Venezuelan and regional coverage assesses the consequences of US policy during the Trump era—from contacts with the opposition and pressure on Caracas to criticism of American influence and double standards. It also focuses on political instability and electoral disputes within the United States, the state of economic confidence, and Washington’s actions in the security sphere. The materials portray the United States as an influential but increasingly controversial player in the region. The text was prepared based on material from Instagram (Venezuela) and Revista Abril (Venezuela).
Venezuelan Opposition Debates Resources, Elections and the Role of the US
In Venezuela, the political conflict once again comes down to questions that have long been inseparable for the country: who controls its oil and mineral resources, who receives the resulting revenues, whether competitive elections are possible, and how much external involvement in a change of power is acceptable. Two publications—an emotional appeal on Instagram and a column by Elías Corvo in Revista Abril—express different shades of opposition criticism but agree on the main point: Venezuela’s natural wealth should not serve the interests of a narrow group of ruling officials or become the subject of opaque agreements with foreign powers.
In the first publication, the author sharply accuses Nicolás Maduro’s inner circle of plundering the country and suppressing political opposition. Its central image is of a state that protects access to oil, gold and other minerals but is unable to provide its citizens with even basic living conditions. The wording about extracting resources while the authorities “leave the people in the dark”—“dejando el pueblo oscuro”—refers both to recurring power outages and to the sense of political disenfranchisement.
Against this backdrop, the wealth beneath the ground is perceived not as the foundation of development or national sovereignty, but as a source of corruption, secret contracts and elite privileges. Venezuela has some of the world’s largest hydrocarbon reserves, yet the economic crisis, sanctions, declining production capacity, weak infrastructure and corruption scandals have made the resource issue particularly painful. For government critics, oil and minerals have become symbols of a mechanism through which those in power retain influence without improving the daily lives of most of the population.
The author of the Instagram publication openly supports María Corina Machado, calling her “our leader,” and regards restrictions on her political participation as evidence that genuine electoral competition is absent. In his view, the authorities find it easier to protect their own deals and interests than to allow full-fledged elections: “But it is even more difficult for them to allow elections to take place at all.”
The publication places responsibility on figures close to Maduro—Vice President Delcy Rodríguez, National Assembly President Jorge Rodríguez and Interior Minister Diosdado Cabello. They are called the “brains of Maduro’s communism”; the author accuses them of robbing and humiliating citizens. References to alleged illegal contracts and “Delcy’s gifts” reflect a widespread view in opposition circles that decisions in strategic sectors are made to serve a limited group of officials rather than society. At the same time, the publication does not seek to verify the accusations or present the government’s position: it is an openly mobilizing political statement built on sarcasm, emotional language and ridicule.
Elías Corvo’s column in Revista Abril shifts the debate over resources and democracy to another level—the possible role of the United States in Venezuela’s political transition. The author acknowledges that the opposition has the right to seek international support, especially when domestic political mechanisms are closed. However, he argues that such support should be assessed not only by whether it helps weaken Maduro, but also by its cost to Venezuelan sovereignty.
Corvo poses the central question this way: is the opposition prepared to demand transparency, popular control over oil and guarantees of the country’s independence from Washington—or will it accept external rule if that makes it possible to change the government in Caracas? In the author’s view, the opposition’s democratic credentials should be measured not only by its struggle against an authoritarian government, but also by the limits it is prepared to recognize before coming to power.
The article pays particular attention to María Corina Machado’s position. Corvo recalls that she gave Donald Trump a physical Nobel Peace Prize medal, thanking him on behalf of Venezuelans for his “extraordinary leadership” and stating: “We can count on President Trump.” In the context of Trump’s statements about possible US leadership of Venezuela, control over oil revenues and influence during the transition period, the gesture takes on special political significance, in the author’s view.
Corvo does not claim that Machado supports every possible plan proposed by Washington. But he regards the absence of clearly stated public “red lines” as meaningful silence. For a country where oil has been the foundation of state power, the social model, sanctions disputes and international pressure for decades, the question of control over oil revenues cannot be secondary.
The article notes that Machado later criticized the oil agreement between Washington and Delcy Rodríguez’s interim government. She asked who had actually signed the document, what guarantees it provided and what benefit citizens would receive, emphasizing that the country’s natural wealth belongs to the Venezuelan people. Corvo interprets this as an important clarification of her position: Machado does not reject the United States as a partner and is not opposed to American investment, but demands legitimacy and transparency in specific agreements. Nevertheless, the author believes this is insufficient if the opposition does not define the limits of external influence more explicitly.
As a regional warning, Corvo turns to Nicaragua. Some members of the local opposition welcomed the possibility of a US operation against Maduro, hoping it would weaken authoritarian networks in the region and increase pressure on Daniel Ortega and Rosario Murillo. Other activists, however, warned that a political transition must not mean moving “from dictatorship to occupation.” In the author’s view, this formula also applies to Venezuela: resistance to domestic authoritarianism must not lead to the abandonment of national political self-determination.
The column proposes answering fundamental questions in advance: what kind of external assistance can be considered acceptable, who will oversee its implementation, what the timeframe and mandate of foreign involvement will be, how elections and civilian oversight will be guaranteed, and who will have the right to control oil revenues and to whom they will be accountable.
Thus, the two Venezuelan reactions demonstrate the shared core of the opposition debate. Some accuse the current authorities of turning natural wealth into an instrument of personal and political enrichment, leaving citizens without electricity, prosperity or a choice. Others warn that a change of power must not lead to new opaque control over the same wealth—this time by foreign states or companies. In both cases, Venezuela’s oil, gold and resources are viewed as an issue not only of economics, but also of dignity, democracy and society’s right to manage its own country.
