under Milei has become one of the most prominent examples of a radical liberal course in Latin America. For Venezuelans familiar with deep debates over the role of the state, the market and social protection, the Argentine discussion may look like a warning about the cost of a policy that places individual responsibility above state intervention. At the same time, opponents of Chavism may draw a different conclusion from it: declining incomes, inflation and families’ inability to cover everyday expenses are not exclusively Venezuelan problems, but regional consequences of prolonged economic imbalances.
The stories of migrants in the United States and Argentine families living with debt differ in their circumstances but converge in one respect: behind government decisions, statistics and political slogans are people for whom emigration, credit or seeking help from relatives are not signs of irresponsibility but ways of surviving a crisis.
