Maduros

WASHINGTON — After President Trump ordered strikes that led to the capture of Venezuela’s president, Nicolás Maduro, celebrations erupted in Venezuelan communities across the U.S.

But for many of the hundreds of thousands of Venezuelan immigrants facing possible deportation, their relief and joy were cut by the fear about what comes next from an administration that has zeroed in on Venezuelans as a target.

“Many of us asked ourselves, ‘What’s going to happen with us now?’” said A.G., a 39-year-old in Tennessee who asked to be identified by her initials because she lacks legal status. Even so, Maduro’s ouster gave her a lot of hope for her mother country.

Venezuelans began fleeing in droves in 2014 as economic collapse led to widespread food and medicine shortages, as well as political repression. Nearly 8 million Venezuelans are now living outside the country — including 1.2 million in the U.S.

Venezuelans migrants walk toward Bucaramanga, Colombia, in 2019.

(Marcus Yam/Los Angeles Times)

A.G. and her now-18-year-old son arrived at the southern border in 2019. Since then, she said, they have built a good life — they own a transport company with delivery trucks, pay taxes and follow the law.

Maduro’s fall left her with mixed feelings.

“He’s obviously a dictator, many people have died because of him and he refused to give up power, but the reason that they entered Venezuela, for me what President Trump did was illegal,” she said. “Innocent people died because of the bombs. I’m asking God that it all be for good reason.”

Dozens of Venezuelans and others were killed in the U.S. invasion — more than 100, a government official said — including civilians.

The Trump administration is framing its Venezuela operation as an opportunity for Venezuelans like A.G. “Now, they can return to the country they love and rebuild its future,” said U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services spokesman Matthew Tragesser.

Katie Blankenship, a Miami-based attorney with Sanctuary of the South who has represented many Venezuelans facing deportation, sees a less promising future.

“We’re going to see increased targeting of Venezuelans to force them to leave the U.S. into a political and socioeconomic environment that’s likely only more destabilized and subject to more abuse,” she said.

The Venezuelan community in the U.S. swelled, in part, because the Biden administration expanded pathways for them to enter the country.

Volunteer help a Venezuelan immigrant at the storage units from a volunteer-run program that distributes donations to recently arrived Venezuelan immigrants in need, in Miami, Fla., in 2023.

(Eva Marie Uzcategui / Los Angeles Times)

One of those programs allowed more than 117,000 Venezuelans to purchase flights directly to the U.S. and stay for two years if they had a U.S.-based financial sponsor and passed a background check. Other Venezuelans entered legally at land ports of entry after scheduling interviews with border officers.

By the end of the Biden administration, more than 600,000 Venezuelans had protection from deportation under Temporary Protected Status, a program used by both Republican and Democratic administrations for immigrants who cannot return home because of armed conflict, natural disaster or other “extraordinary and temporary conditions.”

On the campaign trail, Trump repeatedly referred to Venezuelan immigrants as criminals, singling them out more than any other nationality — in 64% of speeches, an Axios analysis showed. He has said repeatedly, without evidence that Venezuela emptied its prisons and mental institutions to flood the U.S. with immigrants.

One of Trump’s first acts as president was to designate the Venezuelan gang Tren de Aragua as a foreign terrorist organization. Within two months, he invoked an 18th century wartime law, the Alien Enemies Act, to deport 252 Venezuelan men accused of being Tren de Aragua members to El Salvador, where they were imprisoned and tortured despite many having no criminal histories in the U.S. or Latin America.

Later, the Trump administration stripped away protections for Venezuelans with financial sponsors and TPS, with Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem calling the latter “contrary to the national interest.”

In a September Federal Register Notice, Noem said that TPS for Venezuelans undercut the administration’s foreign policy objectives because one result of allowing Venezuelans in the U.S. was “relieving pressure on Maduro’s regime to enact domestic reforms and facilitate safe return conditions.” In other words, if Venezuelans returned home, that would pressure the government to enact reforms.

Secretary of Homeland Security Kristi Noem, along with U.S. Atty. Gen. Pam Bondi, left, and Louisiana Gov. Jeff Landry, right, participates in a news conference near Camp 57 at Angola prison, the Louisiana State Penitentiary and America’s largest maximum-security prison farm, to announce the opening of a new Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) facility that will house immigrants convicted of crimes in West Feliciana Parish, Louisiana, on Sept. 3, 2025.

(Matthew Hilton / AFP via Getty Images)

The administration has offered contrasting assessments of conditions in Venezuela. Noem wrote that although certain adverse conditions continue, “there are notable improvements in several areas such as the economy, public health, and crime.”

Throughout the year, though, the State Department continued to reissue an “extreme danger” travel advisory for Venezuela, urging Americans to leave the country immediately.

Conditions for Venezuelans in the U.S. grew more complicated after a man from Afghanistan was accused of shooting two National Guard members in November; in response, the administration froze the immigration cases of people from 39 countries, including Venezuela, that the administration considers “high-risk.” That means anyone who applied for asylum, a visa, a green card or any other benefit remains in limbo indefinitely.

After a panel of the U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals struck down the Trump administration’s use of the Alien Enemies Act in September, the Justice Department appealed. In a support brief filed in December, the Justice Department cited escalating tensions with Venezuela.

David Smilde, a Tulane University sociologist and expert on Venezuelan politics, said that invading Venezuela could justify renewed use of the Alien Enemies Act.

The law says the president can invoke the Alien Enemies Act not only in times of “declared war,” but also when a foreign government threatens or carries out an “invasion” or “predatory incursion” against the U.S.

“Now it will be difficult, I think, for the court to say, ‘No, you can’t use this,’” Smilde said.

With U.S. officials promising improved conditions in Venezuela and encouraging citizens to return, Smilde said, they could invoke the Alien Enemies Act to quickly deport undocumented immigrants who don’t leave willingly.

“There’s several layers to this,” he said, “and none of it looks very good for Venezuelan immigrants.”

This couple from Venezuela shared their story of why they left their three children back in their home country and spoke of the the experiences of their travel to the United States at the Parkside Community Church in Sacramento on June 16, 2023.

(Jose Luis Villegas / For The Times)

Jose, a 28-year-old Venezuelan living east of Los Angeles, fled Venezuela in 2015 after being imprisoned and beaten for criticizing the government. He lived in Colombia and Peru before illegally crossing the U.S. border in 2022, and now has a pending asylum application. Jose asked to be identified by his middle name out of fear of retaliation by the U.S. government.

The news this week that an ICE agent had shot and killed a woman in Minnesota heightened his anxiety.

“You come here because supposedly this is a country with freedom of expression, and there is more safety, but with this government, now you’re afraid you’ll get killed,” he said. “And that was a U.S. citizen. Imagine what they could do to me?”

People visit a memorial for Renee Nicole Good on Jan. 7 in Minneapolis.

(Scott Olson / Getty Images)

Jose qualifies for a work permit based on his pending asylum, but his application for one is frozen because of the executive order following the National Guard shooting.

The news of Maduro’s arrest was bittersweet, Jose said, because his mother and grandmother didn’t live to witness that day. He said his mother died last year of kidney failure due to lack of medical care, leaving him as the primary breadwinner for his two young sisters who remain in Venezuela with their father, who is disabled.

Still, he said he’s happy with what Trump has done in Venezuela.

“People are saying he’s stealing our petroleum,” he said, “but for 25 years, Cuba, China and Iran have been stealing the petroleum and it didn’t improve our lives.”

Many Venezuelans were encouraged by news that Venezuela would release a “significant number” of political prisoners as a peace gesture.

For Jose, that’s not enough. Venezuela’s government ordered police to search for anyone involved in promoting or supporting the attack by U.S. forces, leading to detentions of journalists and civilians.

“Venezuela remains the same,” he said. “The same disgrace, the same poverty and the same government repression.”

A.G. said she was heartened to hear Noem say Sunday on Fox News that every Venezeulan who had TPS “has the opportunity to apply for refugee status and that evaluation will go forward.” But the administration quickly backtracked and said that was not the case.

Instead, Noem and other administration officials have doubled down on the notion that Venezuelans without permanent lawful status should leave. Noem told Fox News that there are no plans to pause deportation flights despite the political uncertainty in Venezuela.

Tragesser, the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services spokesman, said the agency’s posture hasn’t changed.

“USCIS encourages all Venezuelans unlawfully in the U.S. to use the CBP Home app for help with a safe and orderly return to their country,” he said.

Since the United States abducted Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro, accusing him of “narcoterrorism”, Colombia has found itself under growing pressure from Washington. President Gustavo Petro responds to President Donald Trump’s accusations. The Colombian leader also addresses diplomacy vs confrontation, regional sovereignty and whether Latin America is entering a dangerous new chapter.

GUATIRE, Venezuela — The United States and Venezuelan governments said Friday that they were exploring the possibility of restoring diplomatic relations between the two countries, and that a delegation from the Trump administration arrived in the South American nation Friday.

The small team of U.S. diplomats and diplomatic security officials traveled to Venezuela to make a preliminary assessment about the potential reopening of the U.S. Embassy in Caracas, the State Department said in a statement.

Venezuela’s government on Friday acknowledged that U.S. diplomats had traveled to the country and announced that it will send a delegation to Washington, but it did not say when.

In a statement, Delcy Rodríguez’s government said it “has decided to initiate an exploratory process of a diplomatic nature with the Government of the United States of America, aimed at the re-establishment of diplomatic missions in both countries.”

President Trump has placed pressure on Rodriguez and other former Maduro loyalists now in power to advance his vision for the future of the nation — a major aspect of which would be reinvigorating the role of U.S. oil companies in a country with the worlds’ largest proven reserves of crude oil.

The U.S. and Venezuela cut off ties in 2019, after the first Trump administration said opposition leader Juan Guaidó was the rightful president of Venezuela, spiking tensions. Despite the assertions, Maduro maintained his firm grip on power.

The Trump administration shuttered the embassy in Caracas and moved diplomats to nearby Bogotá, Colombia. U.S. officials have traveled to Caracas a handful of times since then. The latest visit came last February when Trump’s envoy for special missions, Richard Grenell met with Maduro. The visit resulted in six detained Americans being freed by the government.

Garcia Cano and Lee write for the Associated Press. Lee reported from Washington. AP reporter Megan Janetsky contributed to this report from Mexico City.

CARACAS, Venezuela — Venezuela’s opposition supporters have long hoped for the day when Nicolás Maduro is no longer in power — a dream that was fulfilled when the U.S. military whisked the authoritarian leader away. But while Maduro is in jail in New York on drug trafficking charges, the leaders of his repressive administration remain in charge.

The nation’s opposition — backed by consecutive Republican and Democratic administrations in the U.S. — for years vowed to immediately replace Maduro with one of their own and restore democracy to the oil-rich country. But President Trump delivered them a heavy blow by allowing Maduro’s vice president, Delcy Rodríguez, to assume control.

Meanwhile, most opposition leaders, including Nobel Peace Prize winner María Corina Machado, are in exile or prison.

“They were clearly unimpressed by the sort of ethereal magical realism of the opposition, about how if they just gave Maduro a push, it would just be this instant move toward democracy,” David Smilde, a Tulane University professor who has studied Venezuela for three decades, said of the Trump administration.

The U.S. seized Maduro and first lady Cilia Flores in a military operation Saturday, removing them both from their home on a military base in Venezuela’s capital, Caracas. Hours later, Trump said the U.S. would “run” Venezuela and expressed skepticism that Machado could ever be its leader.

“She doesn’t have the support within, or the respect within, the country,” Trump told reporters. “She’s a very nice woman, but she doesn’t have the respect.”

Ironically, Machado’s unending praise for the American president, including dedicating her Nobel Peace Prize to Trump and her backing of U.S. campaigns to deport Venezuelan migrants and attack alleged drug traffickers in international waters, has lost her some support at home.

The rightful winner of Venezuela’s presidential election

Machado rose to become Maduro’s strongest opponent in recent years, but his government barred her from running for office to prevent her from challenging — and likely beating — him in the 2024 presidential election. She chose retired ambassador Edmundo González Urrutia to represent her on the ballot.

Officials loyal to the ruling party declared Maduro the winner mere hours after the polls closed, but Machado’s well-organized campaign stunned the nation by collecting detailed tally sheets showing González had defeated Maduro by a 2-to-1 margin.

The U.S. and other nations recognized González as the legitimate winner.

However, Venezuelans identify Machado, not González, as the winner, and the charismatic opposition leader has remained the voice of the campaign, pushing for international support and insisting her movement will replace Maduro.

In her first televised interview since Maduro’s capture, Machado effusively praised Trump and failed to acknowledge his snub of her opposition movement in the latest transition of power.

“I spoke with President Trump on Oct. 10, the same day the prize was announced, not since then,” she told Fox News on Monday. “What he has done as I said is historic, and it’s a huge step toward a democratic transition.”

Hopes for a new election

U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio on Sunday seemed to walk back Trump’s assertion that the U.S. would “run” Venezuela. In interviews, Rubio insisted that Washington will use control of Venezuela’s oil industry to force policy changes, and called its current government illegitimate. The country is home to the world’s largest proven crude oil reserves.

Neither Trump nor Rodríguez have said when, or if, elections might take place in Venezuela.

Venezuela’s constitution requires an election within 30 days whenever a president becomes “permanently unavailable” to serve. Reasons listed include death, resignation, removal from office or “abandonment” of duties as declared by the National Assembly. That electoral timeline was rigorously followed when Maduro’s predecessor, Hugo Chávez, died of cancer in 2013.

On Tuesday, U.S. Sen. Lindsey Graham, a close Trump ally who traveled with the president on Air Force One on Sunday, said he believes an election will happen but did not specify when or how.

“We’re going to build the country up – infrastructure wise – crescendoing with an election that will be free,” the South Carolina Republican told reporters.

But Maduro loyalists in the high court Saturday, citing another provision of the constitution, declared Maduro’s absence “temporary” meaning there is no election requirement. Instead, the vice president — which is not an elected position — takes over for up to 90 days, with a provision to extend to six months if approved by the National Assembly, which is controlled by the ruling party.

Challenges lie ahead for the opposition

In its ruling, Venezuela’s Supreme Court made no mention of the 180-day limit, leading to speculation that Rodríguez could try to cling to power as she seeks to unite ruling party factions and shield it from what would certainly be a stiff electoral challenge.

Machado on Monday criticized Rodríguez as “one the main architects of torture, persecution, corruption, narco-trafficking … certainly not an individual that can be trusted by international investors.”

Even if an election takes place, Machado and González would first have to find a way back into Venezuela.

González has been in exile in Spain since September 2024 and Machado left Venezuela last month when she appeared in public for the first time in 11 months to receive her Nobel Prize in Norway.

Ronal Rodríguez, a researcher at the Venezuela Observatory in Colombia’s Universidad del Rosario, said the Trump administration’s decision to work with Rodríguez could harm the nation’s “democratic spirit.”

“What the opposition did in the 2024 election was to unite with a desire to transform the situation in Venezuela through democratic means, and that is embodied by María Corina Machado and, obviously, Edmundo González Urrutia,” he said. “To disregard that is to belittle, almost to humiliate, Venezuelans.”

Cano writes for the Associated Press.

BUESNOS AIRES, Jan. 6 (UPI) — Cuba is navigating another delicate moment in its recent history after the capture of Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro by U.S. forces Saturday.

The operation that removed him from Caracas and left him facing a court in New York killed 32 Cuban soldiers, part of Maduro’s praetorian guard, and abruptly dismantled the island’s main economic lifeline.

The blow comes amid an energy and health crisis already considered the worst in decades — and one that could now deepen rapidly.

For more than 20 years, the alliance with Venezuela served as a strategic pillar for the Cuban government. The exchange of subsidized oil for medical and security services allowed Havana to sustain its economy after the Soviet collapse and cushion the impact of the U.S. embargo.

Maduro’s fall and the prospect of a regime change in Caracas directly disrupt that balance and place Cuba in a position of heightened economic and political vulnerability.

In the days after the Venezuelan leader’s arrest, the Cuban government responded with a mix of public gestures of support, internal political mobilization and tighter security.

On Saturday, President Miguel Díaz-Canel led a protest outside the U.S. Embassy in Havana, where he said Cuba was prepared to defend its alliance with Venezuela “even at a very high cost.”

The next day, the government decreed two days of national mourning in response to events in Venezuela. Senior officials dominated state television broadcasts to reinforce the idea of a “shared homeland” and a historic resistance to adversity.

The official narrative sought to counter statements by U.S. President Donald Trump, who publicly warned that allies of chavismo would face direct consequences.

Speaking about the island nation just 90 miles from Key West, Fla., Trump said, “Cuba is ready to fall … going down for the count,” while aboard Air Force One on Sunday.

On Monday, according to diplomatic sources, Cuban authorities stepped up surveillance at strategic facilities and convened emergency meetings. At the same time, reports of prolonged blackouts multiplied across several provinces — a concrete sign of the fragility of the energy system, as Venezuelan assistance could disappear or be sharply reduced within weeks.

Cuba’s energy crisis stems from a combination of obsolete infrastructure, chronic lack of maintenance and fuel shortages.

Most electricity generation depends on decades-old thermoelectric plants that are frequently offline due to breakdowns. Limited alternative capacity forces the state to rely on floating plants and diesel generators, whose operation depends on imports the country cannot secure due to a lack of hard currency or the loss of free supplies from traditional allies such as Venezuela.

Venezuelan lawyer and former prosecutor Zair Mundaray told UPI that for decades, Cuba depended entirely on Venezuelan oil, and that the collapse of Petróleos de Venezuela, S.A., Venezuela’s state‑owned oil and gas company, which started around 2014, broke that anchor. That left the island exposed to more frequent blackouts and a deeper economic downturn.

“In that vacuum, Mexico’s assistance emerged,” Mundaray said.

Press reports indicate that during the peak years of cooperation with Cuba, Caracas sent between 90,000 and 120,000 barrels per day. Since 2023, the Mexican state has shipped hundreds of thousands of barrels of crude and diesel to Cuba in operations valued at more than $300 million.

For economic historian Leandro Morgenfeld at the University of Buenos Aires, one of the objectives of U.S. intervention in Venezuela is to deepen Cuba’s isolation.

“The United States sees the Western Hemisphere as its exclusive domain. It will not accept the presence of extra-hemispheric forces and is willing to remove governments if it believes its interests or national security are at risk,” Morgenfeld said.

From that perspective, he added, the goal goes beyond Venezuela and seeks to dismantle the political and economic ties that sustain adversarial governments in the region, including Cuba.

“That is why they want to cut the political and economic link with Venezuela and further suffocate the island. Despite the blockade, they aim to intensify financial pressure to achieve what they have pursued for decades: the fall of the Cuban revolutionary government,” he said.

Morgenfeld said concern in Havana is real and deep. Cuba has faced a complex economic situation for years, marked by sanctions, lack of hard currency and low productivity.

“It is no longer, as in other times, an economy with easy sources of financing. If chavismo were to fall, the impact on Cuba would be very severe, economically and politically,” he said, while noting that a full regime change in Venezuela has not yet occurred.

From another angle, Colombian political scientist Christian Arias Barona said it is premature to anticipate an immediate collapse of the Cuban model.

He told UPI that as long as Delcy Rodríguez remains in power and U.S. hostility does not intensify, an abrupt shift is unlikely.

“Cuba would not face a drastic alteration in its economy or international relations, especially in its ties with Venezuela, from which it receives significant assistance, particularly in energy,” Arias Barona said. “Nor would its links with Russia and China be immediately affected.”

He recalled that Cuba’s recent history reflects an ability to adapt to adverse scenarios. Since the 1959 revolution, the island has faced what he described as constant “aggressions and hostilities” from the United States, including the ongoing economic embargo.

“That experience has allowed it to develop mechanisms of political and diplomatic survival,” he said.

Arias Barona also noted that the U.N. General Assembly has repeatedly voted against the U.S. embargo on Cuba, calling it a unilateral measure without backing in international law.

However, he said the United States, as a permanent member of the Security Council, has maintained its position and secured occasional support, including from Israel and, in recent votes, Argentina, Ecuador and Paraguay.

“What we are seeing today is a situation that increases Cuba’s vulnerability,” he said.

Sociologist Luis Wainer, also an academic at the University of Buenos Aires, agreed it is too early to project definitive scenarios.

“We do not know whether there will be a change in the political and economic model, how such a transition would look or even whether a transition will exist,” he told UPI.

“We are at a moment of negotiations, where what will be defined is who manages to impose the conditions,” he said.

Wainer said strong interest exists in framing this moment as a return to the Special Period, the severe economic and social crisis that began in 1991 after the collapse of the Soviet Union, Cuba’s main ally and supplier, and resulted in extreme shortages of fuel, food and medicine.

“There is a tendency to think Cuba will return to that scenario, but Cuban experience itself shows the country has developed creative responses to sustain itself without surrendering sovereignty,” he said.

Those responses include selective openings to new trade schemes, agreements with strategic sectors in other countries and the promotion of activities such as international tourism.

In that context, he highlighted the political and economic impact of Latin America’s leftward shift following Hugo Chávez’s electoral victory in 1998.

“That progressive cycle was a key lifeline for Cuba,” Wainer said. “It enabled regional integration, political cooperation and economic agreements that were fundamental for the island, especially with Venezuela.”

Denmark and Mexico, also threatened by US President Donald Trump, warn that the US violated international law.

Members of the United Nations Security Council (UNSC), including key US allies, have warned that the abduction of Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro and his wife by US special forces could be a precedent-setting event for international law.

The 15-member bloc met for an emergency meeting on Monday in New York City, where the Venezuelan pair were also due to face drug trafficking charges in a US federal court.

Venezuela’s ambassador to the UN, Samuel Moncada, condemned the US operation as “an illegitimate armed attack lacking any legal justification”, in remarks echoed by Cuba, Colombia and permanent UNSC members Russia and China.

“[The US] imposes the application of its laws outside its own territory and far from its coasts, where it has no jurisdiction, using assaults and the appropriation of assets,” Cuba’s ambassador, Ernesto Soberon Guzman, said, adding that such measures negatively affected Cuba.

Russia’s ambassador, Vassily Nebenzia, said the US cannot “proclaim itself as some kind of a supreme judge, which alone bears the right to invade any country, to label culprits, to hand down and to enforce punishments irrespective of notions of international law, sovereignty and non-intervention”.

Notable critics at the emergency session included traditional US allies, Mexico and Denmark, both of whom Trump has separately threatened with military action over the past year.

Mexico’s ambassador, Hector Vasconcelos, said that the council had an “obligation to act decisively and without double standards” towards the US, and it was for “sovereign peoples to decide their destinies,” according to a UN readout.

His remarks come just days after Trump told reporters that “something will have to be done about Mexico” and its drug cartels, following Maduro’s abduction.

Denmark, a longstanding US security ally, said that “no state should seek to influence political outcomes in Venezuela through the use of threat of force or through other means inconsistent with international law.”

“The inviolability of borders is not up for negotiation,” Denmark’s ambassador, Christina Markus Lassen, told the council in an oblique reference to Trump’s threat that the US would annex Greenland, a self-governed Danish territory.

France, another permanent member of the UNSC, also criticised the US, marking a shift in tone from French President Emmanuel Macron’s initial remarks that Venezuelans “can only rejoice” following Maduro’s abduction.

“The military operation that has led to the capture of Maduro runs counter to the principle of peaceful dispute resolution and runs counter to the principle of non-use of force,” said the French deputy ambassador, Jay Dharmadhikari.

Representatives from Latvia and the United Kingdom, another permanent UNSC member, focused on the conditions in Venezuela created by Maduro’s government.

Latvia’s ambassador, Sanita Pavļuta-Deslandes, said that Maduro’s conditions in Venezuela posed “a grave threat to the security of the region and the world”, citing mass repression, corruption, organised crime and drug trafficking.

The UK ambassador, James Kariuki, said that “Maduro’s claim to power was fraudulent”.

The US ambassador, Mike Waltz, characterised the abduction of Maduro and his wife as a “surgical law enforcement operation facilitated by the US military against two indicted fugitives of American justice”.

The White House defended its wave of air strikes on Venezuela, and in the waters near it, and Maduro’s abduction as necessary to protect US national security, amid unproven claims that Maduro backed “narcoterrorist” drug cartels.

One in three Americans opposes the Venezuelan leader’s abduction by US forces, a poll shows, while others are unsure.

Americans are evenly split in their support for the US military operation to abduct Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro, an opinion poll has found.

Thirty-three percent of Americans support Maduro’s abduction, compared with 34 percent who are against it and 32 percent who are not sure, the Reuters/Ipsos poll showed on Monday.

Supporters of President Donald Trump’s Republican Party are much more likely to support the military operation, with 65 percent in favour, compared with 11 percent of Democrats and 23 percent of independents.

On the question of who should govern Venezuela, Americans lean against Washington taking control of the country, according to the poll.

Forty-three percent oppose Washington governing Venezuela until a new government is established in Caracas, compared with 34 percent in favour and 20 percent who are unsure.

Americans lean against the US stationing troops in Venezuela – 47 percent to 30 percent – according to the poll.

More Americans than not also oppose the Trump administration taking control of Venezuela’s oil fields, with 46 percent against the idea and 30 percent in favour.

On the question of whether the US could become “too involved” in the Latin American country, 72 percent are very or somewhat concerned.

Trump said on Saturday that the US would “run” Venezuela, though officials in his administration have sought to downplay the prospect of Washington occupying the country.

On Sunday, Trump threatened further military action against Venezuela if it “doesn’t behave”.

Maduro, who was abducted in a raid by US special forces over the weekend, on Monday made his first court appearance to face charges related to “narcoterrorism”, drug trafficking and weapons possession.

Maduro pleaded not guilty to all charges, declaring himself the victim of a kidnapping and a “decent man”.

“I am still president of my country,” Maduro told a US federal court in New York through an interpreter.

Maduro, his wife, Cilia Flores, son Nicolás Ernesto Maduro Guerra, and three others face the possibility of life in prison if convicted.

On Monday, Maduro’s deputy, Vice President Delcy Rodríguez, was sworn in as Venezuela’s interim president.

“I come with pain over the kidnapping of two heroes who are being held hostage: President Nicolás Maduro and First Lady Cilia Flores,” Rodriguez said during a swearing-in ceremony at Venezuela’s National Assembly.

Caracas, January 5, 2026 (venezuelanalysis.com) – Venezuelan social movements and political parties held a massive rally in Caracas on January 4 to reject the US military attacks against the country and the kidnapping of President Nicolás Maduro.

The Sunday march took place in the center of the Venezuelan capital and ended close to Miraflores Presidential Palace.

Demonstrators held handmade signs demanding the release and return of Maduro and First Lady Cilia Flores, who were abducted in the early hours of January 3 by a US special operations team. US forces bombed several military sites in Caracas and surrounding states.

Venezuelan authorities have yet to report on damages and casualties, with unofficial sources claiming at least 80 people killed.

Venezuelan Vice President Delcy Rodríguez has taken over the presidency on an interim basis after a ruling from the Supreme Court. Following a Sunday cabinet meeting, Rodríguez called on the US to respect the country’s sovereignty and invited Washington to agree to an “agenda of cooperation.”

Photos by Rome Arrieche.

“We are here fulfilling our duties until you return.” The son of abducted Venezuelan leader Nicolas Maduro delivered a message to his father from the floor of the country’s congress, where he also serves as a lawmaker. He also mentioned his mother, Cilia, who is also in US custody.

It was his 26th birthday, so Wilmer Castro was not surprised by the flurry of messages that lit up his phone.

However, as he began scrolling on Saturday morning, he realised the messages were not birthday wishes, but news of something he had long hoped for: Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro had been removed from power.

“I think it is the best gift that I will ever receive, one I will never forget,” the university student said from Ejido.

Castro told Al Jazeera that he was so elated by the news that he began daydreaming about his future self recounting the story of Maduro’s fall to his grandchildren and great-grandchildren.

“I will tell them that on January 3, 2026, a dictator fell, and [that moment] is going to be very beautiful.”

The abduction of Venezuela’s long-time authoritarian leader – and his wife – by the United States followed months of escalating tensions between the two countries, including US strikes on alleged drug-trafficking vessels and the deployment of US ships near Venezuela’s coastal waters.

But by Sunday morning, Castro’s initial jubilation was clouded by a heavy quiet. The weight of uncertainty brought the city to a sombre pause, one that closed in on him and felt unlike anything he had experienced before.

“It’s like being in a field with nothing else around. It’s a mournful silence; I can’t describe it,” he said.

That uncertainty was felt by many Venezuelans on Sunday morning.

Venezuela has had a socialist government since 1999, first under President Hugo Chavez and later Maduro, a period that began with oil-funded social programmes but unravelled into economic mismanagement, corruption and repression – with international sanctions further squeezing the population.

Momentum around the 2024 presidential election raised hopes that the opposition alliance would take control. But when Maduro declared victory, despite opposition claims of a landslide win for Edmundo Gonzalez Urrutia, a crackdown on dissent followed. It left many Venezuelans concluding that any real transition might depend on pressure — or even intervention — from outside the country.

‘Deathly silence’

In southeastern Caracas on Saturday, 54-year-old Edward Ocariz was jolted awake by a loud crash and the vibrating windows of his home near the Fort Tiuna military barracks. He thought it was an earthquake, but when he looked outside, he saw unfamiliar helicopters flying low above smoke rising in the city.

“The noise kept coming,” he said. “I could immediately tell the helicopters were not Venezuelan because I had never seen them here.”

Then, just as suddenly as it had started, it stopped.

“There was a deathly silence,” Ocariz said, adding that the brief suspension of mobile phone services and power outages contributed to the silence. “We were waiting to understand what was happening.”

Fear accompanied the fragments of information that did manage to seep through, Ocariz said. “But it was a fear mixed with joy – tremendous joy. It’s hard to explain.”

On Sunday, when images of a blindfolded and handcuffed Maduro began circulating, Ocariz reflected on the suffering he had endured under the president’s regime.

The human rights activist said he was wrongfully charged with “terrorism” and spent nearly five months as a political prisoner in Tocuyito prison, a maximum-security facility in Carabobo state.

Under Maduro, the country had a long history of jailing those who dissent. After the disputed 2024 election, nearly 2,500 protesters, human rights activists, journalists and opposition figures were arrested. While some were later released, others remain behind bars.

“I felt satisfied. A process of justice is finally beginning,” Ocariz said, fully aware that Maduro will not have to endure the dire prison conditions he did, or be denied food and legal representation.

Despite the joy he and other Venezuelans now feel, Ocariz warns that much remains to be done.

“The population still feels a huge amount of fear [from the authorities] — psychological fear — because it’s well known how the police and justice system use their power to criminalise whoever they choose.”

So far, key institutions remain in the hands of figures from Nicolas Maduro’s inner circle, including Vice President Delcy Rodriguez, who has been named acting president.

But for many Venezuelans — including Castro and Ocariz — seeing a senior Chavista figure still in power is unsettling, particularly as the Trump administration continues to engage with her.

“It is certainly frustrating for me. However, I understand that Venezuela needs to continue with its administrative, functional, and operational management as a country, as a nation,” Ocariz said, adding that the US must maintain some order to control the power vacuum and stamp out repression.

Economic concerns

Venezuela remains heavily militarised, and fears of further unrest linger. During periods of dissent, the authorities relied not only on formal security forces but also on “colectivos”, armed civilian groups accused by rights organisations of intimidation and violence.

Jose Chalhoub, an energy and political risk analyst at Jose Parejo & Associates in Caracas, said he is concerned about the possibility of more attacks and social unrest.

“Any potential new government that will move ahead with the cleansing of the top ranks of the armed forces and security and police forces will lead to the disarmament of the colectivos,” he said, adding that fixing the lingering economic crisis should also be one of the main priorities.

“A new government that applies quick economic measures leading to a recovery will outshine the ideological legacy of the Bolivarian revolution,” he said, referring to the ideology of Chavismo, defined by anti-imperialism, patriotism and socialism.

Those loyal to Maduro have long blamed Venezuela’s economic woes on the US — namely, the sanctions it imposed on the oil sector.

Chalhoub said he believed Trump’s promise to boost the country’s oil production could help the economy, though he found the US president’s assertion that the US will “run the country” baffling.

However, not everyone is happy with the Trump administration’s attack.

Alex Rajoy, a mototaxi driver in Caracas, said the US president was on an imperialist crusade with the goal of “robbing” Venezuela of its natural resources.

Despite his anger, Rajoy said he will stay home over the coming days because he is fearful of further attacks.

“These missiles aren’t aimed only at Chavistas,” he said, referring to those loyal to Venezuela’s socialist ideology.

“They threaten opposition people, too,” he said, adding that anyone supporting foreign intervention amounts to a betrayal. “It’s treason against the homeland,” he said.

What now?

For Castro, the university student, the elation he felt on Saturday has been interrupted by fear for his immediate needs – concerns over whether stores would remain open in Ejido and rising costs. Under Maduro, he has long struggled to afford basic items.

“People in the street were going crazy yesterday,” he said. “Everyone was buying food with half of what they had in their bank accounts, buying what they could, because we don’t know what the future holds.”

The scenes brought back memories of the shortages of 2016, when hyperinflation and scarcity plunged the country into crisis, forcing people to queue for hours and rush between shops with limits on how much each person could buy.

But a day after the attack, Castro said Venezuelans are reflecting on the future of their country and the uncertainty of that future.

“There’s happiness, there’s fear, there’s gratitude, there’s the ‘what will happen next?’” he said. “For my next birthday, I want total freedom for Venezuela – and hopefully, God willing, we will have it.”

Well, wouldn’t you want to know… We’d like to know for sure. As usual with Venezuelan constitutional matters, there’s no easy answer to this. We have to look at what is, what should be, what shouldn’t be but probably will be, and speculate what it would be like in the Upside Down.

During yesterday’s presser on Operation Absolute Resolve, Donald Trump very casually said that they (the US) were going to run the country. Not very clear yet what this means, but at some point he also said that they were talking to Maduro’s VP, Delcy Rodríguez (without naming her), and that she was willing to collaborate in making Venezuela great again. There was no mention of democracy during the press conference. If we want to be really optimistic on what they have in store for Venezuela in their plans, it’s likely that somewhere down the line they are looking at some sort of presidential election. This leaves a bunch of questions in the air, but the biggest one in all caps and neon lights: What about Maria Corina Machado and Edmundo González Urrutia, who just won a presidential election by almost 70%?

There should be no doubt that according to Venezuelan law, González Urrutia is the president elect of Venezuela and he should be sworn in. Chavismo decided to derail us from the constitutional path once again when Maduro stole the 2024 presidential elections. Machado and her team have been trying to get the country back to that path, but they don’t only have to deal with Maduro, but also with the one calling the shots in the strategy to depose him: Trump. A harsh reality is that, from the T2 standpoint, a transition with the participation of chavismo is cleaner and cheaper than trying to enforce what the Venezuelan Constitution establishes.

Chavismo may be trying to apply chavista rules to a Trumpist game.

We spoke to the Caracas Chronicles Legal Eagles and asked them what the Venezuelan Constitution said and how it can be interpreted by the different interested parties. And in lawyerly fashion they said: it depends. Depends on what standpoint you’re using to look at it, obviously. Chavismo will look at it assuming that Maduro is legitimate and, of course, the rest of the country looks at it with Edmundo González Urrutia as the depository of the people mandate. The US has its own, independent, POV.

One important caveat: while chavismo steals elections and violates human rights, they do have a very strange legalist fetish, and at moments when one would think that they’ve thrown the book out the window, they come back saying that procedures have to be followed. This doesn’t mean that they follow their laws to the letter, but that they usually leave everything in writing even if they need to come up with far fetched, absurd legal interpretations.

Chavista Law

So, from the chavista standpoint, the capture of Nicolás Maduro by United States special forces should constitute an absolute absence of the President of the Republic. Although Article 233 of the 1999 Constitution establishes the circumstances that qualify as absolute absence—and detention by foreign forces is not expressly listed—it is evident that the current situation constitutes a case of absolute absence.

Because the absolute absence would have occurred within the first four years of the presidential term, a new election must be held within the following thirty consecutive days. In the interim, the office of president would be assumed provisionally by the executive vice president. Easy-peasy, right? Well, not exactly. More on this later.

Venezuelan Constitution

If the will of the Venezuelan people were to be upheld, the legitimate president, González Urrutia, should be sworn in. Therefore, the currently chavista-controlled elections authority, CNE, would be required to formally proclaim him to then proceed with the swearing-in before the chavista-controlled legislature, AN. Let’s be real, for this to take place, a larger amount of lead than what we saw on Saturday would be required.

If it were not possible for the president to be sworn in before either of those two instances, the swearing-in could take place exceptionally before the chavista Supreme Court. Not gonna happen.

Comment from one of the Legal Eagles: “If that were also not possible, the 1999 Constitution provides no explicit solution to the constitutional crisis. Under that scenario, one option would be to consider a swearing-in before the Delegated Committee of the National Assembly elected in 2015. Some constitutional law scholars have suggested that the swearing-in could instead take place before the Supreme Court in exile.” And then we would have another useless president in exile.

Reality (bites)

Yesterday, Delcy Rodríguez held her media event in a sort of veiled response to Trump’s. With the presence of the chavista top brass, Rodríguez said that, even when Maduro was under US custody, he was still the president of the country. Clearly, Maduro will not return and it’s an absolute absence that would require elections 30 days after the Delcy Rodríguez takeover. The Maduro Supreme Court (or perhaps now we should say the Delcy Supreme Court), prompted by her request to approve an internal commotion decree, said that they would not decide immediately over the absence of Maduro and instead granted her the powers of the presidency as if it was a temporary absence (according to article 234, temporary absences of the President are covered by the VP for up to 90 days, which may be extended by 90 more). Again, clearly Maduro isn’t coming back, but this allows chavismo to control the moment when elections should be called, if such elections are called at all. In the past they’ve used similar techniques to win time (for instance, there’s no certainty over the moment of death of Chávez, but elections were held within the timeline from the moment it was announced).

Is this a challenge to what the Trump administration is putting on the table? It’s not clear yet. Secretary of State Marco Rubio, in short, told The New York Times that the chavista leadership was to be judged by their actions and not by their words. Another important point is that they didn’t talk about elections or a timeline for them. Rubio, today, was clear in saying that they had to deal with chavismo, that they had to focus on what will happen in the next three weeks or three months, and that they were hoping that they would receive better cooperation than what they were receiving with Maduro. He implied that the opposition couldn’t offer this. Probably a nail on the coffin to the idea of having González Urrutia as president of Venezuela. Although the future looks bleak, Machado may have an opportunity to jump back in the game (but this is for another post).

The regime is likely looking at this as part of their regular game during negotiations and try to keep on dragging time to stay in power. But the truth is that they are negotiating with a gun against their heads. Chavismo may be trying to apply chavista rules to a Trumpist game. And that’s dangerous. Because, whether you like it or not, the game changed on Saturday. For everybody.

Venezuelan officials say US air strikes killed at least 40 people, destroyed parts of the capital and violated their national sovereignty with the abduction of President Nicolas Maduro. Venezuelans are divided between fear of ongoing US intervention and celebrating his removal.

Jan. 3 (UPI) — Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro and his wife, Cilia Flores, are indicted on federal charges accusing them of narco-terrorism conspiracy and three related charges.

They also are accused of cocaine importation conspiracy, possession of machine guns and destructive devices, and conspiracy to possess machine guns and destructive devices in a federal grand jury indictment in the U.S. District Court for Southern New York.

“For over 25 years, leaders of Venezuela have abused their positions of public trust and corrupted once-legitimate institutions to import tons of cocaine into the United States,” said Jay Clayton, U.S. Attorney for Southern New York, in the federal indictment.

Maduro “is at the forefront of that corruption and has partnered with his co-conspirators to use his illegally obtained authority and the institutions he corroded to transport thousands of tons of cocaine into the United States,” Clayton said.

He said Maduro has “tarnished every public office he has held” by engaging in narco-trafficking while protected by Venezuelan law enforcement since at least 1999.

Clayton accuses Maduro of partnering with criminal organizations, including the Sinaloa and Zetas cartels in Mexico and Tren de Aragua in Venezuela, and Colombian Marxist rebel groups Fuerzas Armadas Revolucionarias de Colombia aka FARC and Ejercito de Liberacion Nacional aka ELN to engage in narco-trafficking.

He said Maduro provided drug traffickers with diplomatic passports and diplomatic cover for planes used by money launderers to retrieve drug proceeds from Mexico and fly them to Venezuela.

Maduro “now sits atop a corrupt, illegitimate government that for decades has leveraged government power to protect and promote illegal activity, including drug trafficking,” Clayton argued.

He said Maduro illegitimately claimed to have won the 2018 Venezuelan election for president after succeeding former President Hugo Chavez, who died in 2013, while Maduro was vice president.

Maduro also falsely claimed to have won Venezuela’s 2024 election and never has been a legitimately elected president, according to Clayton.

Maduro’s wife, Flores, also been a highly placed politician in Venezuela and was president of the National Assembly and attorney general before marrying Maduro in 2013.

Both are accused of participating in, perpetuating and protecting a “culture of corruption in which powerful Venezuelan elites enrich themselves through drug trafficking and the protection of their partner drug traffickers,” Clayton said.

Venezuela has been a safe haven for drug traffickers who paid for protection and support corrupt Venezuelan officials and military members, who enable them to operate outside the reach of Colombian law enforcement and armed forces that receive anti-narcotics help from the United States.

They ship processed cocaine from Venezuela to the United States “via transshipment points in the Caribbean and Central America, such as Honduras, Guatemala and Mexico,” Clayton said.

State Department officials estimate between 200 and 250 tons of cocaine are trafficked through Venezuela every year.

“The defendants, together and with others, engaged in a relentless campaign of cocaine trafficking” and distributed “thousands of tons of cocaine to the United States,” according to Clayton.

The Maduro’s son, Nicolas Ernesto Maduro Guerra aka Nicolasito aka The Prince also is among four other defendants named in a 25-page federal indictment that was unsealed on Saturday.

None of the other four indicted are in U.S. custody as of Saturday.

Also indicted is Hector Rusthenford Guerrero Flores aka Nino Guerrero who is the alleged leader of the Tren de Aragua gang that originated in Venezuela.

Diosdado Cabello Rondon, Venezuela’s minister of Interior, Justice and Peace of Venezuela, and Ramon Rodriguez Chacin, who formerly held the same position and is a former naval officer and government liaison with cocaine-producing Marxist FARC rebels in Colombia, also are named in the indictment.

Maduro and his wife likely will be arraigned in federal court next week.

Medellin, Colombia – The shock removal of Venezuelan leader Nicolas Maduro by the United States military has triggered alarm in bordering Colombia, where analysts warn of the possibility of far-reaching repercussions.

The Colombian government condemned Washington’s early Saturday morning attacks on Venezuela – which included strikes on military targets and Maduro’s capture – and announced plans to fortify its 2,219-kilometre (1,378-mile) eastern land border, a historic hotbed of rebellion and cocaine production.

Security analysts also say Maduro’s deposition could aggravate an already deteriorating security situation in Colombia, while refugee advocacy groups warn the country would bear the brunt of possible migration waves triggered by the fallout from the intervention.

The Colombian government held an emergency national security meeting at 3am (09:00GMT), according to President Gustavo Petro.

“The Colombian government condemns the attack on the sovereignty of Venezuela and Latin America,” wrote the president in an X post, announcing the mobilisation of state forces to secure the border.

The ELN factor

The National Liberation Army (ELN), a left-wing group and the largest remaining rebel force in the country, have been vocal as recently as December in its preparations to defend the country against “imperialist intervention”.

Security analysts say the primary national security risk to Colombia following the attacks stems from ELN, which controls nearly the entire border with Venezuela.

“I think there is a high risk now that the ELN will consider retaliation, including here in Colombia, against Western targets,” said Elizabeth Dickinson, deputy director for Latin America at Crisis Group International.

The rebel group is heavily involved in cocaine trafficking and operates on both sides of the border; it has benefited from ties with the Maduro government, and US intervention threatens the group’s transnational operations, according to analysts.

The ELN, which positions itself as a bastion against US imperialism in the region, had already stepped up violence in response to the White House’s threats against Colombia and Venezuela. In December, it ordered Colombians to stay home and bombed state installations across the country, an action it described as a response to US aggression.

The Colombian government has ramped up security measures in anticipation of possible retaliatory action by the ELN following Maduro’s removal.

“All capabilities of the security forces have been activated to protect the population, strategic assets, embassies, military and police units, among others, as well as to prevent any attempted terrorist action by transnational criminal organisations, such as the ELN cartel,” read a statement on Saturday morning issued by Colombia’s Ministry of Defence.

‘Mass influx of refugees’

In addition to fears of increased violence, Colombia also stands to bear the brunt of any migration crisis initiated by a conflict in Venezuela.

In an X post on Saturday morning, Petro said the government had bolstered humanitarian provisions on its eastern border, writing, “all the assistance resources at our disposal have been deployed in case of a mass influx of refugees.”

To date, Colombia has received the highest number of Venezuelan refugees worldwide, with nearly 3 million of the approximately 8 million people who have left the country settling in Colombia.

The previous wave of mass migration in 2019 – which followed opposition leader Juan Guaido’s failed attempt to overthrow Maduro – required a massive humanitarian operation to house, feed, and provide medical attention to refugees.

Such an operation is likely to prove even more challenging now, with Colombia losing roughly 70 percent of all humanitarian funds after the Trump administration shuttered its USAID programmes in the country last year.

“There is a real possibility of short-term population movement, both precautionary and forced, especially if instability, reprisals, or power vacuums emerge,” said Juan Carlos Viloria, a leader of the Venezuelan diaspora in Colombia.

“Colombia must prepare proactively by activating protection mechanisms, humanitarian corridors, and asylum systems, not only to respond to potential arrivals, but to prevent chaos and human rights violations at the border,” added Viloria.

A further collapse in US-Colombia relations

Analysts say Maduro’s removal raises difficult questions for Petro, who has been engaged in a war of words with Trump since the US president assumed office last year.

The Colombian leader drew Trump’s ire in recent months when he condemned Washington’s military buildup in the Caribbean and alleged a Colombian fisherman had been killed in territorial waters. In response, the White House sanctioned Petro, with Trump calling him a “thug” and “an illegal drug dealer”.

“Petro is irascible at the moment because he sees Trump and his threats no longer as empty, but as real possibilities,” said Sergio Guzman, Director at Colombia Risk Analysis, a Bogota-based security consultancy.

Indeed, Trump has on multiple occasions floated military strikes against drug production sites in Colombia. However, experts say it is unlikely the White House would take unilateral action given their historic cooperation with Colombian security forces.

Despite Petro condemning Washington’s intervention in Venezuela, he previously called Maduro a “dictator” and joined the US and other nations in refusing to recognise the strongman’s fraudulent re-election as president in 2024.

Rather than supporting Maduro, the Colombian leader has positioned himself as a defender of national sovereignty and international law.

On Saturday, Petro called for an emergency meeting of the United Nations Security Council, which Colombia joined as a temporary member just days ago.

“Colombia reaffirms its unconditional commitment to the principles enshrined in the Charter of the United Nations,” wrote the president in an X post.

This story has been published in conjunction with Latin America Reports.

We live in an interdependent world where no country or region is exempt from the effects of developments elsewhere. The transition into autocracies in other countries is not the exception. Autocratisation has escalated into a global wave. According to the latest V-Dem report, 45 countries are currently moving towards autocracy, up from just 16 in 2009, while only 19 are democratising. By 2024, 40% of the world’s population lived in autocratising countries.

Autocratic expansion represents a threat to liberal democracies in Europe and beyond, as political science’s only near-lawlike finding holds: democracies do not wage war against each other. In contrast, an autocratic Russia invades Ukraine and might quite possibly very soon attack the rest of Europe, as NATO’s General Secretary Mark Rutte alerted in Berlin on December 12: “We are Russia’s next target, and we are already in harm’s way… we must act to defend our way of life now”.

The link between democracy and peace was also at the centre of this year’s Nobel Peace Prize ceremony. In his address, Jørgen Watne Frydnes, Chair of the Norwegian Nobel Committee, emphasised that democracy is not only essential for peace within national borders, but also for peace beyond them. The award to Venezuelan opposition leader María Corina Machado, who insisted that the prize belongs to all Venezuelans, underscored that message.

Russia illustrates this connection with unusual clarity, and the Maduro regime is a close ally of the regime directly threatening Europe. Since Chávez, under whose rule Venezuelan democracy collapsed no later than between 2002 and 2007 (according to V-Dem), the Venezuelan regime has deepened its ties with China and Russia. The latter, particularly, became an important partner in the military and security realms. By providing weapons, equipment and intelligence support, Russia secured a geopolitically strategic foothold in South America. This allows Putin to project power into the Western hemisphere and to undermine US and European strategic interests.

Venezuela’s partnership with Russia follows a foreign policy logic of influence projection within the United States’ regional sphere, much as Washington has done in Eastern Europe. This relationship has taken the form of military cooperation, with Venezuela—alongside Nicaragua—becoming one of Russia’s main partners in Latin America.

A democratic Venezuela could reintegrate into Mercosur, opening an additional market under the forthcoming EU-Mercosur agreement—one of the EU’s tools for diversifying trade partners and reducing excessive economic dependencies.

While earlier cooperation included a visit of nuclear-capable Russian bombers to Venezuela in 2018, more recent ties have focused on military diplomacy: high-level defence meetings, training exchanges, and joint participation in initiatives such as the International Army Games. But despite Russia’s growing resource constraints following its invasion of Ukraine, reports of the construction of a new ammunition factory in Maracay (Aragua) and the presence of Russian “Wagner” mercenaries in Venezuela exemplify the possibility of going back to further military cooperation. The ammunition factory would specifically produce a version of the AK-130 assault rifle (developed in the Soviet Union) and a “steady supply” of 7.62mm ordnance under Russian license in spite of sanctions to avoid Russian ammunition exports.

Beyond the military sphere, Venezuela currently cooperates with Russia to mitigate the effects of Western sanctions. Together with Iran, both countries share shadow shipping networks that allow sanctioned oil exports to continue flowing, primarily towards China (surprise! Another autocratic country). 

Thus, from a European Security perspective, Venezuela isn’t really a distant or marginal case. A Russia-aligned autocracy in South America strengthens Moscow’s global reach at a time when Europe is already struggling to contain Russian aggression on its own continent. Supporting democratic survival or democratisation abroad is not only a normative commitment, but a strategic interest: Europe’s democratic stability—and its own way of life—are reinforced when democracies elsewhere endure.

Democratisation in Venezuela could bring concrete benefits. It would weaken Russia’s standing among authoritarian partners that depend on its support and reduce diplomatic alignment against European priorities in multilateral forums. Such alignment was evident, for example, in the 2014 UN resolution condemning Russia’s annexation of Crimea, where several Latin American governments sided with Moscow. Moreover, a democratic Venezuela could reduce the US’ attention diversion from the Russia war on Ukraine, and it could weaken Russia’s potential leverage when looking for US-concessions, in exchange for their own concessions in Venezuela.

But this is also about not missing opportunities. A democratic Venezuela could reintegrate into Mercosur, opening an additional market under the forthcoming EU-Mercosur agreement—one of the EU’s tools for diversifying trade partners and reducing excessive economic dependencies. At a time when economic strength has become an existential priority for Europe amid rising geopolitical tensions, this matters. Before Mercosur, and in the more immediate period following a transition, Venezuela would require substantial investment to rebuild its economy. Historical economic and social ties already exist, shaped in large part by post–Second World War European migration to the country.

Repression is not confined to Venezuelan citizens. More than 80 foreign political prisoners have been reported, including Europeans from Italy, Spain, Poland, Portugal, Hungary, Ukraine and the Czech Republic.

In the path towards the stabilisation of Venezuela as a partner to democracies—instead of being a source of autocratic threat—the democratic mandate expressed by Venezuelans on 28 July 2024, when we elected Edmundo González Urrutia as president, is a crucial element to consider. González has since identified María Corina Machado as his intended vice-president in a potential transition. 

In regards to the question about how to get there, the equation toward a democratic Venezuela does not only include measures to weaken the Maduro regime’s repressive capacity, but also strengthening democratic actors inside and outside the country. Many of these active citizens often move within resource-limited bounds—juggling work, precarious living situations and scarce resources for essential tools such as websites, digital security, travel for advocacy, and organisational infrastructure. Migrants in early integration phases do not necessarily count with abundant financial resources, yet they invest what they have into their democratic efforts.

At the same time, the regime’s repressive reach extends beyond Venezuela’s borders. Recent transnational attacks like the murder attempt against Luis Alejandro Peche and Yendri Velásquez in Colombia, the attempted attack on Vente Venezuela’s Alexander Maita, and the assassination of Ronald Ojeda in Chile highlight efforts to intimidate political mobilization even outside the country. 

But repression is not confined to Venezuelan citizens. More than 80 foreign political prisoners have been reported until this month, including Europeans from Italy, Spain, Poland, Portugal, Hungary, Ukraine and the Czech Republic. Thus, limiting the regime’s repressive capacity is vital to incentivize crucial pro-democracy mobilization.In summary, Europe faces a choice. Supporting Venezuelan democratisation is not only a matter of global democratic solidarity, human rights, or European soft power in Latin America. It is a matter of self-preservation. The collapse of Venezuela’s once-stable 40-year democracy and Russia’s war on Ukraine both serve as reminders that democracy—and the peace it sustains—is not a given. It must be embodied, defended, and actively built when necessary.