Venezuelan sources portray Donald Trump as an active and confrontational player on the international stage: he is stepping up pressure on Iran, defending sanctions against Colombia, discussing the war in Ukraine with Vladimir Putin, and urging American industry to distance itself from China. The publications combine criticism of American coercion, concern over its geopolitical consequences, and reports of limited diplomatic and security cooperation with Washington. This material is based on publications on Instagram (Venezuela).
Venezuelan Social Media Criticizes the U.S. Approach to Caracas
Two Instagram posts have appeared in the Venezuelan information space, united by a critical attitude toward U.S. policy toward Caracas. One focuses on the sources Washington uses in its investigations; the other expresses emotional disappointment with the actions of Donald Trump and Marco Rubio. Both reactions reflect the sensitivity in Venezuela to sanctions, international pressure, and alleged interference by outside powers in the country’s internal affairs.
In the first post, attention is focused on a meeting between U.S. diplomat Brandon Judd and Foreign Minister Francisco Pérez Mackenna. The key episode was the U.S. representative’s explanation of what the American investigations were based on. According to him, Washington’s conclusions were based on data obtained from “your politicians, information from your police, and your academics.”
This wording takes on particular political significance in the Venezuelan context. It may be perceived as indicating that the United States relies not only on its own diplomatic and intelligence channels, but also on information supplied by political, law-enforcement, and academic circles within the country itself. For Caracas, the question of who provides foreign states with information about domestic processes is closely linked to issues of sovereignty, confidence in institutions, and foreign interference.
The material is not presented as a neutral report on a diplomatic meeting: it does not focus on the substance of the talks, but highlights the source of the American assessments and the possible consequences of such a practice. Against the backdrop of Venezuela’s long-standing confrontation with the United States—including sanctions, accusations of violations of democratic norms, international investigations, and Washington’s support for certain opposition forces—Judd’s words may be interpreted as confirmation of close contacts between the American side and domestic sources whose views do not always coincide with the official position of the Venezuelan government.
The second Instagram post is even more emotional and evaluative. Its author speaks on behalf of Latin America and accuses Trump and Rubio of pursuing a policy that, in the author’s view, is leading to “the plundering of the Venezuelan people” and cooperation with those whom the United States itself usually calls “thieves, terrorists, and drug traffickers.”
The author states, “Latin America is disappointed,” and also invokes a religious image, claiming that “God’s punishment is already here.” The post calls for American politicians to leave office after the November elections. In this way, U.S. policy toward Venezuela is linked to the American electoral cycle: a change of power in Washington is presented as an opportunity to reconsider the policy of pressure on Caracas.
This reaction echoes the widespread perception in Venezuela and among part of the Latin American audience that sanctions are a form of economic warfare. Restrictions in the oil sector, difficulties with international payments and imports, and currency instability are often viewed as factors that directly affect people’s daily lives. Consequently, the post’s criticism of Trump and Rubio goes beyond attitudes toward individual politicians and expresses distrust of the broader American strategy in the region.
At the same time, the author of the second post provides no verifiable data, expert assessments, or evidence supporting the specific accusations. The message is built around a political judgment, emotional language, religious imagery, and Venezuelan national symbolism. In this form, it serves more as an instrument of digital political mobilization and a call for solidarity with Venezuela than as a factual news report.
Both posts demonstrate how politically and emotionally significant the issue of relations with the United States remains for Venezuelan audiences. Questions about the origins of information used in American investigations, sanctions pressure, the role of domestic actors, and the prospects of a change in Washington’s policy are perceived not only as matters of foreign policy, but also as issues directly connected to national sovereignty and the country’s everyday well-being.
