US-Venezuela Relations

Caracas, July 17, 2026 (venezuelanalysis.com) – A group of US Congress members addressed a letter to President Donald Trump advocating an immediate removal of sanctions against Venezuela in the wake of its recent double earthquake.

“These economic restrictions are severely hampering urgent relief efforts, and will continue to threaten Venezuela’s recovery and long-term reconstruction if allowed to remain in place,” the text read.

The missive was signed by 14 representatives from the Democratic Party, including Jesús García, Ilhan Omar, and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. They cited the United Nations estimates of earthquake damage as high as US $37 billion, roughly a third of Venezuela’s current GDP.

“The existing sanctions regime on Venezuela has far-reaching indiscriminate effects,” the legislators continued. “The removal of sanctions will allow state institutions to more effectively coordinate and deliver emergency healthcare, shelter and food.”

The letter was backed by a number of NGOs, including Just Foreign Policy, Demand Progress, and Peace Action.

Venezuela was rocked by near-simultaneous 7.2- and 7.5-magnitude earthquakes on June 24 that caused widespread destruction in north-central regions. The coastal state of La Guaira was the worst hit, with hundreds of collapsed buildings. The latest official death count stands at nearly 5000.

Since 2017, Washington has levied wide-reaching sanctions against Venezuela, targeting key sectors such as banking, mining, trade, and especially the oil industry. Coercive measures against Venezuela’s all-important energy sector have caused revenue losses estimated at more than US $20 billion per year. The sanctions regime imposed during Trump’s first administration was largely kept in place by the Joe Biden White House.

Venezuela’s GDP contracted by three-quarters between 2014 and 2020, with 88 percent of the contraction taking place under the US economic blockade. In recent days, hundreds of scholars have also demanded the lifting of coercive measures against Venezuela.

Despite pledges of assistance following the devastating tremors, the Trump White House has not entertained any sanctions relief, issuing only a four-month license allowing earthquake relief-related transactions.

However, the US representatives called the measure “entirely insufficient” due to their limited scope and overcompliance from financial institutions.

They urged the Trump administration to “do everything to facilitate Venezuela’s access to its frozen assets abroad.” Venezuelan leaders have called on Washington and its allies to lift sanctions and unfreeze assets for reconstruction efforts. Acting President Delcy Rodríguez penned a letter to UK King Charles III requesting the release of around US $4.5 billion in Venezuelan gold held by the Bank of England.

The US and European allies are estimated to hold over $10 billion in other assets, including frozen bank accounts and roughly $5 billion in IMF-issued Special Drawing Rights (SDR). In contrast, US offers of post-earthquake humanitarian aid have only totaled $386 million.

Since the January 3 military strikes and kidnapping of Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro, the Trump administration has seized control of Venezuelan export revenues, particularly from oil sales. Secretary of State Marco Rubio claimed the acting Rodríguez administration must submit a “budget request” before accessing its own funds. 

Trump has repeatedly stated that the US has recouped the costs of the January 3 operation “many times over” from its undisclosed cut taken from Venezuelan oil proceeds. Economist Francisco Rodríguez has found a significant delay in Washington’s disbursement of Venezuelan funds.

The Trump administration also took advantage of the June 24 natural disaster to significantly expand its military footprint in the Caribbean nation. The Southern Command confirmed the presence of more than 900 servicemen on Venezuelan territory by the end of June.

US forces have taken over air traffic coordination, communications, and security operations at the Simón Bolívar International Airport, while two US warships have established a “command-and-control node” at La Guaira port.

Edited by Lucas Koerner in Caracas.

A devastating double earthquake hit Venezuela on June 24, leaving a trail of destruction and thousands dead. Dozens of buildings collapsed in coastal La Guaira State, the worst affected in the South American country.

The natural disaster followed two unnatural catastrophes: a decade-plus of US-led economic sanctions, and the January 3 US bombing attack and kidnapping of President Nicolás Maduro.

But rather than sympathize with the beleaguered country, the Western media establishment seized the opportunity to continue demonizing the Bolivarian Revolution—while whitewashing Washington’s economic terrorism and its present efforts to tighten its semi-colonial stranglehold on the country (FAIR.org, 2/27/26).

An assault on public housing

The ground had barely stopped shaking when corporate media oligopolies took aim at one of the most visible pillars of Hugo Chávez’s legacy: Venezuela’s Great Housing Mission (GMVV).

A Washington Post headline (6/27/26) declared: “These Homes Rose out of Venezuela’s Socialist Revolution. Now They’re Rubble.”

An architect was quoted claiming that the damaged apartments had been “constructed hastily” to “meet a political deadline.” Though the Post claimed Chávez launched the housing program to secure votes for the 2012 election, the only beneficiary the paper could find received her home in 2014.

AFP (6/29/26) singled out damage to a GMVV complex—“once touted as part of former strongman leader Hugo Chavez’s flagship housing program”—arguing that it “symbolize[d] the country’s dire situation.” Dozens of buildings geared toward tourism, including hotels and high-rises built for short-term rentals, in this neighborhood of Catia La Mar, were also flattened by the devastating tremors, but AFP made no effort to provide that context.

The New York Times (7/5/26) likewise attempted to besmirch what is one of the most ambitious public housing projects worldwide by repeating the unfounded claim that homes were assigned as a “reward for loyalty to Mr. Chávez.” However, the paper of record at least admitted that “Misión Vivienda buildings are far from the only apartments to have fallen.”

The Wall Street Journal (6/28/26) could not hide its elitism in describing how Chávez “rushed to provide apartments to the poor” in a town “beloved by the rich,” with a golf course and a “marina for yachts.” It went further by promoting a social media hoax that styrofoam found in damaged buildings meant that the housing mission used absurdly unsuitable materials in its construction. In reality, expanded polystyrene (EPS) foam is widely used to lighten the load on structures and for thermal insulation, a key factor in such a hot climate.

Venezuelan officials have called for a review of the collapsed structures and building codes, though they have claimed that the public housing buildings fared better than their privately constructed neighbors.

There is little evidence to suggest that GMVV buildings suffered a worse fate than their private sector counterparts. According to the open-source tool Terremoto Venezuela, only 11 out of 258 buildings reported as collapsed (“daño total”) belong to the housing mission.

The definitive figures will need to be put in perspective to see whether affected buildings and non-complicity with existing codes were prevalent in the GMVV developments or the recent tourist-driven real estate boom in La Guaira. But the media establishment immediately jumped to its politically motivated verdict before any thorough investigation had been conducted.

Whitewashing sanctions

While multiple outlets stressed that it is necessary to scrutinize whether authorities enforced the appropriate regulations in what is known to be vulnerable terrain (France 24, 6/29/26; Reuters, 6/29/26), no evaluation of the Venezuelan state’s record is accurate if it ignores the wide-reaching sanctions regime imposed by Washington.

Yet many Western journalists completely overlooked sanctions in their coverage of the earthquakes and the Venezuelan state’s capacity to respond to a natural catastrophe.

Corporate outlets like the Financial Times (6/28/26) wasted no time in proclaiming that the “legacy of ‘Chavismo’ hinder[ed] Venezuela’s earthquake response,” while AP (7/3/26) decreed that the government’s response was “slow” and the BBC (6/29/26) claimed survivors were “left to fend for themselves.”

None saw fit to even mention that Venezuela has been under economic coercive measures for years. NBC (6/25/26) avoided the kneejerk verdicts and offered lots of testimony on the natural disaster, but when concluding that “Venezuela already faced economic challenges and poverty,” chose not to name sanctions as a key economic challenge and poverty factor.

In other reports, the whitewashing of sanctions was more subtle. The Guardian (7/3/26) attributed the government’s “sluggish response” to “years of corruption, economic mismanagement and investment in political repression and domestic security rather than emergency services and healthcare.” As almost an afterthought, it added that sanctions “have further enfeebled the Venezuelan state.” The Washington Post‘s anti-public housing article (6/27/26) called Venezuela’s economic collapse “the result of mismanagement by the socialist government exacerbated by US-imposed economic sanctions.”

The New York Times (7/4/26) wrote that “Venezuela’s fragile infrastructure—including rail, electricity and healthcare systems that have suffered from years of corruption and mismanagement.” In a later section it added, “Venezuela is reeling from years of economic turmoil and crippling US sanctions.”

Over the years, Western media have pulled all the stops to legitimize Washington’s hybrid war on Caracas and conceal the murderous impact of sanctions (FAIR.org, 6/4/21, 6/13/22). There is no shortage of documentation on how these coercive measures represented collective punishment (CEPR, 4/25/19). In an extensive 2021 report, UN rapporteur Alena Douhan thoroughly discussed the impact of sanctions on Venezuelan public services and infrastructure.

The current framing  of earthquake coverage aims to separate US sanctions as much as possible from their direct consequences. Rail, electricity and healthcare systems became much more “fragile” because sanctions blocked the Venezuelan government from servicing equipment and importing spare parts, not to mention brain drain resulting from mass migration of qualified personnel largely trained in public universities. Similarly, the “economic turmoil” is a result of US sanctions, not a parallel phenomenon.

Indeed, economist Francisco Rodríguez, senior research fellow at the Center for Economic and Policy Research, dismisses arguments that the bulk of Venezuela’s economic decline preceded sanctions (CEPR, 5/19/26). Instead, the rate of GDP contraction nearly quadrupled following the US imposition of unilateral coercive measures in 2017.

And the need to conjure elaborate intermediation schemes in order to circumvent sanctions opened more avenues for corruption. To present the latter as an issue that uniquely and disproportionately plagues a government facing an economic blockade is disingenuous, to say the least.

Ignoring the semi-colonial straitjacket

In their recent coverage, most corporate media sources were quick to decree that the Venezuelan government’s response was “slow” (Financial Times, 6/27/26; Guardian, 6/29/26), “inadequate” (Reuters, 7/5/26), “faltering” (AP, 7/1/26) or “completely ineffective” (PBS, 7/2/26).

It is understandable that ordinary people would not sing the government’s praises after losing a relative or while looking for one trapped under rubble. But journalists have a responsibility to add context. In this case, a significant mitigating circumstance is that the tremors heavily hit the local authorities, which run civil protection and other services.

Acting President Delcy Rodríguez stated that nearly all the directors from the La Guaira regional government were lost in the tragedy. Coupled with a collapse of communications, this added more hurdles for response efforts.

Another overlooked element is just how rare and deadly this double earthquake was. The New York Times was a notable exception, with a thorough piece (7/3/26) explaining how the disaster unfolded and why it caused so much destruction.

But the most relevant element to understand Venezuela’s present constraints is, once again, the role played by the US government. Just like with sanctions, corporate news outlets whitewashed Washington’s current semi-colonial impositions on the South American nation.

Since the January 3 attacks, the Trump administration has seized control of Venezuelan export revenues, particularly from oil sales (Venezuelanalysis, 2/20/26). Secretary of State Marco Rubio stated that the Venezuelan government would need to submit a “budget request” to access its own funds held by the US Treasury (Venezuelanalysis, 1/29/26). Neither US nor Venezuelan authorities have offered any transparent information on the amounts collected and disbursed, including Washington’s intermediation fees.

Trump is not known for precision in his statements, but he has not been shy in boasting that the cost of the January 3 military operation has been paid “many times over” from oil profits (New York Times, 6/29/26; Guardian, 6/28/26; Al Jazeera, 6/24/26). While there is no information to verify the claims, economist Francisco Rodríguez, analyzing Venezuelan Central Bank data, concluded that there is at least a significant delay in the US disbursement of Venezuelan funds back to the country (Banca y Negocios, 6/22/26). The suspicious lack of transparency has even drawn questions from traditional foreign policy paladins like the Council on Foreign Relations.

With few exceptions (Reuters, 7/1/26; AP, 7/3/26; New York Times, 7/6/26), this key, semi-colonial constraint on the Venezuelan state is completely overlooked. Even worse, some outlets mistakenly stated that the White House has “lifted” or  authorized “relaxation” of sanctions (PBS, 7/2/26; Financial Times, 6/27/26). Actually it has only issued licenses for select Western corporations, and with the condition that proceeds be deposited in the US Treasury account. Following the recent natural disaster, the Trump administration issued a four-month waiver allowing earthquake relief-related transactions, but left all restrictions and asset freezes in place (Venezuelanalysis, 6/26/26).

Another ominous development has been the US forces’ takeover of operations at the Simón Bolívar International Airport, the country’s main air hub, and the La Guaira port. Despite regular Southern Command press releases, and even photographic evidence, the media establishment has paid little attention to this serious (further) encroachment on Venezuelan sovereignty.

The outlook is bleak for Venezuela, with this tragedy likely to increase dependency and semi-colonial plundering. But there is room for hope. The limits of US power are being exposed all over the world, and resorting to more and more violence will not stem this inevitable decline. Peoples in the Global South, including in Venezuela, will eventually (re)take control of their destinies. But they know that the corporate press barons are no allies in this struggle.

Source: FAIR

Caracas, July 15, 2026 (venezuelanalysis.com) –  The Venezuelan National Assembly (AN) and a group of former opposition lawmakers who served in the 2015–2020 legislature, led by Dinorah Figuera, announced the launch of a joint working agenda on August 1 aimed at “strengthening democracy” in the country.

National Assembly President Jorge Rodríguez, who is also the Venezuelan government’s lead negotiator, made the announcement on Tuesday via an official statement, reporting that both sides had agreed to “jointly confront the consequences of the twin earthquakes that have plunged the country into mourning.”

“Only in unity can we move forward with the reconstruction while keeping the peace,” the text read.

For its part, the opposition group said in a separate statement that the initiative constitutes a “roadmap to promote stability, democracy, and national recovery,” with the goal of beginning “the construction of a new stage that will lead to a Venezuela of progress and freedoms.” According to the document, the agenda will prioritize “strengthening democratic institutions, reinforcing the electoral system, and restoring guarantees for political participation.”

Figuera told media that the talks will involve 10-team delegations from both sides and claimed that the opposition faction will be involved in choosing new electoral authorities and Supreme Court justices, as well as in reforms to existing electoral laws.

She confirmed that the opposition has already selected several participants, including lawyers Juan Miguel Matheus and Sergio Vergara, businessman Jorge Millán, and former National Assembly Vice President Marco Aurelio Quiñones. No members of the Venezuelan government delegation are presently known.

Figuera took over the opposition-majority 2015–2020 National Assembly in 2023, despite its period having ended two years earlier. The legislature repeatedly renewed its own mandate as it maintained “recognition” from Washington as Venezuela’s legitimate authority. The anti-government group likewise retained control over several Venezuelan state assets frozen by the US and allies.

US Secretary of State Marco Rubio reposted the 2015–2020 National Assembly’s roadmap through his X account. US authorities had endorsed the talks when they were first announced in June. Since the January 3 US military strikes and kidnapping of President Nicolás Maduro, Rubio has insisted on a “three-phase plan” that ends with a political “transition.”

The announcement of impending talks contrasted with Rodríguez stating on Saturday that the country “was not in the right frame of mind” to discuss issues related to the National Electoral Council (CNE), the Supreme Court (TSJ), or elections.

“We are concerned about people who have suffered the unimaginable. It would be disrespectful and insensitive for politicians to meet now to decide who should be appointed to the CNE or the TSJ. There will be time for that,” Rodríguez said.

Instead, he urged opposition leaders to work together on responding to the earthquake emergency, including reforms to the country’s housing laws and identifying land for the new constructions.

Just six days before the devastating earthquakes of June 24, Figuera traveled to Caracas with Washington’s backing to head negotiations with the Venezuelan government. During that June 18 visit, she met with Jorge Rodríguez and opposition leaders before traveling to the United States for additional discussions.

Her return took many opposition figures by surprise, as only weeks earlier María Corina Machado, speaking at a meeting of opposition politicians in Panama, had announced her intention to personally lead negotiations with the government over a future electoral process. The far-right leader announced a closed-door meeting with political allies on Wednesday to discuss the upcoming negotiations between the acting Delcy Rodríguez government and a separate opposition faction.

Amid these political developments, Acting President Rodríguez also appointed Johann Álvarez on July 14 as Venezuela’s new Chargé d’Affaires to the United States, tasking him with “representing the country’s interests and advancing a new stage of dialogue, cooperation, and mutual respect.”

Álvarez most recently served as Venezuela’s Minister of Foreign Trade and Superintendent of the country’s Special Economic Zones (SEZs). He replaces Félix Plasencia, who was chosen by Rodríguez to head the Foreign Ministry after merging it with the Foreign Trade Ministry.

Edited by Ricardo Vaz in Caracas.

On June 24, the collision of the South American tectonic plate with the Caribbean one caused a major release of energy from the depths of the Earth, leaving a trail of destruction in Venezuela. The 7.2- and 7.5-magnitude earthquakes that rocked the country caused thousands of deaths and the collapse of hundreds of structures.

While we try to process the trauma and return to something that resembles “normalcy,” Venezuela, already battered by years of sanctions and the recent US military attack, now faces the challenge of rebuilding itself in the broadest sense of the word and in an ever more complicated context. With that in mind, we have to start by asking: who is in charge of the country and its future?

Using the natural disaster as the perfect excuse, US forces have taken over operations at La Guaira port and the Simón Bolívar International Airport. US servicemen have set up shop in the air traffic control tower, surveillance drones fly over Caracas, and US helicopters patrol the disaster areas on their own.

This dangerous trend did not start on June 24. In recent months, in unapologetic fashion, the US has been setting the Venezuelan political agenda, notwithstanding the subtle or absurd efforts to conceal it.

For instance, at the end of May, US Secretary of State Marco Rubio announced that Acting President Delcy Rodríguez would visit India to negotiate oil deals. Rubio openly offered Venezuelan crude to India as part of its campaign against Russian exports. The Venezuelan Foreign Ministry pretended not to have heard anything and confirmed the trip two weeks later.

Back in February, the Venezuelan government denied rumors that businessman and recent minister Alex Saab had been detained, only to surrender him to US agencies months later. And despite having all that time to come up with a proper explanation, the official line was that authorities supposedly “found out” that Saab is Colombian and had a fake Venezuelan ID. In Venezuela, sometimes the chutzpah reaches such extremes that people prefer to just move on. Many officials promised we would soon know more details about the Saab case, including his collaboration with US agencies, but we’re still waiting.

Later, in June, the government’s quick-response “Miraflores al Momento” social media account put a “fake news” label on a news story about the alleged presence of US military forces in southeast Bolívar state. Then, days later, Trump himself broke the news that the Southern Command in coordination with the CIA had killed alleged Tren de Aragua leader Héctor “Niño” Guerrero in Bolívar state. The extrajudicial killing spree that began last year in the Caribbean, always sadistically bragged about by Trump and his goons, had reached Venezuelan soil.

In response, the Venezuelan government had no alternative but to put out its own statement, reporting a “joint operation” and praising its success. After years of preaching about the danger represented by the CIA, it is now welcome to operate freely in Venezuela as if it’s the most natural thing in the world.

Niño Guerrero was not executed for our safety, but rather to clear the way for Western mining corporations. No one has said this explicitly but it’s not hard to connect the dots. What’s next? Private security contractors like in Iraq? What’s certain is that we won’t be the ones enjoying those gold profits. It’s substituting one mafia for another, except this one is white-collared.

Another example of a political agenda decided far away from Caracas is a new “dialogue” process with an opposition faction headed by Dinorah Figuera, president of a way-beyond-expired opposition-majority National Assembly, elected in 2015. Through an avalanche of communiqués, we were told that this process will set up “an agenda with concrete milestones and schedules” to “strengthen democracy.”

Figuera means nothing to 99 percent of Venezuelans and she confessed she came to meet National Assembly President Jorge Rodríguez on the instructions of the US State Department. She is the perfect example of the rottenness spawning from Washington, heading a “parliament” years after its term ended because the US still recognized it as Venezuela’s “sole legitimate authority” and there were still hundreds of millions of dollars in Venezuelan assets abroad to manage, or pilfer… She didn’t clarify much about the upcoming negotiations, beyond platitudes about “coexistence” and “democracy”.

Once more it was up to Washington to offer details. In its own statement, the State Department announced the talks aimed to rebuild “democratic institutions,” appoint a new electoral council, establish “guarantees” for political participation and the “protection” of civil liberties for open political debate.

Of course, no tale of US influence over Venezuelan politics could be complete without María Corina Machado. The far-right leader is getting antsy while on the sidelines, with no moves to play except trying to get Trump’s attention. For example, after the killing of Niño Guerrero, she wrote that “all these achievements were unthinkable six months ago. Therefore, we recognize and thank President Trump.”

Having been left out of the recent dialogue initiative, notwithstanding the repeated coronation ceremonies from her acolytes, Machado saw a golden opportunity to recoup political capital with the natural disaster in Venezuela. She has a comms apparatus standing at the ready for photo ops and video testimony, showing how she is somewhere and the government is not. But the Trump administration showed little appetite for this kind of circus, and despite Machado being airborne to Curaçao en route to Venezuela, ordered her to turn around.

The explanation is simple: the White House is not done in terms of tying down with shamefully anti-sovereign energy deals and burying us in debt until the second coming of Christ. As such, it is not the time for turmoil.

And though certain Machado aides announced that she would defy Trump, the truth is that she has stood pat, at least for now, while waiting for Washington winds to change.

At the end of the day, Rodríguez, Figuera, Machado, and many others are fighting for their place in the spotlight. But the Trump administration is the one writing the script, and even more so after the earthquakes. Though the tale may seem farcical at times, it is ultimately a tragedy for the Venezuelan people.

Jessica Dos Santos is a Venezuelan university professor, journalist and writer whose work has appeared in outlets such as RT, Épale CCS magazine and Investig’Action. She is the author of the book “Caracas en Alpargatas” (2018). She’s won the Aníbal Nazoa Journalism Prize in 2014 and received honorable mentions in the Simón Bolívar National Journalism prize in 2016 and 2018.

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect those of the Venezuelanalysis editorial staff.

Caracas, July 9, 2026 (venezuelanalysis.com) –  Venezuelan Acting President Delcy Rodríguez has called on UK King Charles III to release her country’s gold reserves held at the Bank of England in order to finance relief and reconstruction efforts following the devastating earthquakes that struck Venezuela on June 24.

“I have decided to send a letter, among others, to the King of England asking for the release of the gold being held at the Bank of England. That gold belongs to our people and should be used to address the terrible, tragic consequences of the twin earthquakes,” Rodríguez said in a televised broadcast on Wednesday.

The acting president also revealed that she held a phone conversation with International Monetary Fund (IMF) Managing Director Kristalina Georgieva to discuss the release of Venezuelan resources that remain blocked by the institution.

Earlier on Wednesday, during a virtual meeting with the UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA), Venezuelan Foreign Minister Yván Gil likewise urged countries holding Venezuelan assets abroad to “begin a process of releasing” those funds so they can be used for the country’s recovery.

Gil specifically referred to the gold reserves held by the Bank of England and Venezuelan funds blocked under US sanctions. Around 31 metric tons of gold, currently valued at approximately US $4.2 billion, remain frozen in London. In addition, nearly $5 billion in Special Drawing Rights (SDRs) allocated by the IMF in 2021 also remain inaccessible.

On Wednesday, Rodríguez and Georgieva reportedly discussed the use of Venezuela’s $350 million SDR reserve fund, which is different from the SDR allocation.

On June 25, the US Treasury’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) issued General License 60, authorizing earthquake relief-related transactions until October. However, OFAC’s waiver does not authorize the unblocking of assets subject to US sanctions regulations or “any other transaction or activity prohibited by another Executive Order.”

Meanwhile, 113 prominent economists, including Isabella Weber, Jeffrey Sachs, and James K. Galbraith, signed an open letter calling for immediate action to “unfetter Venezuela’s humanitarian response and reconstruction from ongoing economic and financial sanctions, asset freezes, and onerous debt burdens.”

“We urge governments, international financial institutions, and creditors to act now, on the principle that lives, public health, and economic recovery take precedence over coercion and collection,” the statement read. The economists suggested mechanisms including emergency liquidity, sanctions relief, and debt cancellation as a “minimum response […] to allow Venezuelans to rebuild with dignity.”

Along similar lines, UN Emergency Relief Coordinator Tom Fletcher warned that the earthquakes are likely to generate “a very difficult economic situation” that could reduce Venezuela’s GDP by “several percentage points,” arguing that sanctions “must be eased so they do not hinder the arrival of humanitarian assistance or recovery efforts.”

Fletcher added that during emergencies, access to financial resources, banking channels, and international cooperation mechanisms can determine how quickly aid, supplies, and reconstruction funding reach affected communities.

Preliminary assessments by the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) estimate infrastructure and essential services losses at approximately US$6.7 billion. However, the final figure could reach $8.7 billion, depending on housing and asset losses, and the estimates do not include the full extent of infrastructure damage or the long-term reconstruction costs.

For its part, the UN Office for Disaster Risk Reduction (UNDRR) estimates that rebuilding Venezuela will require approximately $37 billion. According to its assessment, $24 billion would be needed to replace damaged buildings—including homes, schools, businesses, and hospitals—while another $13 billion would be required to repair critical infrastructure such as telecommunications, highways, and electricity networks.

Different analyses have placed the recovery costs between $12 and $20 billion.

So far, however, the Trump administration has pledged $300 million in humanitarian assistance, whereas Venezuela’s US-based frozen assets are valued at $11-13 billion. The White House also retains control over Venezuela’s oil export revenues, returning a portion of the funds to Caracas at its discretion.

Rodríguez announced on Wednesday that countries offering humanitarian aid can monitor its distribution through a digital platform used to coordinate deliveries across the 87 temporary shelters established for displaced families throughout the country. The acting president has vowed to prioritize the well-being of families who lost their homes and to provide new housing solutions in the coming months.

The latest official update placed the death toll from the earthquakes at 3,889, while the number of injured remains at 16,740 and the number of displaced people stands at 17,907.

Edited by Ricardo Vaz in Caracas.

Mérida, July 7, 2026 (venezuelanalysis.com) – The Venezuelan government has launched a reconstruction program to recover damaged housing and infrastructure in the wake of the June 24 double earthquake.

Acting President Delcy Rodríguez oversaw the official launch of the Great Mission Venezuela Renace (“Venezuela reborn”) on Monday, with dozens of brigades simultaneously deployed to evaluate the condition of affected structures. Officials have estimated 190 flattened buildings and 856 with some level of damage.

“Venezuela is a seismic country and we have to ensure that, from a technical standpoint, families are protected from risk,” she said during a televised broadcast in Caracas. “This reconstruction is a task for the whole country, and it’s not just about infrastructure.”

Technical brigades will classify buildings using a traffic-light code, with green meaning they are safe to be occupied, yellow meaning that they require work before families can move back in, and red that they must be cleared for significant repairs or demolition.

On Sunday, the acting president appointed Jacqueline Faría to head the new government program. She will be “responsible for coordinating and leading housing and infrastructure recovery efforts to provide timely assistance to families affected by the earthquakes.”

During a meeting with governors from affected states, Faría detailed the mission’s first purpose as generating “a diagnosis for action.” The Venezuelan official underscored the need for an exhaustive structural census for reconstruction work.

Faría, who has held multiple cabinet posts since 1999, will be replaced by Francisco Garcés as minister of transport.

The new mission is going to unify the existing infrastructure-oriented social programs “Barrio Nuevo, Barrio Tricolor,” “Juntos Todo Es Posible,” and “Venezuela Bella” to execute repairs and allow families to reoccupy their homes as soon as possible. 

Rodríguez announced that an initial US $200 million fund, set up with resources frozen by the International Monetary Fund (IMF), will be used for the reconstruction and recovery of the affected areas.

During a Saturday meeting with her economic team, the acting president reported talks with public and private banks “to activate the mortgage portfolio,” adding that loans would be subsidized up to 80 percent. Rodríguez went on to announce the exoneration of fees and taxes related to property transactions and a temporary ban on the export of construction materials.

The June 24 twin earthquakes, with 7.2- and 7.5-magnitude and their epicenter near Morón, Carabobo state, have left an official death toll of 3,685 and more than 16,000 injured. The search for bodies continues to be a priority task for Venezuelan teams and volunteers, especially in the coastal La Guaira State where most of the building collapses are concentrated.

Coordination of these search and rescue operations has been transferred to Venezuela’s Civil Protection agency. Unofficial counts estimate over 40,000 missing people.

The United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA) has noted a growing displacement of affected families from La Guaira to other regions and has warned of the “many needs” of the population.

The wind-down of the search and rescue operations to find survivors has seen most of the foreign specialized teams leave the country in recent days. Venezuelan authorities have acknowledged the role played by international brigades and decorated them.

On July 4, acting President Delcy Rodríguez decorated US rescue teams with “Hero of Venezuela” and “Canine Heroes of Venezuela” medals. During the ceremony, the acting president thanked the American people for their help, expressing her wish that the rescuers “carry in their hearts part of the Venezuelan people.”

US emergency rescuers included the Los Angeles USAR International Team and Virginia’s Urban Search and Rescue Task Force 1.

In addition to its emergency brigades, Washington also deployed hundreds of military personnel to the Caribbean nation following the natural disaster. US forces have taken control of operations at the Simón Bolívar International Airport and La Guaira port after executing repair works. Helicopters and surveillance drones are likewise flying daily over the capital and surrounding areas.

Venezuela’s earthquake recovery efforts have also seen the controversial arrival of a diplomatic and military delegation from Israel led by Home Front Command Chief of Staff Brigadier General Elad Edri.

The Israeli mission has held multiple meetings with Venezuelan officials and, according to Edri, was asked by the Rodríguez government to evaluate infrastructure conditions and formulate a reconstruction plan.

In a press conference, the acting president expressed her appreciation for the arrival of the “highly trained and professional” Israeli team.

Caracas and Tel Aviv have not held diplomatic relations since former President Chávez severed ties in 2009. Both Chávez and his successor Nicolás Maduro recurrently condemned Israel for genocide and excoriated its war crimes in Gaza and Lebanon.

The Maduro administration publicly endorsed South Africa’s activation of the Genocide Convention against Israel at the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in 2024.

Edited by Ricardo Vaz in Caracas.

The U.S. has attacked Venezuela through various means for decades and kidnapped President Maduro but is now claiming to assist with earthquake relief. If it’s role in Haiti is any guide, that so-called aid from the U.S. is a Trojan Horse bringing more plunder and control.

For decades, the U.S. has waged a carefully planned and unrelenting attack on Venezuela’s economy using unilateral coercive measures, commonly known as economic sanctions, to destabilize and destroy the country’s socialist Bolivarian government. Though the earthquakes that devastated the nation were not caused by the U.S., the destabilization of the Venezuelan government, economy, and infrastructure was. The damage from those sanctions was so pervasive that any natural disaster large enough would be catastrophic, leading to foreign aid being used not only to produce enormous capitalist profits for foreign interests but also to bring the country more firmly under U.S. control. This is the situation Venezuela faces today.

George W. Bush imposed the first coercive measures against Venezuela in 2006. Democratically elected President Hugo Chávez had the nerve to criticize the U.S. for its bloodthirsty response to 9/11 and refused to support or participate in the U.S. sham counterterrorism efforts. Chávez did so in a very public and embarrassing way for Bush, as he declared from the lectern at the United Nations that George W. Bush was the devil, and that the podium that Bush had just delivered his own remarks from still smelled like sulfur. Bush responded by declaring Venezuela a state sponsor of terror along with Cuba and Iran (notice a pattern here). Bush also claimed that Venezuela refused to adhere to international counternarcotics agreements, breathing life into the claim that the Bolivarian government was a sponsor of narcoterrorism. But even before that, in 2004, Bush restricted non-humanitarian aid to the country, claiming they weren’t doing enough to stop human trafficking. Bush did all of this after the failed U.S.-backed coup against Chávez in 2002 that was tied to his administration. 

The aggression toward Venezuela did not end with the Bush presidency. In December 2014, Obama signed the Venezuela Defense of Human Rights and Civil Society Act after U.S. intelligence agencies and the Department of State claimed that the Venezuelan government was committing human rights abuses against government opposition members. This was done in response to the Maduro government charging opposition members with engaging in conspiracies to overthrow him. Obama imposed sanctions on seven Venezuelan officials, and in  March 2015, he issued an Executive Order implementing these sanctions and expanded them to block their visas and freeze the U.S. property of the targets. Obama publicly declared Venezuela an “…extraordinary threat to the national security of the United States.” 

In response, President Maduro said in a nationally televised speech, “President Barack Obama, representing the U.S. imperialist elite, has personally decided to take on the task of defeating my government and intervening in Venezuela to control it.” One of the impacted Venezuelan officials, Diosdado Cabello, said, “What is being planned are attacks against our land, against our country, military attacks.” It took the U.S. a few years, but…

President Donald Trump imposed more, wider-reaching economic coercive measures in 2017 during his first term. In addition to recognizing unelected opposition figure Juan Guaido as president of Venezuela, Trump also sanctioned the state-run oil company PDVSA, denying the government access to U.S. financial markets. He froze PDVSA’s assets and finally imposed a near-complete economic embargo on the country. And in 2020, the Trump Justice Department indicted President Maduro on charging the president and 14 others with narcoterrorism, conspiracy to import cocaine, and gun charges. It also accused him of coordinating with the leftist guerrilla peasant militia Fuerzas Armadas Revolucionarias de Colombia (FARC), or Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia. Founded as the military wing of the Colombian Communist Party, which sought to redistribute land and resources that the Colombian government denied to the desperately poor peasants in rural areas. After years of fighting with the government, FARC was officially dissolved in the 2016 Peace Accord with the Colombian government. They are now a legal left-wing political party, initially called the Common Alternative Revolutionary Force and later renamed the Comunes (Commons). Trump then issued a $15 million bounty for information leading to Maduro’s arrest. Not to be outdone in attempting to enact regime change in Venezuela, President Joe Biden doubled the bounty to $25 million, with no additional indictments added.

The measures barred Venezuela from importing equipment, spare parts, and industrial chemicals to maintain its oil production facilities and shipping capabilities. Oil infrastructure across the country deteriorated, and oil production was driven far below the previous 3 billion barrels a day at its 2008 height to barely above 300,000 barrels a day.  

While many people accurately note that the U.S. is after control of Venezuela’s enormous oil reserves, the country’s mineral wealth is also crucial to the U.S. and much of the world, as it includes bauxite and rare earth minerals critical for weapons systems, satellite manufacturing, and AI technologies. When we consider the struggle we are engaging in to stop the proliferation of these technologies from being used to violate our privacy, whatever freedom we have left, our environment, and our very lives, consider that the U.S. pursuit of these materials has already directly caused the instability, suffering, worsened health outcomes, and deaths of tens of thousands of Venezuelans.

Venezuela relies largely on oil exports to fund its public sector commitments; the collapse of oil exports crippled its primary source of public revenue, making it impossible to import essential goods like food and medicine. The Center for Economic and Policy Research (CEPR) estimated that 40,000 Venezuelans died due to economic coercive measures between 2018 and 2019 alone. Former U.S. Special Rapporteur Alfred de Zayas estimated the deaths to have been over 100,000 by 2020. But this is neither unexpected nor unwanted by the U.S. government. Economic sanctions are designed to cause so much hardship for the people of a country that they will rise up in frustration and anger at their own government. U.S. officials understood that imposing economic sanctions on the country would prevent it from importing not just materials to maintain the oil sector but also necessities for the Venezuelan people, such as food, medicine, fuel, and even toilet paper. But public infrastructure, from hospitals and office buildings to apartment buildings and water systems, also fell into disrepair as materials needed to maintain it could not be imported due to sanctions. With the physical buildings weakened, the country was far more vulnerable to disasters like the June 2026 earthquakes than it would have been had the sanctions not been in place.

By the time Trump returned to the White House in 2024, despite the immense damage already done to the country’s economy and infrastructure, they had not done what successive U.S. presidents wanted: to bring about the collapse of the Bolivarian government in Venezuela. Trump imposed more measures after his return to office, doubled Biden’s bounty increase on Maduro to $50 million, and eventually carried out the violent kidnapping of President Nicholas Maduro and First Combatant Cilia Flores in the pre-dawn hours of January 3, 2026, with the help of the Navy and Marines of the Southern US Command (SOUTHCOM), which also carried out the indiscriminate murders of Caribbean fisherfolk in the months prior to the kidnapping. The bounty was never paid to anyone. He also added to the original 2020 indictment against Maduro by adding his now-kidnapped wife and National Assemblywoman Flores, and adding charges of “…narco-terrorism conspiracy, cocaine importation conspiracy, possession of machine guns and destructive devices, and conspiracy to possess machine guns and destructive devices against the United States.” They are both held in separate solitary confinement cells in the Metropolitan Detention Center (MDC) in Brooklyn, NY, awaiting their sham trials.

It is an obscenity that the same SOUTHCOM is now deploying forces to Caracas to provide post-disaster air traffic and airport support. But it is a greater crime that the U.S. has positioned itself and its interests to finally get what it wants – control of Venezuela’s oil and minerals sectors and eventual privatization of public services that define the Socialist Bolivarian government – even if it is a natural disaster that provides them the perfect opportunity to achieve it. This, after expropriating Venezuela’s oil industry and profiting from selling the stolen crude, Trump sending a measly $150 million in “aid” to the country he stole their sovereign materials from is a settler colonial level insult.

This is “disaster capitalism,” popularized by Naomi Klein in her book The Shock Doctrine, but a well-documented aspect of imperialist plunder. In the process of imposing economic shocks through sanctions by an external entity or through the implementation of neoliberal policies internally, Klein explains how governments and corporations exploit the shock of an unplanned, catastrophic event to impose radical, wholesale austerity and control. Disaster response becomes the vehicle for enormous foreign investment and development, foreign control of that development, and ultimately the usurpation of the existing but weakened state in favor of the foreign governments and corporate interests behind the aid money. Economic policies that would be rejected under normal circumstances are more easily imposed on an already vulnerable state when that state and its people are rendered desperate by a natural disaster. 

The use of disaster relief as a Trojan Horse for neoliberal plunder and control after the 2010 earthquake in Haiti may give us a terrifying vision of what could be in store for Venezuela today.

The earthquake in Haiti was used as a pretext for the US to assert near-total control over the country’s recovery, if not the country itself, along with its foreign allies in the UN-imposed Core Group that governs the island nation. Aid and reconstruction, and the billions of dollars for it, were directed by those and other foreign governments and contractors, bypassing the Haitian state under then-president René Préval. International entities justified this by claiming Haiti was hopelessly corrupt. What they were, however, was in disarray after the earthquake destroyed much of the government’s infrastructure, including the National Assembly and the National Palace, and years of imperialist control usurped its sovereignty. 

But this excuse was needed to justify the Haitian government seeing very little of the billions of dollars pledged for relief and reconstruction. The Associated Press reported in 2013 that CEPR found that out of the $1.15 billion pledged, only 1% went to Haitian companies. They found instead that “…the ‘vast majority’ of the money it could follow went straight to U.S. companies or organizations, more than half in the Washington area alone.” And what was constructed was for the benefit of foreign corporate and Haitian comprador interests, who had the protection of the United States government to bend Haiti to all of their will.  

The $224 million Caracol Industrial Park, built with reconstruction funds allocated through the recovery mission co-chaired by former U.S. President Bill Clinton, is a continuing example of disaster capitalism and the nefarious ways that Western imperialists profit from natural and human catastrophe.

In 2011, scores of farmers and other residents were evicted from their fertile agricultural land, far from the impact zone, to make way for its construction. They were given little notice to leave and insufficient compensation. They fought for years to secure a reparations agreement with the Haitian government and the Inter-American Development Bank (IDB) in 2018, which included new land, jobs, equipment, and other compensation. Many finally received reimbursement in 2020, but not all, and not nearly enough for what was taken from them by the U.S., the IDB, and USAID, who were the major funders of the project. 

The park was designed to attract foreign garment companies with tax exemptions and cheap labor, as wages were promised to be kept as low as $1.75 a day. The garment companies did come, and the Clintons promised hundreds of thousands of jobs. But fewer than 10,000 were produced, and they were at the same low rate of less than $2.00 a day that Haitians had been fighting to raise for years before the earthquake against a small group of Haitian manufacturing, import/export, and political elites controlling the country’s existing manufacturing industries with the backing of the U.S. government. When the Haitian government passed a law in 2009 to raise the country’s minimum wage for garment workers to $3 a day and $5 a day for other sectors due to the people’s agitation, foreign companies and the Haitian elite colluded with the U.S. State Department and, with a study from USAID that said raising the minimum wage would make the garment sector economically unviable, successfully blocked the legislation. 

While Bill and Hillary Clinton have never admitted involvement in suppressing Haitian wages, Hillary Clinton was Secretary of State under President Barack Obama when the State Department cables that WikiLeaks published revealed the covert wage-suppression scheme that resulted in legislation being passed in the U.S. to favor the Haitian elite and foreign investors: the Haitian Hemispheric Opportunity through Partnership Encouragement (HOPE) Acts I & II. There was no way the Clintons were not involved, as it was the Clinton Foundation through which they did much of their work in Haiti, and Haitians hold them responsible for the abysmal outcome.

By the end of 2011, one year after the earthquake, most of the promised aid had not been disbursed, and what was went to projects unrelated to housing, feeding, or providing any aid or support to the displaced, like the Caracol Industrial Park.  The scandal was compounded by revelations that some major aid organizations achieved very little with the funds they received, so no one could really account for where the billions of dollars went, other than into the pockets of non-Haitians. 

Today, Haiti is still among the poorest countries in the world. Haitians have continued to protest not just against the minimum wage, but also the lack of sovereignty and human dignity imposed upon them as they endure a rise in U.S.-fueled gang violence, attacks on Haitian immigrants from this administration, continued control from the UN-appointed Core Group with no elected leadership chosen by them, and another UN invasion/intervention to quell unrest. 

This is the future that the U.S. wants for Venezuela. To make Venezuela like Haiti or something close to it, at least in the manner of creating a dismantled state that the U.S. can swoop into, plunder, and control. Although Haiti and Venezuela may not be perfectly similar in many ways, but the use of an earthquake to further imperialist takeover of a country already weakened by relentless Western hegemony in response to the successful liberation struggle of largely Afro-descendent and Indigenous peasantry to free themselves from European settler colonial domination and capitalist exploitation are complementary examples of how a natural disaster is be used to deepen imperialist control under the guise of aid, instead of the most powerful and wealthiest country in the world using that power and money to help suffering human beings. And then the same country calls those states failed, and demonizes the government and the people as immature, unable to govern themselves, and an example of the failures of socialism or communism.

As U.S. officials are on the ground in Venezuela openly “coordinating” with the Interim President Delcy Rodriguez, it must be understood that this is done with the threat of her own indictment and imprisonment on bogus charges of narcotrafficking, human rights abuses, corruption, or grave robbing, depending on how amusing the U.S. wants to be with the sham accusations over her head. 

And now, the U.S. is poised to use this unbelievably tragic disaster as an even bigger cudgel to force the Venezuelan state to concede much, much more, seizing this opportunity to tighten its control over the country’s oil and mineral resources, effectively absorbing it into the U.S. sphere of influence, to be used as a weapon against the rest of the U.S.’s designated enemies, Cuba, China, and Russia. Venezuela has had friendly relations with all of these countries, and all countries that the U.S. is also softening up with sanctions, embargoes, and threats of worse treatment. 

We must expand and deepen the struggle against the U.S. re-colonization of the Western Hemisphere and join our struggling brothers and sisters in the Global South for an end to imperialist aggression, hegemony, and gangsterism, and we must target the enemy in whose camp we reside with clarity and purpose.

Because natural disasters will never stop happening. But disaster capitalism never has to happen again.

Not if we destroy capitalism and the empires that are erected upon it.

Jacqueline Luqman is a radical activist based in Washington, D.C., as well as a co-founder of Luqman Nation, an independent Black media outlet available on YouTube (here and here) and Facebook.

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect those of the Venezuelanalysis editorial staff.

Source: Black Agenda Report

Caracas, July 2, 2026 (venezuelanalysis.com) – United States Southern Command (SOUTHCOM) Commander General Francis Donovan has announced the deployment of some 2,000 military personnel in response to Venezuela’s June 24 earthquakes.

“The US military, the Department of War, has roughly 2,000 teammates in the area on land, air, and sea around Venezuela,” Donovan said in a Wednesday press briefing. On Tuesday, Donovan told Reuters that US forces had 900 servicemen and women in Venezuelan territory.

The US general claimed that the military presence aims to improve logistics and that US forces will leave once “they are done.” He also expressed confidence that the mission would improve “military-to-military” relations with Venezuela.

Washington activated its response force in the wake of the 7.2- and 7.5-magnitude double earthquakes that caused widespread destruction in the Caribbean nation, especially in coastal La Guaira State. The latest official figures reported 2,295 dead and over 11,000 injured, with thousands still declared missing.

Alongside specialized urban search and rescue units, US forces have also dispatched a significant contingent of Marines together with air and sea assets.

After carrying out repair works on a runway, the US Air Force’s Contingency Response Element (CRE) has been conducting “airfield management, air traffic coordination, communications, and security” at the Simón Bolívar International Airport. SOUTHCOM press releases have documented the arrival of multiple military transport aircraft, while MQ-9 Reaper drones and combat helicopters have conducted intelligence reconnaissance over Caracas and other affected areas.

US forces have likewise taken a position at La Guaira port with the docking of the amphibious USS Fort Lauderdale warship. US officials have assessed conditions and necessary works at the port and aim to establish a “vital command-and-control node” for the delivery of humanitarian aid.

In a Thursday press conference, Venezuelan Acting President Delcy Rodríguez thanked US President Donald Trump and Secretary of State Marco Rubio for their “permanent contact and support.” She went on to acknowledge the US’ “major logistical deployment to receive humanitarian aid.”

Since the January 3 military strikes on Caracas and kidnapping of Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro, the Trump administration has dramatically increased its foothold in the Caribbean nation. The Venezuelan legislature has approved multiple reforms catered to Western corporate interests, while oil export revenues are currently controlled by the US Treasury Department.

In addition, US forces ran military drills over Caracas on May 23 and conducted an extrajudicial execution of an alleged gang leader in southeastern Bolívar state in June in “coordination” with Venezuelan security forces.

Following the recent natural disaster, the US Treasury Department issued a time-limited license allowing relief-related transactions with Venezuela while maintaining its wide-reaching sanctions regime in place.

Washington and its allies likewise hold billions worth of Venezuelan frozen assets, including 31 tonnes of gold deposited at the Bank of England that the UK government has refused to release.

Edited by Lucas Koerner in Caracas.

[Updated on July 3 to include Rodríguez’s comments]

Mérida, June 29, 2026 (venezuelanalysis.com) – Venezuelan and international rescue teams continue to search for survivors under collapsed buildings following last Wednesday’s back-to-back earthquakes.

The 7.2- and 7.5-magnitude tremors caused widespread destruction, primarily in the coastal state of La Guaira, which has been described as “ground zero.” Geological services have registered more than 500 aftershocks since the original earthquakes.

On Monday, Venezuelan officials reported that there have been 1,719 people killed, 5,034 injured, and more than 15 thousand displaced. According to the country’s authorities, 855 buildings have been damaged, including 189 totally collapsed, along with damage to 38 hospitals and 1,645 road structures.

“We are in critical and crucial hours to continue saving lives,” National Assembly President Jorge Rodríguez stated during a Monday press conference. He confirmed that over 25,000 rescue workers, including military personnel, police, firefighters, and civil protection units, are currently deployed, supported by 3,319 international rescuers from 25 nations and 137 specialized canines.

Rodríguez added that 90% of electricity service has been restored in La Guaira State, and that a special hotline remains active to provide psychological support to relatives of the victims, displaced people, and those suffering from post-traumatic stress following the earthquakes.

Earlier on Monday, Acting President Delcy Rodríguez celebrated the rescue of 21-year-old Aaron Levi Cantillo, who was pulled alive from the rubble in La Guaira after being trapped for 106 hours. The rescue was the result of 43 hours of intense, coordinated work by Venezuelan Civil Protection and brigades from Mexico, Chile, and Argentina. Emergency workers have warned that, as time passes, the probability of still finding survivors drastically decreases.

Over the weekend, the Venezuelan government has likewise ramped up efforts to tend to displaced families, with 15 temporary shelters set up in La Guaira and a further 50 in Caracas.

Other areas beyond La Guaira have also been severely impacted. Local residents reported structural damage and service failures in Morón, Carabobo state, close to the earthquakes’ epicenters. Similarly, in Tucacas, Falcón state, residents called for assistance from authorities as they face interrupted electricity or water services.

As part of its response to the crisis, the acting Rodríguez government restricted access to the state of La Guaira, the hardest-hit area. The measure aims to prevent traffic congestion and prioritize the movement of emergency vehicles and heavy machinery. Venezuelan officials have urged the public to avoid traveling to the area to ensure that rescue efforts are not impeded.

At the same time, authorities have sought to organize volunteer brigades, both for search and rescue operations and to tend to temporary shelters, via a registration center at the Poliedro complex in Caracas. 

As of June 29, 10,834 volunteers had registered, and they have been categorized according to their area of expertise: survivor rescue, medical care, logistics at temporary camps, and other essential tasks.

Following the double earthquake, the United States government has ramped up its presence in the Caribbean nation. The US Department of State has deployed a Disaster Assistance Response Team (DART) and specialized urban search and rescue units.

The Department of War has sent an expeditionary airfield management team to repair and reopen the damaged Simón Bolívar International Airport, which is now serving as the primary hub for international relief flights. The US Southern Command (SOUTHCOM) has stated that it is currently “managing tower and ground operations” at the country’s most important airport.

SOUTHCOM is also assessing conditions at the port of La Guaira and has docked the USS Fort Lauderdale warship to coordinate maritime deliveries. Various aircraft, including C-17 Globemaster, C-130 Hercules, MV-22 Ospreys, and helicopters, have conducted aerial surveys and transported rescue teams and supplies. 

Acting President Delcy Rodríguez personally thanked President Trump and Secretary of State Marco Rubio for US support following the natural disaster. In a social media message, the acting president said she was “deeply grateful for this gesture of friendship and cooperation.”

The Trump administration announced that humanitarian assistance to Venezuela has been increased to over $300 million. However, Washington has not offered any relief from widespread economic sanctions, only issuing a time-limited license allowing earthquake relief-related transactions.

The White House also retains control over Venezuelan oil export revenues, with the disbursement timings and amounts left at US officials’ discretion.

Edited by Ricardo Vaz in Caracas.

Caracas, June 19, 2026 (venezuelanalysis.com) – Venezuelan National Assembly President Jorge Rodríguez held a meeting on Thursday with a US-picked opposition figure to launch a new political dialogue process.

In a statement, Rodríguez, who is also the Venezuelan government’s lead negotiator, disclosed talks with “the representative of the opposition lawmakers from the 2015-2020 period,” Dinorah Figuera, to launch “a joint technical and political working group” with “an agenda containing concrete milestones and timelines” aimed at “strengthening democracy.”

In a separate statement, the expired opposition-controlled 2015 National Assembly explained that the central objective of the process is “the construction of a shared vision for the future.” The communiqué claimed that the dialogue aims to establish a “roadmap for the construction of a democratic scenario” in the country. 

Figuera also met with US Chargé d’Affaires John Barrett in Caracas on Thursday.

For its part, the US State Department welcomed the meeting, describing it as the “first step” toward “a free Venezuela.” The Trump administration has insisted on a “three-phase process” for the Caribbean nation which culminates with a political “transition.”

According to Washington, the proposed agenda includes priorities such as rebuilding democratic institutions, strengthening the National Electoral Council (CNE), restoring guarantees for political participation, and protecting the civil liberties necessary for an open political debate.

“The cornerstone of any transition is inclusive dialogue. We hope that conversations between Venezuelan political parties and the interim government in Caracas continue in the coming weeks so that this work can begin,” stated Thomas Pigott, spokesperson for US Secretary of State Marco Rubio.

Upon arriving at the airport on Thursday, Figuera told reporters that she had traveled to Venezuela at the invitation of the US State Department, with her tasks including the establishment of a “credible” electoral council. She added that her work intends to benefit all political forces while avoiding questions about whether the initiative had been coordinated with far-right leader María Corina Machado.

Figuera was among the lawmakers elected when the opposition won a parliamentary majority in December 2015. Anti-government parties attempted to use the National Assembly to overthrow the Nicolás Maduro government and pushed several laws that were struck down as unconstitutional. It was eventually sidelined after being declared in contempt by the Supreme Court, with the South American country’s legislation taken over by a government-supporting National Constituent Assembly. The ruling United Socialist Party (PSUV) retook control of the legislature in the 2020 and 2025 elections that were boycotted by many opposition sectors.

Though the 2015 National Assembly’s term expired in January 2021, it unilaterally renewed its own mandate for successive one-year periods. The defunct parliament retained US recognition as Venezuela’s legitimate authority, which allowed it to manage Venezuelan assets abroad. Washington’s backing ended in March when Trump recognized Acting President Delcy Rodríguez as Venezuela’s “sole leader.”

Figuera, who has lived in Spain since 2018, took over as president of the opposition-controlled body in January 2023 following the dissolution of the self-proclaimed “interim government” led by Juan Guaidó.

At the time, Venezuelan judicial authorities denounced Figuera’s role in an “illegitimate” parliament that aimed to “plunder Venezuelan assets abroad” and issued an arrest warrant and an Interpol red alert. While several opposition figures have benefited from an amnesty law approved by the present National Assembly in February, it is not known whether Figuera was among those whose legal cases were dropped.

Figuera’s return to Caracas also comes just weeks after the Unitary Platform—the coalition that groups the country’s main opposition parties—agreed during a meeting in Panama that far-right María Corina Machado would “lead negotiations with Chavismo to call elections” and eventually run as a presidential candidate.

Machado and the Unitary Platform have yet to comment on Figuera’s talks with the acting Delcy Rodríguez government, having previously demanded elections within a 40-week timeframe.

Since the January 3 strikes and kidnapping of Maduro, the Trump administration has wielded a strong influence over Venezuelan affairs. US officials have openly participated in legislative initiatives to open the Caribbean nation’s energy and mining sectors to Western companies while also accompanying corporate executives on trips to discuss business opportunities.

US forces likewise conducted an extrajudicial execution in Venezuelan territory earlier this month, with Caracas calling it a “joint operation” against organized crime.

Despite the diplomatic rapprochement and catering to US investment, Venezuelan authorities had previously brushed aside talk of early presidential elections. Maduro’s term, currently held by Delcy Rodríguez in an acting capacity, ends in January 2031. In a February interview with US conservative outlet Newsmax, parliamentary leader Jorge Rodríguez stated that no elections were expected in the short term because the priority was achieving economic stability.

Edited by Ricardo Vaz in Caracas.

Following the US attack on January 3, Venezuela was left in a state of turmoil and uncertainty that does not rule out further military actions. In recent days, there was “a joint operation between Venezuelan and US security agencies in the southeast of Bolívar state, in which organized crime networks were dismantled,” according to a statement from the Venezuelan government. Days earlier, the Coordinadora Simón Bolívar, a historic Chavista organization, had denounced DEA involvement in planning a repressive offensive with the aim of “decapitating” the popular movement in the iconic 23 de Enero neighborhood, which Juan Contreras describes as “the most important in Caracas.”

A community leader, social work graduate, and president of the Coordinadora, Contreras is a longtime Chavista activist and staunch defender of the Bolivarian Revolution. Today he believes there are “shameful situations that must be denounced,” but he holds the US government – ”our enemy” – responsible. Contreras was born and raised in the densely populated and combative 23 de Enero neighborhood, where he still lives and where he welcomed us to analyze the complex situation facing Venezuela, and in particular the social movements.

How are Venezuelan social organizations responding to what has been happening in the country since the US military attack on January 3?

What happened was an act of aggression, an act of war. They [the US] sought and continue to seek to break our people, but we in the social movements have kept up our efforts because we still believe in the revolutionary process. Our enemy is the US government, which must have realized that the problem wasn’t Chávez, because Chávez died and the revolution continued. President Maduro has been kidnapped, and here we are. What we’re experiencing today is unique in history; I don’t think anything like what’s happening in Venezuela has ever happened anywhere else in the world – the closest thing was in 1989 in Panama, when they kidnapped Noriega. But here, their narrative has fallen apart: it has not been proven that Venezuela is a drug trafficking country, that its government is linked to drug trafficking, or that President Nicolás Maduro was one of the biggest drug lords, as they claimed. On the contrary, today all those narratives have been debunked, and what is clear is that they are coming after our energy reserves. The Venezuelan people are well aware of this.

Is identifying a state of war and an enemy the context for the denunciation you issued about the danger of a DEA-orchestrated attack on 23 de Enero?

This is information we’ve received from a reliable source indicating that a large-scale operation is being planned against 23 de Enero, which is not far-fetched. 23 de Enero, as a barrio, has historical significance dating back to the Fourth Republic, between 1958 after the fall of Pérez Jiménez and the advent of democracy. That threat is very real. I believe that at the time, there was an underestimation of the threats posed by the US empire: the fact that our coasts were blockaded, the fact that our airspace was blockaded… Now, what we’re denouncing here has all the hallmarks of becoming a reality. It’s not just me saying this, nor the source that gave us this information, which is a reliable one. It’s that all the propaganda out there points in that direction, starting with the journalists who now live in Miami and are waging a full-scale campaign against the colectivos. “What’s going on with the colectivos? Why aren’t they attacking the colectivos? Why don’t they disarm the colectivos?” Marco Rubio himself has said it, and just recently one of the top military leaders said it: they’re coming for the “armed groups.” The problem is that, in their narrative, they label social movements as armed groups, accusing them of being armed in order to justify their aggression. Well, today our people are armed with consciousness; today, after 27 years, our people are more Bolivarian than ever. These are the people who placed their trust in Comandante Chávez, who committed to refounding the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela. That is why we can understand all this cognitive warfare being waged against Venezuela.

There are no guerrillas here; what we have here is a people with a consciousness, a mobilized people, a people who, through culture, through popular education, have managed to advance in building the Bolivarian embryo from the barrio level, with the communal councils and the communes. So, the US seeks to dismantle that organization by employing the tactic of decapitation. They want to destroy the collectives, those who raise their voices against the empire, those who today denounce what is happening in our country, those of us who disagree with what is happening today, and who have maintained a principled and firm stance in the face of that aggression and invasion by the US empire.

Based on the information you have, how would the DEA carry out an attack of that kind on Venezuelan territory?

They have been operating by applying pressure. In all our countries, we have a repressive police force. Perhaps there is a segment of the police ranks – among their core leadership – that understands human rights issues, but there are other segments that are easily co-opted. We have 27 years of experience in which generals, colonels, and captains have turned their backs on us and served the empire’s policies. So, it’s not far-fetched to say that the United States is working with certain police forces, or with specific officials who might be willing to carry out an operation against the most important symbol in Caracas, which is the 23 de Enero parish. From 1958 to 1998, approximately 160 martyrs were killed there by the police. In other words, this is not crazy: it is serious, and as the pressure on our government to move toward an electoral process intensifies, the plan of aggression may also accelerate.

So, of course, it’s entirely possible that they’ll move forward with an action like this to eliminate what they consider “the Bolivarian resistance,” represented by social movements organized into communes, communal councils, and long-standing social organizations such as the Coordinadora Simón Bolívar, which is an expression of the popular power.

Did you receive any show of solidarity from the government?

Someone with influence within the government called us, reached out, we talked, and they agreed to investigate and look into the matter. What they recommended was caution: to steer clear of any provocation. And well, we’re waiting to see if what was discussed will be carried out, that a thorough investigation is conducted into what we’re denouncing. Because up until now, we thought [the US] would never invade, but they did; we underestimated them, and they invaded. And today they have the audacity to sell our oil, manage our finances, provoke us, and say they’re going to turn us into their 51st state. And on top of that, they’ve placed us under tutelage as if they were the owners of our country. This is, of course, shameful, and we must denounce it.

That is why we, as part of the popular movement, remain mobilized and continue to denounce what happened on January 3 and the consequences we are enduring in Bolívar’s homeland.

This situation has not yet had any international repercussions. What message do you have for the social and political forces in Latin America?

It has been 200 years since the Amphictyonic Congress, that call made by the Liberator to build a confederation of nations and defend ourselves against the US empire, which was already showing its claws. What better time to call for a continentalization of the struggle of our social organizations? It is not just Venezuela that is at risk: it is all of Latin America. They are coming for their backyard. Today, brazenly and in an interventionist manner, they are meddling in Colombia’s elections and declaring which candidate they want to win. They did the same in Honduras. 

So, in light of these events, the call to expand the struggle across the continent must be a reality today. Latin America’s only chance to escape the aggression of Donald Trump’s administration is through the coordination of the popular and revolutionary movement across the region. We must unite, we must denounce this situation, and we must move forward, because they’re coming for everything. The only way forward is to make the struggle a continental one. This is something that, at one point, was not only stated by Bolívar but also attempted by Comandante Ernesto Guevara. I believe that is where we should focus our efforts: on uniting the popular and revolutionary forces of Latin America and the Caribbean.

Source: Tiempo Argentino

Mérida, June 16, 2026 (venezuelanalysis.com) – The Venezuelan government has signed two agreements with foreign companies as part of efforts to bolster the country’s National Electric System (SEN).

On Monday, Acting President Delcy Rodríguez penned a memorandum of understanding with GE Vernova, a company formed from the 2024 breakup of US conglomerate General Electric, at Miraflores Palace in Caracas.

“This memorandum is historic for Venezuela, so we can recover such an essential service for the Venezuelan people,” she stated during a televised broadcast. “I have asked the teams to convert this memorandum into a contract as soon as possible and start the works.”

According to Rodríguez, the agreement will incorporate 1,000 Megawatts (MW) into Venezuela’s electricity grid in the next 24 months, and 5,000 MW over four years. The acting president added that GE technicians have spent “six weeks” in the country assessing conditions of electric equipment.

Rodríguez did not disclose what the deal entails, nor what components of the electric grid will be turned over to GE Vernova, but stated that the plan concerns generation, transmission, and electricity substations.

The Venezuelan acting leader went on to thank US Chargé d’Affaires John Barrett, who was present at the ceremony, for promoting engagement with major US corporations like GE. Company executives Roger Martella and Eric Gray were likewise in attendance. Martella stated that GE’s objective was to quickly reactivate electricity generation. 

“We want to move quickly so the system can work as best as possible in a few months. We already have an agreement on technical details,” he said.

Two days earlier, Venezuelan authorities announced a separate accord with Argentina-based firm Industrias Metalúrgicas Pescarmona (IMPSA) to rehabilitate the Manuel Piar and Antonio José de Sucre hydroelectric projects, known as the Tocoma and Macagua dams. Both are located in the Caroní river, in Bolívar state, which also supplies the Simón Bolívar Hydroelectric Plant, known as the Guri Dam.

The official release indicated that the agreement aims to inject 2,640 MW into the grid. IMPSA President Jorge Salcedo clarified on social media that the company’s initial target is to restore 672 MW of capacity from Tocoma within 19 months. 

“This agreement launches a broader effort to strengthen Venezuela’s power system through a comprehensive plan that could deliver up to 2,160 MW at Tocoma and 480 MW at Macagua over the next five years,” he wrote.

The Tocoma project dates back to the 2000s. In 2008, Venezuela’s state electricity company CORPOELEC hired a construction consortium headed by Brazilian firm Odebrecht to build the dam, with IMPSA tasked with supplying machinery. 

However, despite costs running over US $9.3 billion, more than triple the original $3 billion budget, the project was not culminated. Venezuelan authorities reported that construction was at 90 percent completion in 2016. A $1.2 billion debt owed by CORPOELEC saw IMPSA suspend activities with only two of the ten projected turbines partially installed.

According to Reuters, IMPSA is holding most of the contracted equipment in storage and will replace the missing or obsolete ones with new technology.

IMPSA was temporarily owned by the Argentine state before being privatized by the Milei administration in February 2025. The company was acquired by the US-based consortium Industrial Acquisition Fund (IAF). IAF’s main partner is ARC Energy, headed by close Trump ally and donor Jason Arceneaux.

Venezuela’s electrical system has suffered under years of US sanctions as well as underinvestment, lack of maintenance, and corruption. Around 40 percent of its installed 30,000 MW capacity is currently operational, with generation deficit around 3,000 MW meaning regular blackouts in most of the country.

Strengthening the electrical supply is a precondition for the country’s economic recovery, with growing oil production placing an additional burden on the grid.

The Rodríguez acting government has sought to address the issue by opening the electricity system to the private sector, with GE and IMPSA the first corporations formally engaged. 

On June 4, the National Assembly preliminarily approved a reform of the Organic Law of the National Electricity System. The new legal framework breaks with the 2007 legislation under Hugo Chávez that centralized the grid under CORPOELEC and defined all stages of electricity generation and distribution as “strategic for the nation.”

The reform allows for private sector participation in generation, transmission, distribution, and commercialization ativities through concessions lasting up to 25 years. It also envisions new tariff structures based on “real costs and reasonable returns” for investors.

Edited by Ricardo Vaz in Caracas.

Caracas, June 14, 2026 (venezuelanalysis.com) – The United States launched a military strike inside Venezuelan territory that reportedly killed Héctor “Niño” Guerrero Flores, an alleged leader of criminal group Tren de Aragua.

US President Donald Trump first announced the “swift and lethal kinetic strike” via social media on Friday evening. 

“At my direction, the US Southern Command (SOUTHCOM) delivered a swift and lethal kinetic strike to successfully execute Niño Guerrero, the infamous leader of Tren de Aragua,” he wrote. “Tren de Aragua terrorists no longer have safe haven in Venezuela or anywhere else.” 

Trump added that the extrajudicial execution was “coordinated closely with our friends in Venezuela.” An accompanying video showed a house or compound being blown up. 

US Secretary of War Pete Hegseth confirmed the operation shortly afterward, adding that it had taken place earlier in the week. He reiterated the “full collaboration with Venezuelan security forces” and claimed that Guerrero was confirmed dead in the strike.

“The operation underscores the shared US and Venezuelan commitment to take the fight to narco-terrorists and deny them any safe haven in our hemisphere,” he stated. SOUTHCOM Commander General Francis Donovan also expressed “gratitude” to Venezuelan security forces for their “support to the successful joint operation.”

In a Sunday interview, Hegseth claimed that US forces were “invited” by Venezuelan authorities and that further operations in Venezuelan territory were to be expected.

The Wall Street Journal, citing an anonymous administration official, reported that the CIA provided intelligence for the strike.

For its part, the Venezuelan government headed by Acting President Delcy Rodríguez issued a Friday evening statement informing of a “joint operation” between US and Venezuelan security forces to dismantle “organized crime structures” in southeast Bolívar state.

“During the operation there were clashes with members of these criminal structures that resulted in ‘Niño Guerrero’ being neutralized,” the communiqué read. Neither Venezuelan nor US officials offered details about the operation, the alleged clashes, or additional casualties from the lethal strike against Guerrero.

Caracas went on to claim that the mission involved “intelligence sharing” between the two countries and reiterated its “commitment to fight organized crime.” 

According to the Venezuelan Constitution, the deployment of foreign military missions in the country’s territory requires approval from the National Assembly.

The military procedure coincided with a Venezuelan armed forces deployment to dislodge illegal mining outfits from mineral-rich Bolívar state as Western corporations eye lucrative exploration projects under a new, pro-business mining law. Tren de Aragua was alleged to be one of several criminal groups operating in the area.

The reported execution of Guerrero is the first recorded joint US-Venezuela military operation on Venezuelan soil. Since September 2025, the Trump administration has struck dozens of small boats in the Caribbean and Eastern Pacific, killing over 200 civilians. US authorities have claimed to be targeting drug trafficking operations but have not put forward any evidence.

In 2025, Washington likewise ramped up “narcoterrorism” accusations against the Nicolás Maduro government while setting up a large-scale military deployment near Venezuelan shores. Caracas denounced the charges as a pretext for foreign intervention, pointing to United Nations and DEA reports that repeatedly showed the South American country to play a marginal role in global narcotics trafficking.

On January 3, US forces bombed Caracas and kidnapped Maduro and First Lady Cilia Flores. They are currently facing trial in New York and have pleaded not guilty to charges including drug trafficking conspiracy. Despite recurring accusations in recent years, US officials have not provided any public evidence tying high-ranking Venezuelan officials to narcotics activities.

Since the attack, Acting President Rodríguez has fast-tracked a diplomatic rapprochement with the Trump White House while reforming oil and mining legislation to favor Western investment. Multiple US officials have visited Caracas in recent months, including SOUTHCOM Commander Donovan, CIA Director John Ratcliffe, and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Dan Caine.

Dating back to his election campaign, Trump consistently talked up the threat posed by Tren de Aragua in the US as part of his anti-migrant crackdown and alleged that it acted in collaboration with the Maduro government. In February 2025, the State Department designated Tren de Aragua as a foreign terrorist organization (FTO), having previously announced a US $5 million reward for information leading to the capture of Guerrero.

However, despite repeated rumors of crimes attributed to Tren de Aragua, US intelligence agencies found no evidence of the organization having any coordinated activity on US soil or ties to the Venezuelan government. Separate reports have documented that the group runs criminal activities, including human trafficking, in several Latin American countries.

For their part, Venezuelan officials stressed that Tren de Aragua had been dismantled in Venezuela following a 2023 raid on Tocorón prison, from where the gang was believed to run its operations. Nevertheless, Guerrero was reportedly alerted in advance and managed to break out.

The 42-year-old had been in and out of prison several times before being handed a 17-year sentence in 2018 for charges including homicide and drug trafficking. In January, he was charged in New York as a co-conspirator in the case against Maduro.

Edited by Lucas Koerner in Caracas.

Caracas, June 11, 2026 (venezuelanalysis.com) – The Trump administration continues to dictate conditions on Venezuela’s energy industry for the benefit of US and Western corporations.

At an event organized by Politico, National Energy Dominance Council Director Jarrod Agen stated that he is in contact with Venezuelan Acting President Delcy Rodríguez and her team “multiple times a day” to discuss the legal framework for foreign conglomerates.

“I raised issues [on oil contracts] when I went down [to Venezuela] and she said ‘we’ll work with you to get through it,’”the Trump official added. 

Agen stated that the administration is currently working to turn “memoranda of understanding (MoU) into binding contracts” and insisted that Venezuela has “made a lot of progress” in overhauling the country’s hydrocarbon and mining laws. 

The legislation approved by the National Assembly slashes royalties and fiscal responsibilities for private companies, while also granting them expanded control over operations and sales. After the laws were approved, authorities were tasked with drafting regulations for their implementation and new contract templates.

Agen went on to announce that a Trump administration delegation will travel to Caracas in the coming days to further discuss conditions for multinational firms in petroleum and gas projects.

Venezuelan oil authorities have reportedly begun circulating drafts of regulations and contract models with industry partners, though the texts have not been made public. The final versions are required to be published in the country’s National Gazette. 

According to Bloomberg, Caracas has revised the proposals under pressure from investors, including the removal of a clause that would have allowed the Venezuelan government to terminate contracts, with compensation, for reasons of “public interest.” Venezuelan leaders have openly acknowledged incorporating private sector input into the recent oil and mining reforms.

Since launching military strikes and kidnapping Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro on January 3, the Trump administration has seized control of the South American country’s energy and mineral exports.

While keeping wide-reaching sanctions in place, the US Treasury Department has issued multiple sanctions waivers allowing select Western corporations to undertake oil and gas operations in Venezuela while barring participation from Chinese, Russian, and Iranian competitors. The general licenses mandate that all Venezuela-owed payments, including royalties and taxes, be deposited in a Treasury-run account.

On Wednesday, the Trump administration updated multiple licenses concerning energy, petrochemical, and mining activities, stipulating that contract disputes can now also be settled in the United Kingdom, France, and Singapore, rather than just the US. However, the licenses still demand that contract terms be “construed and interpreted” in accordance with US laws and jurisdiction.

The revised waivers likewise establish that contracts may recognize that “certain aspects” of the activity are subject to Venezuelan laws and regulations.

For its part, the acting Rodríguez administration has aggressively courted foreign investment in the oil and gas sectors.

On Wednesday, Venezuelan state oil company PDVSA signed a memorandum of understanding with SLB, formerly Schlumberger, one of the world’s largest oil services providers with a presence in the Caribbean nation since the 1920s. The Houston-based multinational stated that the agreement intends to “strengthen operational execution and promote sustainable development” of the Venezuelan energy sector.

During a televised ceremony, Rodríguez said she was “very pleased” with the deal and expressed confidence that SLB’s cutting-edge technology would have a “major impact on oil exploration and production.”

The acting leader has inked agreements with multiple Western energy giants in recent weeks, including Chevron, Shell, BP, and Repsol. Rodríguez has announced that more companies are set to arrive in the coming weeks. Business executives have made repeated trips to Venezuela to evaluate opportunities and meet with government officials.

Rodríguez recently visited India and touted oil project opportunities in meetings with Reliance Industries and Indian public sector energy firms.

Other government officials, including Economy Vice President Calixto Ortega and Oil Minister Paula Henao, have also held closed-door meetings with investors to promote recent reforms and incentives for foreign firms. At a Houston conference in May, Henao trumpeted the new oil law’s international arbitration clauses for offering more “legal certainty” to investors.

Venezuela’s oil output has continued its recent upward trend, with OPEC’s secondary sources registering a production of 1.072 million barrels per day (bpd) in May, up from 1.036 million in April.

For its part, PDVSA registered a 1.179 million bpd output last month, up from 1.136 million in April. Direct and secondary measurements have historically differed over disagreements on the inclusion of condensates and natural gas liquids.

According to Reuters, Venezuelan oil and byproduct exports rose for a third consecutive month, registering 1.25 million bpd, thanks to increased volumes shipped to the US and India.

Edited by Lucas Koerner in Caracas.

Between the mid-1980s and the early 1990s, amid the terminal crisis and collapse of the so-called European socialist bloc, the era of struggle that had begun following the triumph of the Cuban Revolution came to a close in Latin America. A new phase began, during which the leftist and progressive social and political organizations and movements of the subcontinent went through phases of accumulation and de-accumulation of forces.

Phases of accumulation

From 1985 to 1998, these movements accumulated enough social power to topple neoliberal governments and enough political power to secure seats in local governments and national legislatures, but not enough to take control of the national government.

From 1998 to 2009, they accumulated enough social and political power to elect—and in some countries, to re-elect several times—leftist or progressive governments.

Phases of de-accumulation

From 2009 to 2012, there were no electoral defeats for leftist or progressive governments, but there were coups d’état of a “new type” in the “weakest links in the chain”: Honduras and Paraguay.

In 2013 and 2014, there were no electoral defeats, but the margin by which the left retained power in Venezuela and El Salvador was reduced to a bare minimum.

From 2015 to 2019, electoral defeats in Argentina, El Salvador, and Uruguay, coups of a “new type” in Brazil and Bolivia, along with Lenín Moreno’s betrayal in Ecuador, broke six of the “strongest links in the chain,” and the siege against Venezuela, Nicaragua, and Cuba intensified.

Phase of partial recovery and subsequent acute loss of strength

Following the election of Andrés Manuel López Obrador as President of Mexico in 2018 and Alberto Fernández in Argentina in 2019 at the end of the phase of decline, between 2020 and 2024, the left and/or progressive movements regained power in Bolivia, Honduras, Brazil, and Uruguay, held power in Chile, Colombia, and Guatemala, and lost it again in Chile and Honduras in November and December 2025, respectively. In January 2026, President Nicolás Maduro and his wife Cilia Flores were kidnapped by the US military and are currently being held illegally in that country.

Predominant factors in the phases of accumulation (1985–1998 and 1998–2009)

1. The legacy of the historical accumulation of popular struggles, particularly during the period ushered in by the Cuban Revolution in which other revolutionary or reformist processes did not succeed or survive, contributed to opening up spaces for legal struggle.
2. The rejection of the genocidal repression traditionally employed against the peoples of the region forced the United States and its Latin American allies to seek less brutal forms of domination.
3. The momentum of popular movements in full swing brings into the political and electoral struggle social sectors that previously lacked the consciousness, motivation, or conditions to participate in it.
4. The protest vote against neoliberal governments by broad sectors of the population that were not politically conscious could nonetheless be turned against leftist and progressive forces if they failed to meet their expectations, whether fair or unfair, rational or irrational.

Predominant factors in the de-accumulation phases from 2009 onward

1. Historical accumulation depreciates. As time passes, with the superseding of recent realities, the emergence of new social expectations and demands – in some cases due to the fulfillment and in others due to the unfulfillment of previous ones – and the shortcomings and errors of the left and progressivism, there is a relativization or devaluation of the historical legacy.
2. The brutal repression of the past was replaced by “full-spectrum destabilization” against progressive and left-wing governments.
3. Due to their dissatisfaction with left-wing or progressive governments over the failure to fulfill their economic and social promises – due to the “constraints” of the system, pressure from the powers that be, and shifts toward the “center” to broaden their electoral base – a large part of the popular social movements that had provided decisive support in earlier phases began to exercise punitive abstention against them.
4. Social sectors without political ties or preferences, which in an earlier phase cast their protest votes against neoliberal parties, began to cast them against the left and progressivism.

​​With the exception of Uruguay, the overthrow, defeat, or betrayal of left governments was followed by the criminalization, prosecution, and, in many cases, imprisonment of their leaders, most notably Lula in Brazil.

The transformative processes with the greatest capacity to remain in power have been those in Venezuela and Nicaragua, which set out to and succeeded in establishing control over all the institutions of state. It is this concentration of power that has guaranteed the survival of the Cuban Revolution over six and a half decades. However, in Venezuela and Nicaragua there is a contradiction between the formally prevailing liberal/bourgeois system and the actually prevailing institutional system, with characteristics of state socialism, in which a political party – not the only one, but certainly the dominant one – monopolizes control of the four branches of government, the armed forces, and the security services.

The incompatibility between the formally existing institutional system and the institutional system actually in place in Venezuela and Nicaragua remained latent as long as the leaders of their respective transformative processes enjoyed widespread popularity and maintained high levels of approval, or raised expectations regarding the fulfillment of social needs and interests. However, this concentration of power has both a positive and a negative aspect:

• The positive aspect is that it has been decisive in resisting the policy of encroachment, economic blockade, and political isolation that has affected Cuba since the triumph of its Revolution (1959), Nicaragua during the two periods of FSLN rule (1979–1990) and (2006 to the present), and Venezuela since the first term of Hugo Chávez’s government (beginning in 1999).

• The negative aspect is that it distorts the relationship between the end and the means. The end was to develop a national project that would satisfy society’s material and spiritual needs and aspirations, and the means was to establish a power capable of guaranteeing that national project. The distortion consists in continuing to exercise power when one no longer has the capacity to satisfy society’s needs and aspirations, either because one failed to develop that capacity or because it was lost.

Given that external and/or internal forces are attempting to undermine or overthrow the established institutional systems in these countries, and given that neither of them has managed to make progress in building a new society – with this project becoming unattainable in the form and substance originally envisioned – the defense of power becomes an end in itself.

When evaluating any process of progressive social reform or revolutionary social transformation, it is necessary to consider the extent to which it has met or failed to meet its historical goals. In cases of failure to meet these goals, one must take into account the adverse and external factors that have influenced this outcome. However, it cannot be ignored that, even if resulting from such factors, the failure to meet historical goals erodes these processes. In essence, every transformative process is compelled to achieve its historical goals within a timeframe no longer than the moment society perceives it as an “eternal uphill battle.”

The Venezuela Case: Between Reality and Utopia

The kidnapping of President Nicolás Maduro and his wife Cilia Flores by the US military – along with the questions of how such an operation could have been carried out (no less than inside the headquarters of the Bolivarian National Armed Forces!), how the kidnappers knew where they would be sleeping that night, and that they were indeed there, why there was no response, which had been assured would occur in the event of any aggression against Venezuela, and, on top of all that, that the outcome is a “normalization of relations” with the aggressor power agreed upon by the very government that Maduro headed – reveals the fragility of revolutionary processes that claim to have a solid base of popular power, but events like this reveal that, in reality, they lack it.

Twenty-seven years and five months after the start of the Bolivarian Revolution – the first link in a chain of elections and re-elections of leftist and progressive governments that has become increasingly fragmented since 2009–2019 and is now practically extinct – it is time to face reality and assess to what extent the parties, movements, fronts, or coalitions that have held and/or currently hold power in their respective countries are aware of the true relationship between their rhetorical utopias and their political realities.

Between every emancipatory utopia and its corresponding reality lies a “missing link.” The “missing link” between utopia and reality creates a “gap” between the project of revolutionary social transformation or progressive social reform and the transformative or reformist process intended to bring it about. The danger lies in failing to recognize the cumulative widening of the “gap” between utopia and reality and clinging to a utopia as the foundation of a process of revolutionary social transformation or progressive social reform that is increasingly deviating from and becoming disconnected from it.

The disconnect between utopia and reality has consequences, including most notably: the conversion of utopia into dogma; the social alienation that every reformist or revolutionary process is meant to eradicate; the divergence of interests and direction between “leaders” and “followers”; the drift of the process toward disillusionment and failure; and, in well-known historical experiences, such as that of the USSR (to mention only the most prominent), the absolute empowerment of a caste that creates and defends its own political and economic interests, leading to the negation of utopia: from the very pinnacle of “power” itself!

Utopia must be systematically grounded in reality through the active, genuine, and effective participation of society, and never reaffirmed or reformed from “above.” This reevaluation and renewal led by society is the only way to ensure that utopia not only serves as a guide, as Galeano says, but also serves to walk the path that turns it into a political, economic, and social reality that is as close as possible to the vision itself.

Based on experiences and studies conducted in previous decades, since the beginning of the chain of elections and re-elections of leftist and progressive governments in Latin America, attention has focused on denouncing media warfare, cognitive warfare, cultural warfare, and fourth- and fifth-generation warfare. In recent years, Caracas has been the main venue for events and the most active platform for denouncing this form of counterrevolutionary action. These analyses and denunciations must continue “at full speed,” but we must also recognize and accept that this is not the only threat facing leftist and progressive governments and political forces.

All forms of external and internal counterrevolutionary activity must be analyzed and combated, but with the knowledge and understanding that this is not the only battlefront. Another front, just as important or even more so, is the recognition and eradication of our own weaknesses and errors, which make transformative and/or revolutionary processes vulnerable to enemy strategies and tactics. What has happened in Venezuela is proof of this omission: plenty of denunciation of the enemy and little to no self-reflection.

The moral of the story is that yes, we must denounce and unmask the enemy. But no, we cannot focus attention on denouncing the enemy at the expense of recognizing and eradicating our own weaknesses and mistakes.

Roberto Regalado is a Cuban political scientist and PhD in Philosophy. He is a professor at the Center for Hemispheric and U.S. Studies at the University of Havana (CEHSEU) and a member of the Historical and Social Literature Section of the National Union of Cuban Writers and Artists.

He is the author of, among other essays, Latin America Between Centuries: Domination, Crisis, Social Struggle, and Political Alternatives of the Left (2006), Encounters and Disagreements of the Latin American Left: A View from the São Paulo Forum (2008), The Latin American Left in Government: Alternative or Recycling? (2012), and numerous articles in specialized journals.

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect those of the Venezuelanalysis editorial staff.

Source: Blog América

Caracas, June 3, 2026 (venezuelanalysis.com) – The Venezuelan government headed by Acting President Delcy Rodríguez has instructed airlines and shipping companies to direct fuel payments to a US Treasury account.

Spanish newspaper El Diario published a May 28 letter from state oil company PDVSA addressed to “aviation and maritime customers” that laid out the “banking coordinates” for foreign currency payments concerning JET A1, MGO, and IFO 380 purchases.

JET A1 is a kerosene-based fuel widely used by commercial airplanes, while Maritime Gas Oil (MGO) and Intermediate Fuel Oil (IFO) 380 are standard for ship engines.

“We urge our customers to take the necessary precautions and forward the payment receipt to PDVSA sales representatives so that the payment is cleared and fuel supply is assured,” the letter read.

An attached US Treasury information sheet contains details for Fedwire payments to a “Venezuela custody account” and requires information about “source of funds, e.g., oil, gold, minerals, etc.”

The leaked letter is the first publicly available document from a Venezuelan state institution directing foreign currency payments to an account run by the US Treasury Department as opposed to the country’s Central Bank (BCV) or some alternative state-run mechanism.

Since the January 3 military strikes and kidnapping of Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro, the Trump administration has seized control of the country’s export revenues. The White House has likewise extracted concessions in the form of pro-business reforms, preferential access for Western corporations to natural resources, and external audits of the Venezuelan Central Bank.

US Treasury general licenses allowing select Western corporations to engage in oil and gas activities mandate that all Venezuela-owed payments for royalties, taxes, and dividends be deposited in US Treasury accounts. Additional sanctions waivers imposed similar constraints on mining sector services and exports.

Neither US nor Venezuelan authorities have disclosed information about the funds, the timings of their disbursements back to Caracas, and the percentage kept by the Trump administration. The US president stated in a May interview that Washington has “made a fortune” from Venezuelan oil sales.

Both Washington and Caracas have acknowledged the use of Treasury-held Venezuelan revenues for the purchase of medicines and medical equipment from US manufacturers. In January, Secretary of State Marco Rubio said in a Senate hearing in January that Venezuela would need to submit a “budget request” to access its own funds.

According to reports, Washington is mandating that the Venezuelan Central Bank distribute the returned foreign currency to private sector importers via exchange table auctions run by public and private banks. The BCV has reportedly allocated more than US $5 billion thus far in 2026.

The Rodríguez acting government’s diplomatic rapprochement with the Trump White House, coupled with reforms to attract Western investment, has led to a growing number of international airlines reestablishing flights to the Caribbean nation. American Airlines currently runs two daily direct Caracas-Miami flights, while United Airlines will launch a Caracas-Houston connection in August. Jetblue, for its part, is set to initiate its first-ever Venezuela route later in the year.

Venezuelan authorities have likewise recorded increased shipping activity at the country’s ports.

Elías Jaua is a Venezuelan intellectual, university professor, and politician who served as vice president under Hugo Chávez in addition to several ministerial roles in the  Chávez and Maduro administrations. He currently heads the Center for the Study of Socialist Democracy (CEDES). In this exclusive interview, Jaua discusses Venezuela’s post-January 3 conjuncture, the anti-imperialist struggle to reclaim sovereignty, and the role to be played by Chavismo.

Venezuela’s reality changed on January 3 with the US strikes and kidnapping of President Maduro. How would you describe the current situation? And regarding the US, there is talk of “conditional sovereignty” and “tutelage,” while officials speak of a “cooperation agenda.” What is your take on this?

Sovereignty is a comprehensive concept. You either have it or you don’t. Sovereignty means not depending on anyone. It is the foundation of a republic. A republic means independence from others, something distinct from liberal, individual freedom. Venezuela today is a state under tutelage, overseen by the Donald Trump administration. This was officially declared by Trump and White House officials such as Secretary of State Marco Rubio.

This is also clearly reflected in oil production, which must be sold primarily to the US, and the proceeds from those exports do not enter directly into Venezuela’s coffers but instead into a US Treasury account. From there, the Venezuelan government will make requests and have certain amounts necessary for the country’s basic functioning disbursed. That is a complete loss of economic sovereignty. We have also seen how reforms to strategic laws, such as those governing hydrocarbons and mining, have been rushed through. Today, there is immense pressure on labor legislation, both from the Venezuelan business community and from transnational capital, which views labor laws as yet another obstacle to attracting investment.

And finally, we have seen that Venezuela’s foreign policy – which was openly supportive of Palestine, Iran, and Cuba – has been significantly toned down. This is another clear sign that Venezuela is no longer an independent state. Its status as a republic is entirely relative.

In light of all this, how do you feel the government and other national political groups should respond?

I view the decision made on January 3 not to respond to the US military attack as a responsible one, because the enemy clearly had military superiority and the capability to control the entire airspace using high-tech means. A response would have resulted in significant destruction of the country’s infrastructure and armed forces, as well as the killing of thousands of civilians. 

Now, four months later, the Venezuelan government and all political forces should clearly denounce to the international community the coercion to which we are being subjected. On the one hand, as a public denunciation, but also to have it formally recorded before international bodies such as the International Commission on Human Rights. What occurred in January were war crimes, a fact supported by United Nations rapporteurs. Next, a complaint should be filed with the International Court of Justice to restore control over national revenues to the Venezuelan state. 

One might argue that this is ineffective at the moment, that international law is irrelevant and international organizations are incapable of acting – and that is true. But the country must establish a legal precedent because these institutions still exist, and as a result they are a source of rights. These complaints set precedents so that the country can, in the future, claim the rights that have been damaged by the occupying power. 

Finally, it is important to reach out to the international community, and above all to the peoples of the world, so that they know there is a nation that refuses to be placed under tutelage and subjected to these conditions, in order to build international solidarity. An internal political stance must also be established, because this attempt to conceal the gravity of the coercion to which the country is being subjected numbs popular consciousness, undermines patriotic morale, and that is contrary to what is expected of the leadership – not only of the government, but of the entire political leadership of the nation.

But what if that triggers another US military attack?

I don’t think a repeat of the January 3 incident is imminent because it would have repercussions in the US domestic political landscape. The political cost for the Trump administration would no longer be zero, as it practically was on January 3, but there would be greater resistance, especially for attacking a country that has simply exercised its rights before international bodies to claim sovereignty over resources and political self-determination. 

Put another way, the option of not denouncing this, of not activating available mechanisms, is to accept and normalize this situation of neocolonialism, and I believe that is a very dangerous path that could even lead to Venezuela’s annexation by the US. I believe there are moments when peoples, nations, and their leaders must take a firm stand for the sake of history. Here it is no longer a matter of defending a party or a political movement, but rather the existence of a nation that was born free. We have a historic responsibility to ensure it remains that way for future generations.

US officials repeat their “three-phase plan,” which ends with a political “transition,” on a daily basis, while the extremist opposition demands immediate elections to seize power at any cost. From your perspective, what is the path forward, and what should the priorities be?

The priority is to regain independence. If we hold elections, that is with candidates for what? For governor of the colony? Anyone who truly wants to hold the presidency of the Republic of Venezuela must first raise their voice in favor of the immediate restoration of the country’s sovereign rights over its resources and revenues and the assertion of political self-determination. 

In any case, I argue that any eventual electoral process should be the result of a national agreement, renationalizing politics and not waiting for a call from the White House one day announcing that there will be elections in six months. That would be very shameful. I believe that Venezuelan political forces would be obligated, as part of that strategy to reclaim and demand the restoration of Venezuela’s sovereignty, to also commit to the international community and the Venezuelan people to seek a political, democratic, and electoral path forward.

In a recent article, you spoke of an inability to manage the internal political conflict, which paved the way for foreign intervention. Could you elaborate on this idea? How has that situation changed since January 3?

Foreign meddling began on the very first day of the Bolivarian Revolution, and there were agents that facilitated it. The first concrete example was the April 11, 2002 coup d’état, with the open participation of the US and Spanish governments, and from that point on, that interference never ceased. But there was always a degree of autonomy that allowed, especially after 2004, for the democratic resolution of the conflict through national agreements. For instance, the recall referendum that ultimately ratified Chávez’s mandate.

But starting in 2014, after the right-wing insurrectionary attempt known as “La Salida” and its failure, the US began to intervene directly by declaring Venezuela an “unusual and extraordinary threat,” and from that point on, the opposition lost any capacity to make decisions. I was a member of the dialogue delegation in the Dominican Republic in 2018 and saw how an agreement signed by everyone was overturned by a phone call from the US embassy. 

I also believe that later, over the past five years, the Venezuelan government chose to engage in dialogue with the US and bet that the conflict would be resolved directly with Washington. Therefore, everyone put all their eggs in the White House’s basket, and the decision slipped completely out of the control of the country’s internal institutions until the game came to a standstill. And indeed, at the behest of the far-right opposition, Washington intervened and attacked on January 3. That is why I say that reclaiming internal political control in order to resolve the conflict would be an act of dignity and courage on the part of the entire Venezuelan political leadership. Conflict is not going to vanish, because today the calls for a conflict-free Venezuela come alongside a set of measures that deepen it. For example, labor deregulation, social disinvestment, political exclusion, etc.

In recent years, you have analyzed and debated the direction of Chavismo amid sanctions and the implementation of orthodox macroeconomic adjustment policies. Since January 3, we have seen a drastic overhaul of key pillars of the Bolivarian project, such as the Hydrocarbons Law, and critical voices growing louder, including Mario Silva and Luis Britto García. What is the current state of Chavismo, in your opinion?

First of all, the revision and change of course regarding fundamental aspects of Chavismo’s historic program did not begin on January 3 but much earlier. It was formalized starting in 2018 with the Program for Economic Recovery, Growth, and Prosperity, aimed at halting the advance of the transition to socialism and restoring the private sector’s hegemony in managing the economy, with clear consequences for social rights and the fight against social inequality. This was also accompanied by increasingly undemocratic mechanisms, from the political leadership, to impose a change of course in economic and social policy. 

However, a fundamental core of Chavismo’s programmatic unity – the struggle for independence and national sovereignty – remained intact, and that kept Chavismo cohesive despite major differences. Today, I believe Chavismo must be situated within different spheres. There is a Chavismo within the United Socialist Party (PSUV) – no one can dispute that  – but I believe there is a broader, and much larger, Chavismo, with a cultural, political, and symbolic identity rooted in a metanarrative that exists outside the PSUV and the Great Patriotic Pole. That sector currently lacks clear leadership and organizational structure, but it retains its values. It may have circumstantial views of the situation, but essentially it continues to uphold the principles that launched this process: sovereignty, participatory and protagonist democracy, democratic pluralism, freedom, political ethics, debate, speaking the truth, and social equality. It also holds a vision of a multipolar world, in solidarity with international struggles. These were, in essence, the core tenets of Chavismo from its inception and remain relevant for a significant portion of the Venezuelan population that is Chavista or was once Chavista.

You have talked about building national unity at this juncture, but also about upholding Chávez and his legacy. Are these two paths compatible?

This is a difficult and painful reflection because the figure and the project of Hugo Chávez have been burdened with a series of deviations. Practices that run completely contrary to the principles and values he defended, and upon which he built the Chavista project. For example, the case of Víctor Hugo Quero and his mother is deeply outrageous (1). It is a truly shameful incident, yet international news outlets report, “Chavismo admits to the disappearance of a detainee,” “Mother of prisoner killed by Chavismo dies.” Is it Chavismo or just a few individuals responsible? What about the men and women who, for over 25 years, laboriously dreamed, built, and dedicated part of their lives to creating well-being and the common good in their communities, to building a national project called “Chavismo”? It is very unfair because Chavismo, as a movement, is being accused of things it did not do. Chavismo is not this or that leader; it is the men and women who gave up the only thing they had – their time, their effort – to build community, a national project, to plant crops, to learn to read and write or to teach others to read and write, to study, and so on. 

I stand by Chavismo as the men and women who dreamed, who continue to dream, and who have given their all to build a more humane society. For me, that will continue to be Chavismo. And those of us who have held leadership posts in this process must assume their responsibilities for the good and the bad. But it is unethical to blame a popular movement, a popular ideal like Chavismo, for the mistakes, deviations, and vile acts that some leaders may have committed. 

I believe that the call for national unity, to paraphrase [revolutionary communist leader Alfredo] Maneiro, will spring from the most authentic Chavismo, but will transcend it. It will converge with other currents of the left that were not Chavista, with social democratic sectors that broke away from the extremist opposition, and with people who never took a stance on the political conflict the country has experienced in recent decades. It will be the plurality of opinions, of people, of organizations, that will provide the foundation for a necessary movement, which I see as unstoppable and already feel in the streets, in this struggle to regain independence and sovereignty.

Note

(1) Victor Quero died in state custody in July 2025 but his family was not notified. His mother, Carmen Navas, continued to search for him until his death was publicly acknowledged in May 2026 after a judge denied an amnesty request. Navas passed away shortly afterward.

Caracas, May 29, 2026 (venezuelanalysis.com) – The Russian government has urged Venezuelan authorities to “reject approaches” from the US and allies to transfer military equipment to Ukraine.

Russian Security Council Secretary Sergei Shoigu raised the concerns during a meeting with Venezuelan Major General José Ornelas Ferreira, secretary general of the Caribbean nation’s National Defense Council, on Wednesday in Moscow. 

The Venezuelan official was a guest at the First International Security Forum, held from May 26-29 at the Russian capital with the presence of 140 top officials from over 120 countries worldwide.

“We are aware of the activity of Western emissaries who are attempting to involve Latin American countries in various arms supply schemes for the benefit of the Kyiv regime,” Shoigu said in a bilateral meeting with Ornelas. “We expect you to reject such approaches and inform us of any such Western attempts.”

Moscow and Caracas have maintained a longstanding military alliance through which Russia has provided Venezuela with a broad supply of weapons, equipment, and technical assistance for decades, forming the backbone of the Venezuelan arsenal. The cooperation dates back to the 2000s as Hugo Chávez sought to reverse the US dependence of the armed forces.

Though neither US nor Venezuelan officials have commented on weapons transfer proposals, Shoigu’s warning follows publicized efforts by Washington and allies to bolster the beleaguered Ukrainian forces in the war against Russia. Kiev’s backers procure Soviet-era equipment that could be easily integrated into the battlefield.

Apart from securing supplies from Eastern European NATO members, Washington has also turned to Latin America, offering to exchange Russian and Soviet-made hardware for newer US equipment. Brazilian and Colombian leaders rejected the proposal.

In February 2024, Ecuador canceled plans to send or exchange Soviet/Russian-origin weaponry with the US, which intended to reroute them Ukraine. Ecuadorian President Daniel Noboa backtracked following Russian threats to suspend banana imports from the Andean country.

According to military analysts, Venezuela’s battlefield equipment — including T-72B1V tanks, BMP-3 infantry vehicles, Mi-17 helicopters, and 152 mm artillery systems — would be valuable on the Ukrainian battlefield and help address chronic ammunition shortages.

The recent Moscow security summit also saw Shoigu condemn the US’ “brutal armed invasion” of Venezuela on January 3 that led to the kidnapping of President Nicolás Maduro and First Lady Cilia Flores.

“We strongly condemn Washington’s actions on January 3, during which the legitimate head of state, Nicolás Maduro, and his wife were captured, and dozens of Venezuelan and Cuban citizens were killed,” the former Russian defense minister stated.

Shoigu criticized the Trump administration for “violating all fundamental norms of international law” and breaking “the principles governing coexistence among nations and respect for state sovereignty.”

The Russian official went on to reaffirm the Vladimir Putin government’s “unwavering support” for Caracas and the desire to “strengthen cooperation” in order to avoid future acts of aggression.

Shoigu likewise commented on the Venezuelan government, led by Acting President Delcy Rodríguez, pursuing a “new modality of relations” with the US and expressed hope that it would protect the Caribbean country’s “sovereignty and national interests.”

Following the January 3 attacks, the Trump White House has exacted major concessions from the acting Rodríguez administration, including seizing control of Venezuelan oil revenues, auditing its Central Bank, pushing pro-business legislative reforms, and securing the handover of former government envoy Alex Saab to face money laundering charges in Florida.

The growing US influence in Venezuela saw the Southern Command hold “rapid response” military exercises on May 23, with Osprey MV-22B aircraft flying over Caracas and landing near the US embassy compound. 

US officials have acknowledged a growing “collaboration” with Caracas. During a press conference on Wednesday, Secretary of War Pete Hegseth highlighted Washington’s self-declared anti-narcotics operations in the Western hemisphere and the joint work with local governments.

“Just think about the fact that our Southern Command commander landed by helicopter at the US Embassy in Caracas peacefully,” Hegseth said alongside Trump. “He was welcomed by the Venezuelans because we are now partnering with them, hopefully even in our counter-cartel missions.” 

The Trump official referred to Venezuela as “fundamental to securing our energy future and defending the homeland.”

Edited by Ricardo Vaz in Caracas.

A mastermind of Trump’s hardline Latin American policies, Mauricio Claver-Carone no longer serves in the administration. But according to well-placed sources, he’s “picking who can operate” in Venezuela, controlling access to the government, and creating conflicts of interest.

Speaking with reporters on May 21, US Secretary of State Marco Rubio announced that Venezuelan President Delcy Rodriguez was on her way to New Delhi to discuss energy issues, and that he would be in India as well.

“This is an important trip, I’m glad we’re able to do it,” Rubio chirped after explaining the trio of nations would discuss how to increase Venezuelan oil sales to India.

His statement — and his announcement of Rodriguez’s trip before she had — perfectly illustrated Washington’s newfound dynamic with the Venezuelan government. Following over twenty years of hostile relations with Venezuela’s socialist-oriented leadership, the US Secretary of State was apparently so intimately involved with day to day affairs in Caracas that he was claiming responsibility for Rodriguez’s international itinerary.

In fact, according to an insider who enjoys close contacts within both the Venezuelan and US governments, Rubio’s influence over Rodriguez is said to be traced to one “gatekeeper”: former Trump Latin America envoy Mauricio Claver-Carone. “Mauricio [Claver-Carone] is picking who can operate and Delcy [Rodriguez] is taking instructions,” the source told The Grayzone. 

A former senior US official with access to leadership in both Caracas and Washington offered the same assessment, remarking to The Grayzone, “Mauricio’s calling the shots on private sector economic positions, and if anyone wants in, they have to go to him.”

Hand-selected by former National Security Advisor John Bolton to serve as his Latin America charge during Trump’s first term, Claver-Carone no longer occupies an official governmental role. Instead, he has leveraged his legacy in the public sector to establish a Miami-based investment firm called the Lara Fund which could become a key player in the MAGA financial feeding frenzy in Caracas.

Described by the New York Times as the “architect of Trump’s tough Latin America policies,” Claver-Carone is a Cuban-American regime change zealot who once engaged in fisticuffs with Cuban diplomats as a young man. During Trump’s first term, he unleashed a financial “flamethrower” on Cuba, issuing scores of new sanctions that unraveled the Obama-era normalization policy and plunged the island back into economic misery. 

Claver-Carone has similarly masterminded many of the policies that define Trump’s relationship with Venezuela, from its recognition of the previously unknown Juan Guaido as the country’s “interim president” to the deportation of hundreds of Venezuelan migrants from the US to El Salvador’s maximum security CECOT prison. Many of those migrants had been prompted to journey to the US by the economically crushing sanctions unleashed at Claver-Carone’s direction. 

The Grayzone’s sources described the Trump veteran as the architect of the military invasion that saw Maduro spirited away to a federal penitentiary and installed Rodriguez as president following a stand-down by Venezuelan security forces.

“If he was in charge of implementing the kinetic side, maybe [Rodriguez] thinks she has to listen to him on finance,” the Venezuela insider said of Claver-Carone.

A report this January by investigative journalist Aram Roston described Claver-Carone as a “key backer” of Rodriguez following Maduro’s abduction, and cited sources who claimed he exercised decisive influence over Venezuela policy despite having left the administration.

Claver-Carone is now said to be at the heart of the most sensitive and consequential task Venezuela faces: the restructuring of its $170 billion in defaulted sovereign debt. Forced from several previous positions by corruption scandals and rancorous clashes, an operative with no official governmental position appears to be shaping the economic contours of Project Venezuela. 

“He’s got a lock on everything”

This May, the US Treasury Department authorized Caracas to hire a financial advisor to assist with the herculean task of restructuring its debt. The Venezuelan government selected Centerview Partners, a top-drawer investment and financial advisory firm based in New York City.

According to the former US senior official, Claver-Carone’s romantic partner and business colleague, Jessica Bedoya, boarded a private jet to Caracas soon after the big announcement, arriving with a top advisor from Centerview. It was her second trip to the Venezuelan capital, they said, after visiting in February to discuss financial matters. 

Claver-Carone did not respond to calls to his personal phone from The Grayzone, or to detailed questions sent by text and email. 

His partner, Bedoya, is the founder of the Lara Fund investment firm where he serves as managing partner. Her bio notes that she has also worked in the CIA and National Security Council.

Some insiders worry that her reported presence in the Venezuelan capital, together with Claver-Carone’s outsized influence, could represent a conflict of interest, allowing them to steer debt restructuring agreements to their own personal benefit.

“Now he’s got a lock on everything,” the Venezuela insider said of Claver-Carone. “He could say to anyone who wants to work in Venezuela, I’m the guy. I have the keys. If you want to play ball, invest with me.”

The former US official said Claver-Carone was raising capital for his Lara Fund while he served as a special government employee at the State Department. While Bedoya was running the firm, they said Claver-Carone was leveraging his position inside the Trump administration to pitch potential investors.

“Arbitrary and authoritarian actions that showed him to be a real thug”

When Trump appointed Claver-Carone to serve as the first American president of the Inter-American Development Bank (IDB) in 2020, he hired Bedoya as his chief-of-staff. The couple’s secret romance at the bank triggered an embarrassing ethics investigation after a hand-written contract was discovered showing they had agreed to pursue “absolute happiness,” and included a clause with punishments including “candle wax and a naughty box” if either party breached the deal. 

An independent probe ordered by the IDB discovered that Claver-Carone had increased his paramour’s salary by 40% – a $133,000 reward in less than a year. Investigators also found that the couple had racked up expenses on an IDB credit card during romantic getaways. 

Claver-Carone refused to participate in the investigation while accusing its authors of “fabrications.” In the end, IDB governors voted unanimously in favor of his firing. The US government endorsed their decision.

“President Claver-Carone’s refusal to fully cooperate with the investigation, and his creation of a climate of fear of retaliation among staff and borrowing countries, has forfeited the confidence of the bank’s staff and shareholders and necessitates a change in leadership,” they wrote.

The Argentine governor of IDB, Guillermo Francos, delivered a similarly harsh assessment of Claver-Carone’s tenure. “Claver was a disaster for several reasons,” Francos remarked in 2022. “For having an inappropriate relationship, for having disproportionately increased the salary of this inappropriate relationship, for having lied, and for these arbitrary and authoritarian actions that showed him to be a real thug.”

When Claver-Carone returned to the second Trump administration, it was not long before his proclivity for conflict jeopardized his position.

Throughout 2025, Claver-Carone’s spiteful attitude reportedly complicated Trump administration attempts to prop up a key right-wing ally in South America, Argentine President Javier Milei. Milei’s chief of staff happened to be Guillermo Francos – the former IDB governor whom Claver-Carone held personally responsible for outing his secret relationship with Bedoya. According to the Argentine paper Clarin, Claver-Carone attempted to retaliate by unsuccessfully pressuring Milei to fire Francos. He then attempted to undermine a major IMF loan package to Argentina by demanding the country first sever its credit line from China. This was met with an apparent rebuke from Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, who visited Buenos Aires to express confidence in the IMF loan just weeks after Argentina’s central bank extended its credit line from Beijing.

The following month, in May 2025, Claver-Carone announced he was leaving the State Department to return to his Lara Fund. His departure gave the appearance that he had been forced out of his job. However, he maintained his clout through his direct line to Rubio.

The former US official told The Grayzone that Claver-Carone is now angling to become a Cuban American version of Jared Kushner, the Trump son-in-law who has leveraged his proximity to the president and role as Middle East negotiator to rake in billions from Israel and several Gulf monarchies despite having no official government title. To do so, he has allegedly inserted himself into the byzantine process of restructuring Venezuela’s debt.

When the Trump administration announced that Venezuela could hire a financial advisor to assist with its sovereign debt, Rodriguez initially planned a public bidding process for the coveted position. But then, according to the ex-US official, Claver-Carone issued support for Centerview, leading to the firm’s selection. (Opposition bloggers have speculated that Centerview was chosen because one of its partners, Matthieu Pigasse, is a self-described “pro-market socialist” who previously worked on deals with Maduro and Venezuela’s state owned PDVSA oil company.)

In recent weeks, according to sources, Claver-Carone has attempted to undermine financial advisors who had been working with the Venezuelan government to restructure its debt since 2014. 

They said that when Claver-Carone’s partner, Bedoya, arrived in Caracas this month, allegedly on a private jet with Pigasse, she began pushing to remove the advisory mandate from David Syed, a seasoned French lawyer who had advised Caracas on debt-related issues for over a decade, and is considered incorruptible. 

“The effort to push [Syed] out created a lot of tension,” remarked the Venezuela insider. “You can’t understand debt restructuring by parachuting in without his knowledge.”

Syed did not respond to The Grayzone’s request for comment. Hamouda Chekir, another Centerview partner who works on Venezuela’s debt, did not respond to calls and text messages sent to his personal phone.

Scandal-stained firms as vehicles for extracting profit from Venezuela

Just before leaving the State Department in May 2025, Claver-Carone convinced Rubio not to renew a sanctions waiver that allowed Chevron to sell Venezuelan oil in the US market. In doing so, he eliminated a mechanism which was explicitly designed to promote transparency and prevent local officials from skimming cash. 

This January, after abducting Maduro, the Trump administration granted confidential licenses to a pair of notoriously corrupt trading houses, Vitol and Trafigura, to export Venezuelan oil. The deal came months after Trump’s re-election campaign received a whopping $6 million donation from a senior trader at Vitol. 

Robert Bachmann, an analyst at the Swiss watchdog Public Eye, told the Washington Post at the time, “Trump is taking advantage of firms that know how to circumvent regulation.”

Both companies had been caught engaging in a series of elaborate bribery schemes across Latin America and Africa. In 2020, the Department of Justice (DOJ) forced Vitol to pay a $135 million penalty for bribing officials for licenses in Mexico, Ecuador and Brazil. Trafigura paid a similarly staggering fine in 2024 for a lucrative bribery scheme in Brazil. In the US, Vitol was rung up by the California Attorney General for manipulating spot market prices of oil.

But almost as soon as the Trump administration entered office, it neutered the DOJ corrupt foreign practices division charged with enforcing the judgments against Trafigura and Vitol on the grounds that it was “impeding America’s national security objectives.” 

Now, the profits these scandal-stained firms generate through oil sales abroad – including to Israel – are channeled back into a US-run account with little public oversight. A percentage of sales is then delivered back to the Venezuelan government. Where the rest goes is anybody’s guess. 

“The Venezuelans are the owners of the oil, and we know nothing. There is no transparency,” said José Guerra, an economist aligned with the Venezuelan opposition, complained to the Washington Post about the Trafigura and Vitol licensing agreements.

Trump, for his part, has essentially admitted Venezuelan oil profits are channeled into a slush fund for his international rampage. “We’ve taken out so much oil in Venezuela, we’ve paid for the cost of the war [with Iran] about 25 times over,” the president boasted during a May 23 campaign rally. While the president’s claim was absurd, as Venezuela is currently exporting only about one million barrels of oil a month – hardly enough to cover a full day of warfare – it revealed his avaricious attitude toward the entire operation.

Among certain Venezuelan opposition activists, Claver-Carone has become a figure of contempt who is partially blamed for Trump’s declaration that their de facto leader, the coup plotter and Nobel Peace Prize winner Maria Corina Machado, “doesn’t have the support within, or the respect within, the country.”

The Trump administration’s embrace of Delcy Rodriguez, and the Venezuelan president’s faithful compliance with Washington’s financial schemes, have prompted some top Democrats to adopt Machado as a partisan cudgel. This January, Chris Murphy, a ranking Democrat on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, praised the opposition leader as “impressive” following a meeting on Capitol Hill, while taking a nasty swipe at Rodriguez. Machado “reminded us that Trump replaced Maduro with Maduro’s head of torture,” Murphy proclaimed.

If the Democrats take Congress after this year’s midterm elections, the Trump administration’s dealings in Venezuela will face intense scrutiny from the House Oversight Committee. Bipartisan pressure will then build for fresh elections to usher in a new government. “Delcy Rodríguez is a terrible person,” the regime change-obsessed Florida Republican Sen. Rick Scott told the Wall Street Journal this month. “We’ve got to have an election soon.”

In the meantime, a flock of MAGA-aligned financial vultures has swooped into Caracas to feast on the petro-state’s post-Maduro carcass. Donald Trump Jr. is said to be hunting for opportunities in the capital for his 1789 Capital fund, while a startup backed by pro-Trump tech oligarchs Peter Thiel and Palmer Luckey, Erebor Bank, just struck a lucrative deal to reconnect Venezuela’s central bank to the global economy. In the midst of this frenzy, a figure with no government title, Claver-Carone, appears to be establishing the new pecking order.

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect those of the Venezuelanalysis editorial staff.

Source: The Grayzone

Caracas, May 24, 2026 (venezuelanalysis.com) – Venezuelan grassroots organizations took to the streets on Saturday to protest the US holding “rapid response” military drills in Caracas.

Dozens of activists from multiple collectives belonging to the ALBA Movimientos coalition gathered in the morning in front of the Indigenous Resistance monument in Plaza Venezuela and read a statement expressing “outrage” at the US holding an exercise in Caracas less than five months after its January 3 bombings and kidnapping of President Nicolás Maduro and First Lady Cilia Flores.

“As Venezuelan popular organizations, 141 days since the brutal US military attack and kidnapping of President Maduro and Deputy Cilia Flores, […] we repudiate yankee militarist imperialism and are outraged that the US is executing military exercises in our country,” the organizations expressed.

Speakers, including National Assembly deputies Rigel Sergent and Oliver Rivas, condemned the US-Israel war against Iran and the growing threats against Cuba while reiterating support for the Venezuelan government led by Acting President Delcy Rodríguez.

Also on Saturday, several leftist organizations held a rally in Chacaíto to protest the violation of the country’s sovereignty and denounce the Venezuelan government’s accommodation of US impositions.

“This exercise is extremely serious because it makes concepts like sovereignty appear hollow for younger generations,” trade unionist Adelmo Becerra told those present. “Our challenge is to maintain the idea of sovereignty alive in collective memory.”

Demonstrators painted posters reading “Yankee go home!” and chanted slogans such as “We refuse to be a US colony!” Participating organizations included the Communist Party (PCV), Corriente Comunes, and the Socialist Workers’ League (LTS).

A third rally, called by members of the ruling United Socialist Party (PSUV), took place in Plaza Bolívar, with participants shouting anti-imperialist slogans and burning posters of US President Donald Trump and Secretary of State Marco Rubio.

On Saturday morning, US forces flew two Osprey MV-22B aircraft over Caracas before landing near the embassy compound in the southeast of the capital. The tiltrotor transport aircraft took off from the USS Iwo Jima, one of the warships that participated in the January 3 attacks and where Maduro and Flores were airlifted to after being kidnapped by US special forces.

“Ensuring the military’s rapid response capability is a key component of mission readiness, both here in Venezuela and around the world,” a social media statement from the US embassy read.

US Southern Command (SOUTHCOM) Commander General Francis Donovan oversaw the military drills and visited Caracas for a second time. He flew in on an Osprey alongside a marine contingent.

According to US officials, Donovan met with “senior” Venezuelan government leaders at the embassy. At the time of writing, there is no public information on which officials were present. Donovan’s previous visit in February saw him hold talks with Rodríguez, Interior Minister Diosdado Cabello, and then-Defense Minister Vladimir Padrino López.

In a statement, SOUTHCOM reiterated US forces’ commitment to the Trump administration’s “three-phase plan,” which ends with a political “transition.”

For its part, the Venezuelan government did not comment on the US military drills. Caracas issued a statement on Thursday announcing that it had authorized “evacuation exercises” for eventual “medical emergencies and catastrophic events.” Foreign Minister Yván Gil read the communiqué in a video published through official social media channels.

However, amid fierce public backlash, Venezuelan authorities deleted the statement and video from all accounts. A similar incident occurred in late February when the Foreign Ministry published a statement that criticized Iran’s response to the US-Israeli aggression and then withdrew it following outcry from grassroots and solidarity movements.

On Saturday night, the Communications Ministry posted a video stressing the importance of “controlling emotions and waiting for the right moment.” Though making no reference to the US exercises, it stressed that the priority is safeguarding “the existence and the security of the state.”

Since the January strikes, the Trump White House has exacted major concessions from the acting Rodríguez administration, including taking control of Venezuelan oil revenues, auditing its Central Bank, pushing pro-business legislative reforms, and securing the handover of former diplomatic envoy Alex Saab to face money laundering charges in Florida.

Saturday’s military exercises also elicited strong anti-US reactions on social media from Chavista and opposition figures alike. Writer José Roberto Duque, a staunch government supporter, urged people to paint patriotic murals and express their repudiation of “imperialist arrogance.”

Claudio Fermín, a longtime opposition politician, expressed his “outrage” in a social media message, comparing US forces to “cats marking their territory.” Jesús “Chuo” Torrealba, former secretary-general of the opposition MUD coalition, argued that the US actions appeared to be a “demonstration of military prowess.”

Edited by Lucas Koerner in Caracas.

More than 1,000 workers, union members and retirees marching toward downtown Caracas were blocked by riot police during a May Day demonstration. Chanting, “A bonus is not a salary,” they took to the streets in Caracas to protest the only-modest increase in the so-called comprehensive minimum wage, from the equivalent of $190 per month to $240. A short distance away, a small group of workers — convened by the Bolivarian Socialist Workers Federation of Venezuela — celebrated the raise. For the first time in over 20 years, the government had not organized a large rally. Instead, it provided a concert — a Festival for Peace — featuring dozens of international performers.

“People are really happy. They are dancing in the streets because there is a lot of money coming in through the big oil companies,” U.S. President Donald Trump said a few days later. His administration is still managing a political transition process following U.S. military attacks and the abduction of Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro earlier this year.

But even ultraright-wing polling firms such as Meganálisis suggest Trump is wrong about the mood in Venezuela. According to the firm, the proportion of Venezuelans who are “grateful” to the U.S. for its intervention has dropped from 92% in January to just 47% in April. Trump’s attempt to cast himself as the savior of Venezuela’s economy isn’t working — especially as Venezuelans say they haven’t seen any improvements since January, nor since the U.S. imposed economically devastating sanctions in 2015.

Wages are too low

Rafael Venegas, Jacques Derose and Yrma Rivero have different work situations. Venegas works in the public sector, Derose is in the private sector and Rivero is self-employed. But all three have something in common: Their income is not enough to live on.

Venegas is 70 years old and has spent 14 years teaching undergraduate and graduate courses at the Central University of Venezuela, the country’s oldest and largest higher education institution. However, his latest proof-of-employment document, seen by Truthdig, shows his salary is the equivalent of $1.37 a month. Any benefits like severance pay, end-of-year bonus and holiday pay are calculated based on that amount.

At the same time, Venegas, who survived a stroke and who is looking after his 93-year-old mother, receives — as all public sector workers do — a monthly food bonus of $40, and what is called an “economic war bonus” worth $150. The explanation is as simple as it is complex: Venezuela’s legal minimum wage has been frozen at 130 bolivars (about 27 cents) a month for four years. To bring actual take-home income closer to a living wage, workers get monthly bonuses paid in bolivars at the official exchange rate. Together, these amounts are known as the “comprehensive wage” and are only for formal workers.

Thirty kilometers away, Derose, a 27-year-old who dropped out of the university to work at a hardware store in La Guaira, receives a comprehensive wage of $200 a month, which may sometimes go up to $230 or $260 if he takes on extra work loading or moving merchandise.

Derose, who does not have children, tells Truthdig that his income goes to food, transit and paying rent for a single room. The room costs $120, while an apartment in Caracas costs at least $250 a month.

“That’s why my other two brothers, though they’re older, are still living with our parents,” he says.

Meanwhile, Rivero travels around the city cleaning apartments to support herself, as well as her son’s university studies. 

“He got into a public university, but we spend a lot on transportation and food, not to mention medical expenses. Right now, my son has severe sinusitis, and an MRI of his sinuses costs $300,” she says.

She charges $30 to $40 for each deep clean, depending on the size of the property. She tries to have at least four clients a week in order to earn around $400 a month. As the highest earner of the three, Rivero’s situation illustrates why many young people are choosing not to study but to work informally or in trades instead.

All three workers tell Truthdig they use the same strategy to get by: working multiple jobs. Venegas earns intermittent extra income by proofreading books or giving workshops, Derose works as a bricklayer some weekends and Rivero sometimes irons or cooks. They all say that no one can get by on less than $400 a month, and a family of five requires at least $1,500.

According to the Caracas-based, union-run research center Center for Documentation and Social Analysis, the basic food basket for a family of five, which includes 61 essential products, reached $703.11 in March, a 7.2% increase from February. Venezuelans must also pay for transportation or gasoline, utilities, rent or condominium fees, medicine, clothing and much more.

Thousands of workers, especially in sectors like education, healthcare and public services, share this sentiment and have been protesting in the streets of Caracas for weeks, demanding a living wage. But how would that be achieved?

“It would be difficult to have a salary — not bonuses, but a legal minimum wage — that covers basic needs. But there are no ethical or economic reasons to keep it at 27 cents,” Hermes Pérez, economist and former head of the Exchange Desk at the Central Bank of Venezuela, tells Truthdig.

He says the legal minimum wage should be at least $300, but that’s not feasible for either the public or private sector. “The resources simply aren’t there, and since wages are practically zero, raising them to that level would be very expensive. But at least $70 or $100 would be possible. Furthermore, it’s estimated that Venezuelan revenues will grow significantly in 2026 compared to last year. We received $18 billion in oil revenues alone in 2025, and that amount could rise to $33 billion,” Pérez says. Despite attempts at diversification, oil remains Venezuela’s primary source of foreign currency, and the country is dependent on oil revenue to finance public spending.

Pérez stresses that a key indicator must be addressed regardless of how much salaries increase: inflation. “According to the Central Bank, Venezuela ended 2025 with an annual inflation rate of 465%, and by March 2026 it was already at 650%. That’s enormous. In Colombia, for example, inflation is around 5%, and in Latin America, in general, it’s in the single digits,” he says.

“It’s not just the isolated [price] increase of one or two things; it’s the generalized increase across the board. Given this context, it’s very difficult for the average worker to actually perceive any economic improvement.”

Economist Asdrúbal Oliveros agrees. He believes the country will enter a phase of recovery in purchasing power this year, but a “notably slow” one, as Venezuela must first increase incomes, sustainably reduce inflation and stabilize the exchange rate.

Venezuelan government response

On April 8, acting President Delcy Rodríguez took a stance for the first time on low wages and precarious working conditions in the country. She acknowledged some of the problems and noted that there are more pensioners (5.7 million) than formally employed workers (5.3 million), a figure that reveals the extremely high rate of informality that now prevails in Venezuela.

On May 1, Rodríguez then announced a 26% income increase through the country’s bonus system. This raised the comprehensive minimum wage — which includes the official minimum wage and bonuses — from $190 to $240 per month by increasing the economic war bonus by $50. For pensioners, the war bonus increased from $58 to $70. She also announced a one-off “professional recognition” bonus for the education, health and security sectors of around $195, with the exact amount varying by job.

Organizations such as the Professors Association of the Central University of Venezuela rejected “the policy of replacing salaries with bonuses,” which they argued do not affect workers’ social security contributions and “ignore merit, experience and seniority.” The workers also demanded respect for salary scales and collective bargaining agreements. 

The acting president acknowledged that the $240 increase is “insufficient” but said it is “a responsible increase” to improve purchasing power “without generating an excessive inflationary impact.” According to the Central Bank, annual inflation in Venezuela reached 130,000% in 2018, the peak of a four-year hyperinflationary period that ended in 2021. It was then that the government decided to freeze wages and implement a bonus policy to avoid a relapse.

However, some economists also attribute the high inflation rates to the uncontrolled issuance of money by the Central Bank to finance the fiscal deficit. Unions argue that the economy will not collapse from paying off labor liabilities like wages and benefits.

“For the past four years, salaries have been frozen and increases through bonuses have been meager. So, clearly, workers’ salaries or benefits haven’t contributed to causing the current inflation rates,” Venegas says. “There are millions of us in the public sector, but benefits are only received by those who retire, resign or are dismissed — a small amount per year.” 

Venegas believes the government and business leaders are currently colluding to try to reform the Organic Law of Labor and Workers (LOTTT) in order to eliminate the country’s social benefits system. 

The LOTTT, passed by then-President Hugo Chávez in 2012, is considered a bastion of workers’ rights. Among its provisions, it prohibits unjustified dismissal and subcontracting, provides 26 weeks of maternity leave, guarantees the right to work for women and people with disabilities and extends retirement pensions to all workers, including full-time mothers and the self-employed.

Now, businesspeople have argued at the Council of the International Labour Organization for reform of the LOTTT, especially Article 104, which defines what constitutes a salary, and Article 122, which establishes the basis for calculating social benefits and severance pay. They say the current model of accumulating social benefits would be structurally unsustainable if the legal minimum wage is increased.

The U.S. decides

Amid these debates, the acting Venezuelan president has said that the economic situation of workers will improve “progressively” thanks to restored relations with the U.S. and the recovery of oil production, which — after some relaxing of sanctions — has exceeded 1.2 million barrels per day.

“In 2025, Venezuela produced a similar average number of barrels, but they were sold at a 30% to 35% discount to get around the sanctions,” sociologist and political analyst Franco Vielma said on X. These discounts acted as a key economic incentive for private buyers and intermediaries to assume the high legal and financial risk of violating the sanctions imposed by the U.S. Furthermore, the price per barrel exceeded $126 at the end of April 2026, reaching its highest level in four years due to the conflict between the United States and Iran.

Rodríguez has said the latest salary increase is backed by oil and fuel oil income. But Venezuelans still do not know how much oil revenue they are receiving, where it is deposited, what percentage the U.S. is getting or what the new agreements mean.

In January, Trump stated that the U.S. would control Venezuelan oil sales, saying Venezuela would submit monthly budgets to the White House, which would then be reviewed by auditors. Rodríguez said at the time that citizens could track every oil dollar through a new website. However, this website has not materialized. 

The United States, after attacking Venezuela four months ago and, according to the Venezuelan Anti-Blockade Observatory, having imposed 1,081 sanctions on the country since 2015, has argued that increased oil income will benefit Venezuelans. Trump asserted in January that Venezuela would experience “an unprecedented economic upswing … It will earn more money in six months than in the last 20 years.”

In this regard, the U.S. Office of Foreign Assets Control issued 14 licenses in April that allow for the development of the Venezuelan oil sector and the possibility of conducting banking transactions with Venezuela, although each transaction requires OFAC approval. Payments in gold or cryptocurrencies are prohibited; Venezuela cannot trade with China, Russia, Iran, North Korea or Cuba; and the country’s frozen assets will not be released. Crucially, all revenues from oil and mineral exports must be deposited into accounts controlled by the U.S. Treasury Department, which then decides when and how much to return to Venezuela from its own resources.

Although the international media has framed this as a “lifting of sanctions,” the licenses granted by the U.S. are only conditional and temporary permits that allow some oil and banking operations in Venezuela. Executive orders blocking state assets and controlling and supervising the operations of the state oil company PDVSA remain in place, limiting the legal certainty that is necessary for long-term investments.

Many Venezuelans did believe the economic situation would improve after Jan. 3. In fact, some pollsters claimed that 70% to 80% of the population then had “hope for the future.” Now, in April, according to an AtlasIntel poll, 77% of Venezuelans rate the current economic situation as “bad,” and 76% hold a negative opinion about the state of the labor market. 

According to Datanálisis, economic despair also prevails, with 55% of those surveyed identifying inflation and low wages as their main problems. These worries are followed by devaluation and failures in the electrical system.

Datanálisis also found in April that 65% of the population agrees that Venezuela’s priority should be resolving the economic crisis above any political transformation or electoral process. However, Trump hinted on May 12 that beyond the current intervention, he’s also “seriously considering” making Venezuela the 51st U.S. state, posting a map of the country with a U.S. flag. Joke, threat or a reflection of how Trump already sees Venezuela, Venezuelans have much to worry about.

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect those of the Venezuelanalysis editorial staff.

Source: Truthdig

On January 3, the US bombed Venezuela’s capital region and kidnapped President Nicolás Maduro. The unprecedented attack represented the culmination of a quarter-century of imperialist hybrid war, including devastating unilateral sanctions, mercenary incursions, “color revolution”-style insurrections, media disinformation, and NGO infiltration.

The four months since have brought a flurry of developments, from renewed diplomatic ties with the US to an overhaul of key legislative pillars of the Bolivarian Revolution. Additionally, the Trump administration established semi-colonial control over Venezuelan oil revenues, with the amounts and timings of disbursements back to Caracas left entirely at US officials’ discretion. The arrangement is similar to the one Washington has forced on Iraq since the 2003 invasion.

This compromised sovereignty is a catalyst for other issues. On the one hand, it makes it tougher for the Venezuelan government to improve living standards without challenging business interests. On the other, the burden of Venezuela’s external debt might see Washington attempt to impose an IMF loan that will bury the country in debt and dependency for decades.

The holy grail of foreign investment

The acting Rodríguez government’s tenure has been marked by accelerated political and economic transformations. On the international front, Caracas has restored diplomatic ties with Washington and recently resumed dealings with the US-controlled International Monetary Fund (IMF) and World Bank.

Domestically, Rodríguez has changed key cabinet and military posts, while pushing through the National Assembly a number of reforms with the explicit goal of making the country more attractive for private sector investment, especially from Western multinationals.

Plans to reform pension, tax, housing, and the landmark 2012 labor law are in motion. Mining and hydrocarbons have already undergone pro-business overhauls, with slashed fiscal responsibilities, decreased oversight, and disputes subjected to international arbitration. In contrast to Chávez’s reassertion of oil sovereignty, which underpinned the massive sociopolitical achievements of the Bolivarian Revolution, the reformed energy law brings back the old concession model that puts operations and sales in the hands of private corporations.

In tandem, the Trump administration has issued licenses to pave the way for Western conglomerates to return to Venezuela, and several have already struck deals under the new highly favorable conditions. The licenses maintain and even double down on US sanctions by barring dealings with China, Cuba, Iran, North Korea, and Russia and mandating that all Venezuelan state revenues from oil and mining be deposited in US Treasury-run accounts.

The subordination to US impositions saw Venezuelan authorities extradite former diplomatic envoy and minister Alex Saab to face charges in the US with little to no explanation. The move was shocking but not out of context. In recent weeks, there has been a succession of ceremonies at Miraflores presidential palace where Trump officials get the red-carpet welcome and escort corporate executives to sign contracts under the new pro-business incentives. Far-right tech moguls, including Palantir founder Peter Thiel, are already taking advantage of Trump’s leverage to establish a lucrative foothold in the country. For his part, the US chargé d’affaires holds regular publicized meetings with Venezuelan cabinet ministers. 

Caracas’ technocratic and pragmatic approach has dovetailed with a corresponding shift in discourse. On foreign policy, the anti-imperialist rhetoric has all but vanished. As Trump unleashes a savage war against Iran and threatens to “take over” Cuba, Venezuelan leaders have refrained from condemning the escalating imperialist aggression while emphasizing their desire to build good relations with Washington. At the same time, references to Maduro have drastically decreased, as documented in a recent investigation. Domestically, the central focus has become macroeconomic stability and attracting foreign investment. Both Acting President Rodríguez and her brother, National Assembly President Jorge Rodríguez, acknowledged receiving “recommendations” and “suggestions” from oil majors amid the recent hydrocarbon overhaul. 

Rodríguez and the Bolivarian leadership, under ongoing US pressure, are betting that the pro-business opening will lead to accelerated economic growth that will trickle down into improved living conditions, thus allowing the government to rebuild social legitimacy and political prospects. However, this plan faces serious roadblocks.

Rising domestic pressure

The first issue is that the acting authorities may not have a lot of time to improve the living conditions of the Venezuelan people. 

Over the previous seven years, with the economy asphyxiated by the US economic blockade, the Maduro government prioritized macroeconomic stability and reduced inflation first and foremost, through a strict monetarist policy package. While the approach, coupled with a modest oil industry recovery, did lead to slowed down inflation and modest economic growth, it came at a price of freezing wages, consumer credit, and public spending. The minimum wage, last raised in 2022, is now worth less than US $1 per month, with further increases replaced by non-wage bonuses that cheapen labor costs for employers.

Though these bonuses have increased periodically (the income floor is now $240/month for public sector workers), they are still far from covering living costs. On May 1, Rodríguez ignored growing calls for a minimum wage hike, the conversion of bonuses to wages, and the restoration of collective bargaining rights, instead doubling down on the bonus policy. With government officials announcing a labor reform soon, it is likely that the return of the minimum wage will come alongside a significant erosion of workers’ rights and employer responsibilities.

However, apart from its commitment to fiscal discipline, the Rodríguez acting government has little room to maneuver because of its lack of direct management over oil revenues. At the mercy of the Trump administration to return export earnings in the amount and timing of its choosing, Venezuelan authorities are unlikely to commit to anything that might unsettle the budget. Rodríguez herself warned that wage increases must be “responsible.”

There is a delicate balance to strike. To implement the current pro-business agenda, not to mention the US rapprochement, the government needs social peace, and only improved material conditions for the working-class majority can ensure that in the short term.

The specter of debt

It is not just the pressure for better living standards that looms large on Venezuela’s economic front. There is a growing expectation that creditors will soon reengage with Venezuelan authorities to collect on a sizable external debt: a combination of defaulted bonds, unpaid loans, and arbitration awards that, with interest accrued over years, may amount to as much as $170 billion. The Venezuelan government recently announced the launch of a debt restructuring process, while Washington issued a license allowing the hiring of financial and consulting services. 

Given the recent overtures to foreign capital, Venezuelan leaders will be hard-pressed to honor whatever commitments necessary to render the country a favorable investment climate. Nevertheless, a major chunk of this debt is illegitimate.

On the one hand, debt ballooned in the mid-2010s as Venezuela’s credit rating was unjustifiably downgraded and borrowing costs went up, as Washington slapped its first rounds of sanctions on the Caribbean country. The Maduro government made a strategic choice to prioritize debt service as the economy reeled following a collapse of global oil prices, hoping that this “discipline” would stave off a scenario where the country was shut out of financial markets. It turned out differently.

Venezuela was gradually locked out of global finance after the Trump administration’s 2017 financial sanctions. Bonds defaulted one after another and have been accruing interest ever since. And the notoriously corrupt US-backed “interim government” also played its part in running up Venezuela’s liabilities and pilfering state assets abroad.

The diverse group of bondholders and corporations owed arbitration awards is sure to receive the backing of the White House, which holds the purse of Venezuela’s export proceeds. This mechanism could be utilized to directly transfer Venezuelan state income to creditors in what would effectively amount to international wage garnishing. Given how Venezuelan bonds have risen in recent months, investors are eagerly eyeing a significant windfall.

Venezuela’s unsustainable debt burden opens the door for further US imperial predations. Even if there is an agreement to pay 50 cents on the dollar for Venezuela’s $170 billion debt for a period of 15 years, that comes to $5.6 billion a year, roughly a quarter of the present budget. It is simply unpayable.

While Caracas may be able to settle with some creditors by privatizing Venezuelan state assets, it will not amount to much. Venezuelan leaders will stress that, with the recent reforms and US opening, the economy will grow tremendously, and they will be able to honor all commitments. But creditors are not willing to wait when they can cash in now, especially given Venezuela’s weak bargaining position. The government cannot maintain a functioning country in the short term with a huge debt burden. As a result, the US might take advantage of the crisis to impose a major loan from the IMF or some lending coalition.

Sovereignty under threat

An IMF or similar loan program is more than just an agreement to lend some amount under certain repayment conditions. It is an opportunity to impose neocolonial arrangements on Global South countries. In Venezuela’s case it is even more symbolic: it would mean exacting the proverbial pound of flesh for Chávez’s revolutionary audacity to challenge US hegemony in the Western hemisphere.

An eventual long-term credit program would surely come alongside a structural adjustment package of mass privatizations, gutted social expenditure, and all-around liberalization of the economy. Given the current leverage over Venezuela, US officials may attempt to further entrench the rollback of the Caribbean nation’s sovereignty.

Between the growing domestic demands for improved living conditions and the specter of debt renegotiation, the acting Rodríguez government will find it increasingly difficult to walk the tightrope of maintaining social peace while continuing to make one concession after another to monopoly capital and the Trump White House. 

With the limits of US imperialism nakedly exposed in Iran, Trump needs a victory in Venezuela. But that victory does not entail a buoyant economic recovery with social justice, let alone the survival of a sovereign and revolutionary project. Victory for the US is a dependent country, mired in debt and underdevelopment, where Western corporations plunder natural resources and geopolitical rivals are kept at bay.

Ultimately, any long-term plan for sovereign development needs to start from the fact that US imperialism, to echo Che Guevara,  is “not to be trusted even a little bit,” much less considered a “partner” in a “cooperation agenda.” It will undoubtedly be a major hill to climb. But thankfully, even if it means starting over, the Bolivarian Revolution is not starting from scratch.

Source: Sovereign Media