Venezuela

Caracas, February 6, 2026 (venezuelanalysis.com) – Luigi Giuliano, attorney for former Venezuelan diplomat and Industry Minister Alex Saab, has denied reports that his client was arrested in Caracas on Wednesday.

“It is simply not true that he has been arrested,” Giuliano told Reuters, adding that Saab hoped to meet with Venezuelan Acting President Delcy Rodríguez “for clarification.”

Colombian outlet Caracol claimed on Wednesday afternoon that Saab and prominent Venezuelan businessman Raúl Gorrín had been detained by Venezuela’s intelligence agency, the SEBIN.

An anonymous US official confirmed the arrest to Reuters, while other sources alleged that Saab and Gorrín were brought in for questioning concerning US money laundering charges as part of law enforcement cooperation between Caracas and Washington.

The two countries have expedited diplomatic rapprochement in the wake of the US’ January 3 bombings and kidnapping of President Nicolás Maduro. The Trump White House has sought to coerce the Rodríguez acting administration, including by administering Venezuelan crude exports.

Venezuelan officials have yet to issue any official statement concerning the two high-profile figures, whose whereabouts are presently unknown. 

National Assembly President Jorge Rodríguez stated on Wednesday that he had no information about the case. On Thursday, Attorney General Tarek William Saab initially denied the arrest reports before stating instead that he had no knowledge of the matter.

Alex Saab and Gorrín have made no public statements since Wednesday. Saab’s wife, Camilla Fabbri, who heads the government’s “Return to the Homeland” repatriation program, posted on social media about the arrival of a deportation flight from the US on Friday, but offered no comment on her husband’s rumored arrest.

A Colombian-born businessman, Saab became a key ally and diplomatic envoy of the Maduro government for his role in securing imports amid US sanctions. He was arrested in 2020 on US orders during a stop in Cape Verde and was extradited to the US following a long legal battle.

Venezuelan authorities, alongside lawyers and activists, launched a sustained campaign to denounce Saab’s arrest in violation of his diplomatic immunity and demand his release. He spent more than three years in prison, facing money laundering conspiracy charges, before Caracas secured his freedom as part of a prisoner exchange deal with the Biden administration in December 2023.

Saab was appointed industry minister by Maduro in October 2024 and was replaced by Luis Villegas in January under the acting Rodríguez administration.

For his part, Gorrín has been blacklisted by the US Treasury’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) and charged by the US Justice Department with corruption and money laundering.

Gorrín is the owner of La Vitalicia insurance and the private TV broadcaster Globovisión.

Caracas, February 6, 2026 (venezuelanalysis.com) – Venezuelan Acting President Delcy Rodríguez held meetings with oil executives from Repsol (Spain) and Maurel & Prom (France) on Wednesday as part of ongoing efforts to secure energy investments amid US pressure and unilateral sanctions.

“We discussed the models established in the reformed Hydrocarbon Law to strengthen production and build solid alliances toward economic growth,” Rodríguez wrote on social media.

State oil company PDVSA, represented at the meetings by its president, Héctor Obregón, touted the prospects of establishing “strategic alliances” and “win-win cooperation” with the foreign multinational corporations. 

The Rodríguez administration recently pushed a sweeping reform of Venezuela’s Hydrocarbon Law. Corporations are set to have increased control over crude extraction and exports, while the Venezuelan executive can discretionally reduce taxes and royalties and lease out oil projects in exchange for a cut of production.

Venezuelan leaders have defended the pro-business reform as a step forward to attract investment for a key industry that has been hard hit by US coercive measures, including financial sanctions and an export embargo, since 2017, as part of efforts to strangle the Venezuelan economy and bring about regime change.

Former President Hugo Chávez had overhauled oil legislation in 2001 to reestablish the state’s primacy over the sector with mandatory majority stakes in joint ventures, increased fiscal contributions, and a leading PDVSA operational role. Increased revenues financed the Bolivarian government’s aggressive social programs of the 2000s, which dramatically reduced poverty and expanded access to healthcare, housing, and education for the popular classes. 

Repsol and Maurel & Prom currently hold stakes in several oil and natural gas joint ventures in the South American country. The two firms, as well as Italy’s Eni, have operated in a stop-start fashion in recent years as a result of US sanctions. 

The European companies have consistently lobbied for increased control and benefits in their projects in the molds now established in the reformed energy legislation.

Since launching military attacks and kidnapping Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro on January 3, the Trump administration has vowed to take control of the Venezuelan oil sector and impose favorable conditions for US corporations. Senior US officials have praised Caracas’ oil reform.

According to reports, the White House has dictated that proceeds from Venezuelan crude sales be deposited in US-run accounts in Qatar, with an initial agreement comprising 30-50 million barrels of oil that had built up in Venezuelan storage as a result of a US naval blockade since December.

On Tuesday, the US Treasury Department issued a license allowing Venezuelan imports of US diluents required to upgrade extra-heavy crude into exportable blends. On January 27, Washington issued a sanctions waiver allowing US companies to purchase and market Venezuelan crude. The exemption requires payments to be made to US-controlled accounts and bars dealings with firms from Russia, Iran, Cuba, and North Korea.

The US Treasury is additionally preparing a license to allow US companies to extract Venezuelan oil, according to Bloomberg.

The White House has urged US corporations to invest in the Venezuelan oil sector and promised favorable conditions. However, executives have expressed reservations over significant new investments. According to Reuters, US refiners have likewise not been able to absorb the sudden surge of Venezuelan heavy crude supplies, while Canadian WCS crude remains a competitive alternative. 

Vitol and Trafigura, two commodities traders picked by the White House to lift Venezuelan oil, have offered cargoes to European and Asian customers as well. India’s Reliance Industries is reportedly set to purchase 2 million barrels. In recent years, the refining giant has looked to Venezuela as a potential crude supplier but seen imports repeatedly curtailed by US threats of secondary sanctions.

US authorities have reportedly delivered US $500 million from an initial sale to Venezuelan private banks, which are offering the foreign currency in auctions that are said to prioritize private sector food and healthcare importers. Nevertheless, Venezuelan and US officials have not disclosed details about the remaining funds in a deal estimated at $1.2-2 billion.

Besides controlling crude sales, the Trump administration has also sought to impose conditions on the Venezuelan government’s spending of oil revenues. On Tuesday, US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent told House Representatives that the flow of oil funds will be subject to outside audits. 

US Secretary of State Marco Rubio had told a Senate committee last week that US authorities would scrutinize Caracas’ public expenditure and claimed that Venezuelan leaders needed to submit a “budget request” in order to access the country’s oil proceeds.

Washington’s attempted takeover of the Venezuelan oil industry also has an expressed goal of reducing the presence of Russian and Chinese companies. On Thursday, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov told media that the country’s enterprises are being “openly forced out” of the Caribbean nation at the behest of the US.

In mid-January, the US’ naval blockade drove away Chinese-flagged tankers on their way to Venezuela. With crude shipments partly used to offset longterm oil-for-loan agreements, Beijing has reportedly sought assurances of the repayment of debts estimated at $10-20 billion. For their part, independent Chinese refiners have moved to replace Venezuelan supplies with Iranian heavy crude.

An amnesty law that would provide clemency to political prisoners in Venezuela has passed an initial vote unanimously in the National Assembly, stirring hopes among the country’s opposition.

On Thursday, members of both the governing socialist party and the opposition delivered speeches in favour of the new legislation, known as the Amnesty Law for Democratic Coexistence.

“The path of this law is going to be full of obstacles, full of bitter moments,” said Jorge Rodriguez, the head of the National Assembly.

But he added that it would be necessary to “swallow hard” in order to help the country move forward.

“We ask for forgiveness, and we also have to forgive,” Rodriguez said.

But critics nevertheless pointed out that the text of the bill has yet to be made public, and it offers no clemency for individuals accused of serious crimes, including drug trafficking, murder, corruption or human rights violations.

Instead, media reports about the legislation indicate that it focuses on charges often levelled against protesters and opposition leaders.

What does the bill say?

The bill would grant amnesty to individuals accused of crimes like treason, terrorism, rebellion, resisting authorities, instigation of illegal activities, and spreading hate, if those crimes were committed in the context of political activism or protest.

Opposition leaders like Maria Corina Machado would also see bans on their candidacy for public office lifted.

In addition, the legislation specifies certain events that would qualify for amnesty, including the demonstrations that unfolded in 2007, 2014, 2017, 2019 and 2024.

That period stretches from the presidency of the late President Hugo Chavez, founder of the “chavismo” movement, through the presidency of his handpicked successor, Nicolas Maduro.

Both Chavez and Maduro were accused of the violent suppression of dissent, through arbitrary arrest, torture and extrajudicial killings.

But on January 3, the administration of United States President Donald Trump launched a military operation in Venezuela to abduct Maduro and his wife, Cilia Flores. They have since been transported to New York City, where they await trial on charges related to drug trafficking.

While members of Venezuela’s opposition have cheered the military operation as a long overdue move, experts have argued that the US likely violated international law as well as Venezuela’s sovereignty in removing Maduro from power.

Weighing Maduro’s legacy

Images of Chavez were a common sight during Thursday’s debate at the National Assembly, which has been dominated since 2017 by members of the chavismo movement.

That year, Venezuela’s top court dissolved the opposition-led National Assembly and briefly absorbed its powers, before re-establishing a legislature stacked with Maduro supporters.

In 2018 and again in 2024, Maduro claimed victory in contested elections that critics say were marred by fraud.

In the July 2024 vote, for instance, the government refused to release voter tallies, as was previously standard practice. The opposition, however, obtained copies of nearly 80 percent of the tallies, which contradicted the government’s claims that Maduro had won a third six-year term.

After Maduro’s abduction last month, the remnants of his government remained in power.

Within days, his vice president — Delcy Rodriguez, the sister of the National Assembly leader — was sworn in as interim president.

She used her inaugural speech to denounce the “kidnapping of two heroes who are being held hostage: President Nicolás Maduro and First Lady Cilia Flores”.

Rodriguez has nevertheless cooperated with US demands, including by supporting a bill to open Venezuela’s nationalised oil industry to foreign investment.

On the floor of the National Assembly on Thursday, her brother Jorge raised a photo of Chavez holding a crucifix while he spoke. Maduro’s son, National Assembly member Nicolas Maduro Guerra, also presented remarks.

“Venezuela cannot endure any more acts of revenge,” Maduro Guerra said as he appealed for “reconciliation”.

Venezuela’s opposition reacts

Still, opposition members in the National Assembly expressed optimism about the bill.

National Assembly representative Tomas Guanipa, for instance, called it the start of a “new, historic chapter” in Venezuelan history, one where political dissidents would no longer be “afraid to speak their minds for fear of being imprisoned”.

Nearly 7.9 million Venezuelans have left the country in recent decades, fleeing political persecution and economic instability.

But there have been lingering concerns about the human rights situation in Venezuela in the weeks following Maduro’s abduction — and whether it is safe to return home.

President Rodriguez has pledged to release political detainees and close the infamous prison El Helicoide, where reports of torture have emerged. But some experts say the number of people released does not match the number the government has reported.

The human rights group Foro Penal, for instance, has documented 383 releases since January 8.

That figure, however, is lower than the 900 political prisoners the government has claimed to have released. Foro Penal estimates 680 political prisoners remain in detention.

Opposition figures also allege that the government continues to intimidate and harass those who voice sympathy for Maduro’s removal and other opinions that run contrary to the chavismo movement.

Still, the head of Foro Penal, Alfredo Romero, applauded the initial passage of the amnesty law as a step forward.

“Amnesty is the framework that will ensure… that the past does not serve to halt or derail transition processes,” Romero told the news agency AFP.

A second vote is expected to be held on Tuesday next week.

New Delhi, India – When US President Donald Trump announced a trade deal with India on Monday this week, he declared that New Delhi would pivot away from Russian energy as part of the agreement.

Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi, Trump said, had promised to stop buying Russian oil, and instead buy crude from the United States and from Venezuela, whose president, Nicolas Maduro, was abducted by US special forces in early January. Since then, the US has effectively taken control of Venezuela’s mammoth oil industry.

In return, Trump dialled down trade tariffs on Indian goods from an overall 50 percent to just 18 percent. Half of that 50 percent tariff was levied last year as punishment for India buying Russian oil, which the White House maintains is financing Russian President Vladimir Putin’s war in Ukraine.

But since Monday, India has not publicly confirmed that it has committed to either ceasing its purchase of Russian oil or embracing Venezuelan crude, analysts note. Dmitry Peskov, a Kremlin spokesperson, told reporters on Tuesday that Russia had received no indication of this from India, either.

And switching from Russian to Venezuelan oil will be far from straightforward. A cocktail of other factors – shocks to the energy market, costs, geography, and the characteristics of different kinds of oil – will complicate New Delhi’s decisions about its sourcing of oil, they say.

So, can India really dump Russian oil? And can Venezuelan crude replace it?

What is Trump’s plan?

Trump has been pressuring India to stop buying Russian oil for months. After Russia invaded Ukraine in 2022, the US and European Union placed an oil price cap on Russian crude in a bid to limit Russia’s ability to finance the war.

As a result, other countries including India began buying large quantities of cheap Russian oil. India, which before the war sourced only 2.5 percent of its oil from Russia, became the second-largest consumer of Russian oil after China. It currently sources around 30 percent of its oil from Russia.

Last year, Trump doubled trade tariffs on Indian goods from 25 percent to 50 percent as punishment for this. Later in the year, Trump also imposed sanctions on Russia’s two biggest oil companies – and threatened secondary sanctions against countries and entities that trade with these firms.

Since the abduction of Maduro by US forces in early January, Trump has effectively taken over the Venezuelan oil sector, controlling sales cash flows.

Venezuela also has the largest proven oil reserves in the world, estimated at 303 billion barrels, more than five times larger than those of the US, the world’s largest oil producer.

But while getting India to buy Venezuelan oil makes sense from the US’s perspective, analysts say this could be operationally messy.

How much oil does India import from Russia?

India currently imports nearly 1.1 million barrels per day (bpd) of Russian crude, according to analytics company Kpler. Under Trump’s mounting pressure, that is lower than the average 1.21 million bpd in December 2025 and more than 2 million bpd in mid-2025.

One barrel is equivalent to 159 litres (42 gallons) of crude oil. Once refined, a barrel typically produces about 73 litres (19 gallons) of petrol for a car. Oil is also refined to produce a wide variety of products, from jet fuel to household items including plastics and even lotions.

Has India stopped Russian oil purchases?

India has reduced the amount of oil it buys from Russia over the past year, but it has not stopped buying it altogether.

Under increasing pressure from Trump, last August, Indian officials called out the “hypocrisy” of the US and EU pressuring New Delhi to back off from Russian crude.

“In fact, India began importing from Russia because traditional supplies were diverted to Europe after the outbreak of the conflict,” Randhir Jaiswal, India’s Foreign Ministry spokesperson, said then. He added that India’s decision to import Russian oil was “meant to ensure predictable and affordable energy costs to the Indian consumer”.

Despite this, Indian refiners, currently the second-largest group of buyers of Russian oil after China, are reportedly winding up their purchases after clearing current scheduled orders.

Major refiners like Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd (HPCL), Mangalore Refinery and Petrochemicals Ltd (MRPL), and HPCL-Mittal Energy Ltd (HMEL) halted purchasing from Russia following the US sanctions against Russian oil producers last year.

Other players like Indian Oil Corporation (IOC), Bharat Petroleum Corporation, and Reliance Industries will soon stop their purchases.

What happens if India suddenly stops buying Russian oil?

Even if India wanted to stop importing Russian oil altogether, analysts argue it would be extremely costly to do so.

In September last year, India’s oil and petroleum minister, Hardeep Singh Puri, told reporters that it would also sharply push up energy prices and fuel inflation. “The world will face serious consequences if the supplies are disrupted. The world can’t afford to keep Russia off the oil market,” Puri said.

Analysts tend to agree. “A complete cessation of Indian purchases of Russian oil would be a major disruption. An immediate halt would spike global prices and threaten India’s economic growth,” said George Voloshin, an independent energy analyst based in Paris.

Russian oil would likely be diverted more heavily towards China and into “shadow” fleets of tankers that deliver sanctioned oil secretly by flying false flags and switching off location equipment, Voloshin told Al Jazeera. “Mainstream tanker demand would shift toward the Atlantic Basin, most likely increasing global freight rates as a result,” he noted.

Sumit Pokharna, vice president at Kotak Securities, noted that Indian refineries have reported robust margins in the last two years, majorly benefitting from the discounted Russian crude.

“If they move to higher-costing, like the US or Venezuela, then raw material cost would increase, and that would squeeze their margins,” he told Al Jazeera. “If it goes beyond control, they may have to pass the excess onto consumers.”

Can India stop buying Russian oil altogether?

It may not be able to. One of India’s two private refiners, Nayara Energy, is majority-Russian-owned and under heavy Western sanctions. The Russian energy firm Rosneft holds a 49.13 percent stake in the company, which operates a 400,000-barrel-per-day refinery in India’s Gujarat, PM Modi’s home state.

Nayara is the second-largest importer of Russian crude, buying about 471,000 barrels per day in January this year, accounting for nearly 40 percent of Russian supplies to India.

Its plant has relied solely on Russian crude since European Union sanctions were imposed on the company last July.

Nayara is not planning to load Russian oil in April as it shuts its refinery for more than a month for maintenance from April 10, according to Reuters.

Pokharna said the future of Nayara hangs in the balance, with the US unlikely to grant India an overt exemption for the Russia-backed company to import crude.

Can India switch to Venezuelan oil?

India has been a major consumer of Venezuelan oil in the past. At its peak, in 2019, India imported $7.2bn of oil, accounting for just under 7 percent of total imports. That stopped after the US slapped sanctions on Venezuelan oil, but some officials of the government-owned Oil and Natural Gas Corporation are still stationed in the Latin American country.

Now, major Indian refiners have said they are open to receiving Venezuelan oil again, but only if it is a viable option.

For one thing, Venezuela is roughly twice as far from India as Russia and five times further than the Middle East, meaning much higher freight costs.

Venezuelan oil is more expensive as well. “Russian Urals [a medium-heavy crude blend] has been trading at a wide-ranging discount of about $10-20 per barrel to Brent, while Venezuelan Merey currently offers a smaller discount of around $5-8 per barrel,” Voloshin told Al Jazeera.

“Importing from Venezuela and forgoing the Russian discount would be a costly affair for India,” said Pokharna. “From transportation cost to forgoing discounts, it could cost India $6-8 more per barrel – and that is a huge increase in the importing bill.”

Overall, a complete pivot away from Russia could raise India’s import bill by $9bn to $11bn – an amount roughly equal to India’s federal health budget – per year, according to Kpler.

“Venezuelan crude must be discounted by at least $10 to $12 per barrel to be competitive,” argued Voloshin. “This deeper discount is necessary to offset the much higher freight costs, increased insurance premiums for the longer Atlantic voyage, and the somewhat higher operational expenses required to process Venezuela’s extra-heavy high-sulfur crude.”

Without deeper discounts, the longer journey and complex handling make Venezuelan oil more expensive on a delivered basis, he added.

Another major issue is that many Indian refiners simply do not have the facilities to process very heavy Venezuelan oil.

Venezuelan crude is a heavy, sour oil, thick and viscous like molasses, with a high sulphur content requiring complex, specialised refineries to process it into fuel. Only a small number of Indian refineries are equipped to handle it.

“[Venezuelan oil’s heaviness] makes it an option only for complex refineries, leaving out older and smaller refineries,” Pokharna told Al Jazeera. “The shift is operationally difficult and would require blending with more expensive light crudes.”

Then there is the question of availability. Today, Venezuela produces barely a million barrels per day when pushed to its limit. Even if all production was sent to India, it would not match the total Russian oil import.

Where else could India buy oil?

India’s Minister Puri has said that New Delhi is looking to diversify sourcing options from nearly 40 countries.

As India has reduced Russian imports, it has increased them from Middle Eastern nations and other countries in the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC). Now, while Russia accounts for nearly 27 percent share in India’s oil imports, OPEC nations, led by Iraq and Saudi Arabia, contribute 53 percent.

Reeling from Trump’s trade war, India has also increased purchases of US oil. American crude imports to India rose by 92 percent from April to November in 2025 to nearly 13 million tons, compared to 7.1 million in the same period in 2024.

However, India would be competing for these supplies with the European Union, which has pledged to spend $750bn by 2028 on US energy and nuclear products.

Meanwhile, for Venezuela to return to higher production, Caracas needs political stability, changes in foreign investment and oil laws, and to clear debts. That will take time, experts say.

Laura Farnsworth Dogu is not, at first glance, your typical Trump appointee.

A career diplomat with postings under the Obama and Biden administrations, she represents a branch of government President Trump has cut back and long vilified.

Yet her selection for Trump’s top envoy to Venezuela signals a rare strategic choice, leveraging her experience with authoritarian regimes at a moment when Washington is recalibrating its approach to Caracas after the overthrow of Nicolás Maduro.

“There are not very many cases in this administration where they have relied on a career diplomat,” says Elliott Abrams, who served as Trump’s special representative for Venezuela in 2019. “This is actually an anomaly.”

Abrams suggests the appointment of Dogu — who met with the interim president, Delcy Rodríguez, in Caracas on Monday — could reflect a desire for a seasoned expert to manage day-to-day diplomacy as the administration embarks on one of its most complex foreign policy undertakings.

“What he really needs is a professional to oversee the embassy and do the traditional diplomatic things while all policy is made in Washington,” Abrams said, referring to Secretary of State Marco Rubio.

Dogu, 62, arrived in Venezuela on Saturday to reopen the U.S. Embassy. She is recognized in Central America for her methodical, approachable style and deep understanding of Latin America’s political and cultural dynamics. However, her direct and outspoken approach has also led to controversy, with enraged officials in Honduras once wanting to declare her persona non grata.

Her new position as chargé d’affaires augments a career that includes senior roles in hostage recovery for the FBI and as ambassador to Nicaragua and Honduras during periods characterized by social and political volatility.

Before taking on her new position, she served as the foreign policy advisor to Gen. Dan Caine, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the leader of the operation that targeted Maduro. Her office did not respond to a request for interview.

Her experience navigating authoritarian governments and fragmented opposition movements makes her a pragmatic choice for a volatile post-Maduro transition. In a Senate hearing on Jan. 28, Rubio stressed the post’s importance for restoring a limited U.S. mission to gather intelligence and engage with Venezuelan stakeholders.

Dogu will be tasked with navigating Venezuela’s fractured opposition, which includes leaders inside the country, exiles abroad and figures struggling for influence in a potential transition. Abrams, the veteran diplomat, said engaging opposition actors, such as Maria Corina Machado, is a core diplomatic responsibility, particularly in a country the United States does not recognize as having a legitimate government. At the same time, maintaining relations with the turbulent, divided government will be her responsibility as well.

Abrams also cautioned that Washington priorities will define Dogu’s mission, and those priorities might not always align neatly with democratic objectives.

“The question is how the administration defines the interests of the United States,” Abrams said. “Does it include a free and democratic Venezuela? I don’t think we really know the answer yet.”

A family ethos of public service

A Texas resident and the daughter of a career Navy officer, Dogu often traces her commitment to public service to her upbringing in a military family. That ethos shaped her diplomatic career and has been a defining thread across generations, with both of her sons also serving in the military.

She has received multiple State Department honors, speaks Spanish, Turkish and Arabic and served in Mexico, El Salvador, Egypt, Turkey and Morocco.

Diplomatic relations between the U.S. and Venezuela have been suspended since 2019. She takes over from John McNamara, who had served as chargé d’affaires since February 2025 and traveled to Venezuela in January to discuss the potential reopening of the embassy.

According to a statement, Venezuelan Foreign Minister Yván Gil Pinto, indicated that the two governments will hold discussions to establish a “roadmap on matters of bilateral interest” and resolve disagreements through mutual respect and diplomatic dialogue.

Dogu is no stranger to Venezuelan issues. During a 2024 news conference, while serving as ambassador to Honduras, she publicly criticized the participation of sanctioned Venezuelan officials in Honduran government events.

“It’s surprising for me to see [Honduran] government officials sitting with members of a cartel based in Venezuela,” Dogu said at the time, referring to a meeting between the government of President Xiomara Castro and Venezuela’s defense minister, Vladimir Padrino López.

The United States has accused Padrino López of involvement in a conspiracy to distribute cocaine, and there is a $15-million reward for information resulting in his arrest or conviction.

Years earlier, Dogu had offered a blunt assessment of Venezuela’s economic collapse. Speaking in 2019 at Indiana University’s Latin American Studies program, she described Venezuela as “a very wealthy country, [with] huge oil supplies, but they’ve managed to drive their economy into the ground,” the Indiana Gazette reported.

Crisis and confrontations

Nominated by President Obama to serve as ambassador to Nicaragua in 2015, she said at her confirmation hearing that Obama had “rightly maintained” that “no system of government can or should be imposed upon one nation by another.” She added: “America does not presume to know what is best for everyone, just as we would not presume to pick the outcome of a peaceful election.”

Dogu left her Nicaragua post in October 2018 amid nationwide protests and a severe government crackdown that resulted in at least 355 deaths, according to the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights. At the time, Dogu said she learned from authorities that paramilitary groups had targeted her for death.

In 2019, she linked the unrest in Nicaragua to the Cold War, citing an “unfortunate negative synergy” among Nicaragua, Cuba and Venezuela. “We never left the Cold War in Latin America,” she said.

Nicaraguan opposition figures, many now exiled, remember Dogu as an accessible diplomat. Former presidential candidate Juan Sebastián Chamorro called her a “methodical and approachable official” who upheld State Department policy and democratic principles.

Lesther Alemán, then a student leader who frequently interacted with Dogu during the 2018 protests, described her as publicly blunt but privately empathetic. Alemán emphasized Dogu’s ability to engage “all sides of the coin,” making her effective with both the “authoritarian governments and with the opposition.”

Alemán said Dogu initially had a good relationship with the Nicaraguan government, including a personal friendship with then-first lady and current co-President Rosario Murillo. However, that relationship soured after Dogu publicly supported opposition groups during the political crisis.

Her experience in Honduras proved more contentious. After Dogu made her statements regarding Venezuela, Rasel Tomé, vice president of the National Congress and a senior figure in the governing Liberty and Refoundation Party, urged lawmakers to declare her “persona non grata.”

Tomé justified this request by accusing her of making “interventionist statements” directed at the government.

Criticism continued after Dogu’s departure from Honduras in 2025. An opinion column published by the Committee of Relatives of the Disappeared in Honduras argued that her relationship with the country had been marked by distrust.

“Although Ambassador Laura Dogu makes an effort to say goodbye amicably,” the piece read, “we all know that the relationship between her and Honduras was not sincere because it was disrespectful; it was not trustworthy because it was interventionist.”

This week, the U.S. Embassy posted online an upbeat video of showing Dogu entering the mission, meeting with Venezuelans and outlining plans for what she calls a “friendly, stable, prosperous and democratic” Venezuela. “Our presence marks a new chapter,” she says, “and I’m ready to get to work.”

Mojica Loaisiga is a special correspondent writing for The Times under the auspices of the International Center for Journalists.

Thousands of people marched through Venezuela’s capital, Caracas, demanding the release of President Nicolas Maduro and his wife, Cilia Flores, exactly one month since US forces abducted the couple in a bloody nighttime raid.

“Venezuela needs Nicolas!” the crowd chanted in Tuesday’s demonstration, titled “Gran Marcha” (The Great March).

Thousands carried signs in support of the abducted president, and many wore shirts calling for the couple’s return from detention in a US prison.

“The empire kidnapped them. We want them back,” declared one banner carried by marchers.

Nicolas Maduro Guerra, the detained president’s son and a member of Venezuela’s National Assembly, addressed the crowds from a stage, stating that the US military’s abduction of his father on January 3 “will remain marked like a scar on our face, forever”.

“Our homeland’s soil was desecrated by a foreign army”, Maduro Guerra said of the night US forces abducted his father.

The march, called by the government and involving many public sector workers, stretched for several hundred metres, accompanied by trucks blaring music.

Local media outlet Venezuela News said the march was part of a “global day of action” to demand the couple’s release. Protesters showed their solidarity around the world, demonstrating under banners with slogans like “Bring them back” and “Hands off Venezuela”.

The international event united voices “from diverse ideological trends”, who agreed “that the detention of President Maduro and Cilia Flores represents a flagrant violation of international law and a dangerous precedent for the sovereignty of nations”, the news outlet said.

“We feel confused, sad, angry. There are a lot of emotions,” said Jose Perdomo, a 58-year-old municipal employee, who marched in Caracas.

“Sooner or later, they will have to free our president”, he said, adding that he also backed Venezuela’s interim leader, Delcy Rodriguez.

Rodriguez has been walking a thin line since taking over as acting president, trying to appease Maduro’s supporters in government and accommodating the demands being placed on Caracas by US President Donald Trump.

Trump has said he is willing to work with Rodriguez, as long as Caracas falls in line with his demands, particularly on the US taking control of Venezuela’s vast oil reserves.

Striking a conciliatory tone with Washington, and promising reform and reconciliation at home, Rodriguez has already freed hundreds of political prisoners and opened Venezuela’s nationalised hydrocarbons sector to private investment.

Earlier on Tuesday, hundreds of university students and relatives of political prisoners also marched in the capital, calling for the quick approval of an amnesty law promised by Rodriguez that would free prisoners from the country’s jails.

Legislation on the amnesty has not yet come before parliament.

The ‘test’ of a new country

This longing is shared by Angelica Angel, a 24-year-old student activist in exile.

She had grown up with tear gas and police beatings in Venezuela. After all, she had started protesting at age 15.

“They’ve pointed their guns at me, beaten me and almost arrested me. That’s when you realise that these people have no limits: They target the elderly, women and even young girls,” Angel said.

But the increasing political repression ultimately made her life in Merida, a college town in western Venezuela, untenable.

After 2024’s disputed presidential election, Angel decided to voice her outrage on social media.

Maduro had claimed a third term in office, despite evidence that he had lost in a landslide. The opposition coalition obtained copies of more than 80 percent of the country’s voter tallies, showing that its candidate, Edmundo Gonzalez, had won the race.

Protests again broke out, and again, Maduro’s government responded with force.

Military and security officers detained nearly 2,000 people, including opposition leaders, journalists and human rights lawyers.

When Angel denounced the arbitrary detentions on TikTok, she began receiving daily threats.

By day, anonymous phone calls warned her of her impending arrest. By night, she heard pro-government gangs on motorcycles circling her home.

Fearing detention, she fled to Colombia in August 2024, leaving her family and friends behind.

But living outside Venezuela gave her a new perspective. She came to realise that the threats, persecution and violence she had learned to live with were not normal in a democratic country.

“When you leave, you realise that it isn’t normal to be afraid of the police, of unknown phone calls,” said Angel, her voice trembling. “I’m afraid to go back to my country and to be in that reality again.”

For exiled Venezuelans to return safely, Angel believes certain benchmarks must be met. The interim government must end arbitrary detention and allow opposition members, many of whom fled Venezuela, to return.

Only then, she explained, will Venezuela have moved past Maduro’s legacy.

“Exiles being able to return is a real test of whether a new country is taking shape,” she said.

Illegal US military strikes on January 3, 2026, against Venezuela have elicited a flood of resolutions from labor unions. Some of these have focused solely on the US aggression and solidarity with the Venezuelan people. Others have gone further to condemn the kidnapping and arrest of President Nicolás Maduro and his wife, Cilia Flores. In at least one case, a resolution by the Tucson chapter of the National Writers Union has called for systemic changes to how the AFL-CIO, the US’ largest labor confederation, and its Solidarity Center (formerly the American Center for International Labor Solidarity), conducts its international relations. In each case, union members are undertaking important steps towards peace and solidarity as well as opening up possibilities for the emergence of a truly independent US labor movement. 

These resolutions are the latest in a series of cases where labor has broken with US foreign policies, including military strikes and acts of war. Beginning with the AFL-CIO’s 2005 passage of the USLAW Resolution 53: “The War in Iraq”, the federation and both affiliated and unaffiliated unions have gone on to speak out against coups in Honduras and Bolivia, repressive immigration policies, neoliberal trade agreements, and other global wars and threats of war.

In contrast, the Solidarity Center, the AFL-CIO’s primary channel for international activities, has continued to collaborate with US policies of regime change. The AFL-CIO’s Solidarity Center is historically 90 to 96% funded by the US government, and its policies are set in consultation with the White House rather than with representatives from its member unions. The Solidarity Center is one of the core institutes of the National Endowment for Democracy (NED), along with the International Republican Institute (IRI), the Center for International Private Enterprise (US Chamber of Commerce), and the National Democratic Institute (NDI). The NED was created by the US Congress in 1983 in large part to “…do today [what] was done covertly 25 years ago by the CIA.”

The Solidarity Center has played support roles in coups and coup attempts as well as invasions and occupations in Haiti, Venezuela, and Iraq, to name a few examples. In Haiti, the Solidarity Center withheld support for the largest union during the IRI orchestrated coup and instead funded a small labor organization that refused to oppose the coup. In Iraq, the Solidarity Center ignored unions and workers organizations protesting the US occupation in order to support union organizing that would avoid such direct challenges. 

In Venezuela, the Solidarity Center funneled hundreds of thousands of dollars to plotters of the failed coup of 2002. Since then, the Solidarity Center has provided a black box worth millions in funding for activities in Venezuela. However, it has provided no details about how those funds are being used or to whom they are being distributed. 

The recent freeze in funding for the NED and the Solidarity Center by the Trump Administration is being treated as a crisis. It has resulted in lawsuits by both institutions to recover funding. However, orphaned by the White House, there is another way forward for the AFL-CIO and the Solidarity Center. The Tucson NWU resolution calls for the Solidarity Center to open its books on its activities and to wean itself off government funding. The recent experiences of unions declaring their solidarity with both Palestine and Venezuela have shown many the profound need for a new era of labor independence. 

Labor unionists in solidarity with Venezuela should study and learn from experiences regarding Palestine. Labor mobilizations against the genocide in Gaza represented a break not only with international US policies but, specifically, with the leadership of the AFL-CIO which has long supported Zionism and even to this day, acted to stifle solidarity with Palestine. In an article for Left Voice, Jason Koslowski informs us that, 

“By October 18, a little fewer than 2,000 were dead in Gaza. That’s when one of the AFL-CIO’s organs in Washington State — the Thurston-Lewis-Mason Central Labor Council, or TMLCLC — met and passed a resolution demanding a ceasefire. 

The TMLCLC’s resolution ‘opposes in principle any union involvement in the production or transportation of weapons destined for Israel.’ And it challenges the AFL-CIO leadership, too: 

‘[W]hile the TLMCLC agrees with the AFL-CIO’s statement calling for a ‘just and lasting peace,’ we would ask our parent federation to also publicly support an immediate ceasefire and equal rights for Palestinians and Israelis.

The AFL-CIO leadership caught wind of this dissent. That’s when it stepped in. 

A representative of the AFL-CIO leaders contacted the labor council to declare the dissenting statement void. Under pressure, the Washington labor council deleted the statement from its Twitter account.”

Jeff Shurke is the author of the must-read book No Neutrals There: US Labor, Zionism, and the Struggle for Palestine. Shurke, in an article for Jacobin, adds that, 

“…an AFL-CIO senior field representative informed the council’s board members that their resolution was null and void because it did not conform to the national federation’s official policy…. About a week later, AFL-CIO president Liz Shuler sent a memorandum to all local labor councils and state labor federations across the United States telling them that ‘the national AFL-CIO is the only body that can render an official public position or action on national or international issues.’ Without explicitly referencing the unfolding carnage in Gaza, she was all but telling the federation’s local and statewide bodies they were not allowed to stand in solidarity with Palestine.

Still, the AFL-CIO’s individual member unions — which, unlike central labor councils, operate as autonomous affiliates of the federation — were free to take their own positions. Beginning with the American Postal Workers Union and United Auto Workers (UAW), over the following weeks and months several of them formally joined the growing chorus of international voices demanding a ceasefire in Gaza… culminating in the establishment of a new union coalition dubbed the National Labor Network for Ceasefire.

The AFL-CIO itself eventually came out in favor of a “negotiated cease-fire” in early February 2024, after at least twenty-five thousand Palestinians had already been killed. Despite these positive developments, the AFL-CIO and its affiliated unions at the national level still failed to answer the explicit Palestinian call to refrain from building or shipping weapons for Israel.”

In the case of the Tucson NWU’s resolution, rather than going through labor federations, the resolution has been sent to the national NWU for passage and forwarding to the AFL-CIO for consideration in the next convention. Other unions are debating similar resolutions. There also is discussion of bringing resolutions before labor counsels and federations despite the AFL-CIO’s admonishments. 

Right now, three kinds of resolutions have emerged from labor in response to the January 3rd attack on Venezuela. They are all good. 

•  The first kind is to condemn the attacks without further elaboration. That is positive, but by leaving out reference to the kidnapping of President Maduro and Cilia Flores, the resolutions sidestep the issue of regime change itself. 
•  The second kind adds a demand for the release of Maduro and Flores. This is better and implicitly breaks with the AFL-CIO’s and the Solidarity Center’s support for regime change. 
•  The Tucson NWU resolution is an example of the third approach. It takes worker-to-worker solidarity to its logical conclusion, calling for systemic change so that the AFL-CIO will never again support US coups and invasions but, instead, plot an independent course. That is the most meaningful kind of change, one that lasts beyond just the current moment and conflict. 

The opportunity to achieve that kind of change is here. Abandoned by the White House, pressured by its own rank and file, the time has come for the AFL-CIO to choose a new path. What will be its response?

James Patrick Jordan is National Co-Coordinator for the Alliance for Global Justice and is responsible for its Colombia, labor, and ecological solidarity programs.

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

Source: Orinoco Tribune

US President Donald Trump is set to welcome Colombian President Gustavo Petro only weeks after threatening military action against the South American country.

Oil becomes more meaningful when you turn it into fuel.

A barrel contains 159 litres of crude oil, or 42 gallons.

To use this oil, it must be refined. The refining process produces various products, including petrol, diesel, jet fuel and numerous household items, such as cleaning products, plastics and even lotions.

Once refined, a barrel typically produces about 73 litres, or 19.35 gallons, of petrol to power cars and trucks.

A pick-up truck that can drive 24 miles on 1 gallon of petrol, or 100km on 10 litres, can travel about 730km, or 450 miles, from one barrel of oil.

Put another way, one barrel of crude oil can fuel that pick-up on a trip from New York City to Cleveland, Ohio.

Now let’s scale that up to US national consumption. According to the US Energy Information Administration, the US has about 285 million motor vehicles and consumes nearly 9 million barrels of petrol every day.

If all of Venezuela’s crude oil were refined into petrol, it could supply US vehicles for roughly 40 years at today’s consumption rate.

Mérida, February 2, 2026 (venezuelanalysis.com) – Venezuelan Acting President Delcy Rodríguez met with US Chargé d’Affaires Laura Dogu in Miraflores Presidential Palace on Monday afternoon.

According to Communications Minister Miguel Pérez Pirela, the meeting took place “in the context of the working agenda” between Caracas and Washington. National Assembly President Jorge Rodríguez was likewise present.

Dogu confirmed the high-level audience with Venezuelan leaders via social media, saying that she reiterated Washington’s intended “three-phase plan” for the Caribbean nation.

“Today I met with Delcy Rodríguez and Jorge Rodríguez to reiterate the three phases that Secretary of State Marco Rubio has proposed for Venezuela: stabilization, economic recovery and reconciliation, and transition,” she said.

The US diplomat arrived in Caracas on Saturday, vowing that her team is “ready to work.” US State Department officials had visited the Venezuelan capital previously to assess conditions for the reopening of the US embassy.

Venezuelan Foreign Minister Yván Gil was the first high-ranking official to meet with Dogu, writing that the country’s authorities are looking to work on “issues of bilateral interest” with US counterparts. On Monday, Gil announced that Félix Plasencia will be Venezuela’s diplomatic representative in the US and will travel to Washington in the coming days.

This diplomatic rapprochement follows the January 3 US military strikes that killed dozens, while special operations teams kidnapped President Nicolás Maduro and First Lady and Deputy Cilia Flores.

In the weeks since, the Venezuelan government has emphasized its commitment to reestablish ties with the Trump administration, with Rodríguez pledging that she is not afraid to address “differences” with Washington through diplomatic channels.

For his part, US President Donald Trump told reporters aboard Air Force One that he maintains positive relationships with Venezuelan leaders, including the acting president.

Since the January 3 strikes, the White House has claimed control over Venezuelan crude sales, with proceeds reportedly deposited in US-administered accounts in Qatar before a portion is returned to the South American nation. Last week, the Venezuelan National Assembly approved an oil reform granting expanded benefits for private corporations that drew praise from US officials.

Caracas severed diplomatic ties with Washington in 2019 after the Trump administration recognized the self-proclaimed “interim government” headed by Juan Guaidó as the country’s legitimate authority.

A formal reestablishment of diplomatic relations hinges on the White House formally recognizing the Venezuelan acting government, a move that is also a necessary step before any process of debt renegotiation.

Rodríguez announces Amnesty Law, Helicoide closure

Venezuelan acting authorities have combined the restoration of ties with Washington with a fast-moving domestic legislative agenda.

On Friday, during the Supreme Court’s 2026 opening ceremony, Acting President Rodríguez announced a new “General Amnesty Law,” intended to cover acts of political violence that have occurred in Venezuela from 1999 to the present.

In her speech, Rodríguez explained that the law aims to “heal the wounds” resulting from political confrontation.

“I request the full cooperation of the Venezuelan parliament so that this law may contribute to healing the wounds left by confrontation, violence, and extremism,” she told attendees. “May it serve to redirect justice in our country and restore coexistence among Venezuelans.”

The legislative proposal will reportedly exclude those who have been convicted or are facing charges of homicide, drug trafficking, corruption, and serious human rights violations.

Alongside the new law proposal, Rodríguez announced the closure of the Helicoide detention center in Caracas, with plans to turn it into a recreational center. The facility, run by the SEBIN intelligence agency, has held multiple high-profile opposition figures accused of crimes including treason and terrorism.

Human rights organizations over the years have denounced grave human rights violations against Helicoide prisoners. Dozens of prisoners have been gradually released in recent days. 

Javier Tarazona, director of the NGO Fundaredes, was among those released during the weekend. He had been detained since 2021 on terrorism and treason charges. Luis Istúriz, a leader from the far-right Vente Venezuela party, also exited the Helicoide on Sunday following 18 months behind bars. He had begun a 30-year sentence on charges of terrorism and conspiracy.

Venezuelan Interior Minister Diosdado Cabello affirmed in a Monday press conference that the amnesty law is about promoting “coexistence and peace” and will see authorities review the cases of people who have “undoubtedly committed crimes.”

“Those who benefit from the amnesty will be given an opportunity to return to politics,” he said, adding that the amnesty project was a government initiative that had no influence from “NGOs and foreign governments.”

Edited and with additional reporting by Ricardo Vaz in Caracas.

BOGOTA, Colombia — President Trump is scheduled to host one of his most vocal regional critics, Colombian President Gustavo Petro, at the White House in a high-stakes meeting analysts suggest could redefine the immediate future of bilateral relations.

Petro has called Trump an “accomplice to genocide” in the Gaza Strip, while the U.S. president called him a “drug lord,” an exchange of insults that escalated with U.S. sanctions against Petro, threats of reciprocal tariffs, the withdrawal of financial aid to Colombia and even the suggestion of a military attack.

Tensions eased in early January when Trump accepted a call from Petro, saying it was a “great honor to speak with the president of Colombia,” who called him to “explain the drug situation and other disagreements.”

The two leaders are expected to meet Tuesday to address strategies for curbing drug trafficking and boosting bilateral trade, while potentially discussing joint operations against Colombian rebel groups fueled by the cocaine trade.

“There’s a lot of space here for mutual cooperation and shared success,” said Elizabeth Dickinson, a Colombia expert at the International Crisis Group.

Combating drug trafficking

Decades of security cooperation once made Colombia the primary U.S. ally in the region, but that relationship has recently faced unprecedented strain.

The two countries have opposing views on how to address the problem of illicit drugs. While the U.S. remains anchored in aggressive eradication and supply-side control, Petro advocates for interdiction, demand reduction and providing economic alternatives for small-scale coca farmers.

In 2025, the U.S. signaled its dissatisfaction with Petro’s anti-drug policy by adding Colombia to a list of nations failing to cooperate in the drug war for the first time in three decades.

Since then, Petro has focused on highlighting the record seizures and claiming that his government has managed to halt the growth of coca leaf crops. However, Colombia’s coca crop has reached historic highs, as the government shifts away from eradication. According to United Nations research, potential cocaine production has surged by at least 65% during the Petro administration, to more than 3,000 tons per year.

The Venezuela factor

The sudden detente between Petro and Trump followed a period of extreme volatility.

Tensions peaked after the Jan. 3 U.S. raid in Caracas that captured then-President Nicolás Maduro and his wife, Cilia Flores. Petro denounced the operation as an act of “aggression” and a “kidnapping,” blasting the U.S. for what he called an “abhorrent” violation of Latin American sovereignty and a “spectacle of death” comparable to Nazi Germany’s 1937 carpet bombing of Guernica, Spain.

Despite recently calling for Maduro’s return to face Venezuelan justice, Petro’s tone softened significantly during a subsequent hourlong call with Trump, paving the way for their upcoming summit.

Gimena Sánchez-Garzoli, director for the Andes region at the Washington Office on Latin America, a think tank, believes that Trump accepted Petro’s call partly to quell questions about the operation in Venezuela and the growing concern over warnings issued to countries like Colombia.

She also said she considers it likely that both presidents will agree on actions against drug trafficking and a joint fight against the National Liberation Army guerrilla group, which is most active on the border with Venezuela.

‘A quiet, effective cooperation’

Signaling a thaw in relations just days before the White House summit, the Colombian Foreign Ministry announced on Thursday that repatriation flights for deportees from the U.S. have officially resumed.

Images released by the ministry showed citizens arriving at El Dorado airport — a stark contrast to the diplomatic crisis a year ago. At that time, Petro triggered a near trade war by refusing U.S. military deportation flights over “dignity” concerns, only relenting after Trump threatened 50% tariffs and visa cancellations.

“A good outcome [of the meeting] would be that the relationship is cordial, pragmatic, and that the two countries can get back to what they have been doing for years, which is a quiet, effective cooperation on shared security threats,” Dickinson said.

“The less noise there is around the relationship the better.”

Suárez and Rueda write for the Associated Press.

Tarazona freed after four years in prison on ‘terrorism’ and conspiracy charges.

Venezuelan rights ‍activist Javier Tarazona has been freed ‍in a prisoner release, his family says, more than four years since he was arrested.

“After 1675 days, 4 years and 7 months, this long-awaited day has arrived. My brother Javier Tarazona is free,” Jose Rafael Tarazona posted on X on Sunday. “One person’s freedom is everyone’s hope.”

Legal rights group Foro Penal said several other prisoners had been released with Tarazona from the Helicoide detention centre in Caracas. The group said it has ​verified more than 300 political prisoners freed since the government announced a series of releases on January 8.

Venezuelan interim President Delcy Rodriguez on Friday unveiled a proposed “amnesty law” covering hundreds of prisoners and said the Helicoide prison – long condemned by rights groups as a site of prisoner abuse – will be transformed into a sports and social services complex.

Translation: Today, #1Feb, after 1675 days, 4 years and 7 months, this long-awaited day has arrived. My brother Javier Tarazona is FREE. THANKS BE TO GOD ALMIGHTY. Thank you to everyone who made this moment possible. One person’s freedom is everyone’s hope. #FreeToLiberate

Tarazona is the director of FundaRedes, which tracks alleged abuses by Colombian armed groups and the Venezuelan military along the countries’ border. He was arrested in July 2021 and accused of “terrorism” and conspiracy.

Government officials – who deny holding political prisoners and say those jailed have committed crimes – have given a much higher figure for the releases, saying there have been more than 600, but have not been clear about the timeline and appear to be including releases from previous years. The government has never provided an official list of how many prisoners will be released or who they are.

Families of prisoners said the releases have progressed too slowly, and Foro Penal said more than 700 political prisoners remain jailed, an updated ​count including prisoners whose fearful families had not previously reported their detentions.

Families and rights advocates have long ‌demanded the charges and convictions against detainees who are considered political prisoners be revoked.

Opposition politicians, journalists and rights activists have long been subject to charges like “terrorism” and treason, which their families have called unjust and arbitrary.

The proposed amnesty law could affect hundreds of detainees who remain behind bars in the ‌South American country as well as former prisoners who have already been conditionally released.

The releases were announced as the top United States envoy for Venezuela arrived in the Venezuelan capital, Caracas, to reopen a US diplomatic mission seven years after ties were severed.

Last month, the US abducted Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro from the presidential palace in Caracas on the orders of US President Donald Trump.

Maduro was then taken to a prison in New York and is facing drug trafficking and “narcoterrorism” conspiracy charges.

Laura Dogu’s visit comes as Venezuela moves to privatise its oil sector under pressure from Trump.

The top United States envoy for Venezuela has arrived in Caracas to reopen a US diplomatic mission seven years after ties were severed.

Laura Dogu announced her arrival in a post on X on Saturday, saying, “My team and I are ready to work.”

The move comes almost one month after US forces abducted Venezuela’s then-president, Nicolas Maduro, from the presidential palace in Caracas, on the orders of US President Donald Trump.

Maduro was then taken to a prison in New York, and is facing drug trafficking and narcoterrorism conspiracy charges.

The move has been widely criticised as a violation of international law.

Venezuelan Minister of Foreign Affairs Yvan Gil wrote on Telegram that he had received Dogu, and that talks would centre on creating a “roadmap on matters of bilateral interest” as well as “addressing and resolving existing differences through diplomatic dialogue and on the basis of mutual respect and international law”.

Dogu, who previously served as US ambassador to Honduras and Nicaragua, was appointed to the role of charge d’affaires to the Venezuela Affairs Unit, based out of the US Embassy in Bogota, Colombia.

Venezuela and the US broke off diplomatic relations in February 2019, in a decision by Maduro after Trump gave public support to Venezuelan lawmaker Juan Guaido, who claimed to be the nation’s interim president in January that year.

Minister of the Popular Power for Interior Diosdado Cabello, one of Venezuela’s most powerful politicians and a Maduro loyalist, said earlier in January that reopening the US embassy in Caracas would give the Venezuelan government a way to oversee the treatment of the deposed president.

Although the Trump administration has claimed that Maduro’s abduction was necessary for security reasons, officials have also repeatedly framed their interests in Venezuela around controlling its vast oil reserves, which are the largest in the world.

Since the abduction, Trump has pressured Interim President Delcy Rodriguez to open the country’s nationalised oil sector to US firms.

The two countries have reached ‌a deal to export up ⁠to $2bn worth of Venezuelan crude to the US, and on Thursday, Rodriguez signed into law a reform bill that will pave the way for increased privatisation.

The legislation gives private firms control over the sale and production of Venezuelan oil, and requires legal disputes to be resolved outside of Venezuelan courts, a change long sought by foreign companies, which argue that the judicial system in the country is dominated by the governing socialist party.

The bill would also cap royalties collected by the government at 30 percent.

The Trump administration said on the same day that it would loosen some sanctions on Venezuela’s oil sector, and allow limited transactions by the country’s government and the state oil company PDVSA that were necessary for a laundry list of export-related activities involving an “established US entity”.

Trump has announced that he ordered the reopening of Venezuela’s commercial airspace and “informed” Rodriguez that US oil companies would soon arrive to explore potential projects in the country.

On Friday, Rodriguez announced an amnesty bill aimed at releasing hundreds of prisoners in the country, and said she would shut down El Helicoide, an infamous secret service prison in Caracas, to be replaced with a sports and cultural centre.

That move was one of the key demands of the Venezuelan opposition.

It all started with a direct US attack on Venezuela earlier this month.

Back then, US President Donald Trump made it clear that he was only interested in the country’s substantial oil reserves.

On Thursday, the government in Caracas announced a massive overhaul of the petroleum sector.

Venezuela’s interim president has signed a law easing state control and opening the door for private firms to invest in the country.

For many, it paves the way for US oil giants to return to Venezuela with significant investments.

But who will stand to gain from the changes, Venezuela or the United States? Or both?

Presenter: Adrian Finighan

Guests

Elias Ferrer – founder and director of Orinoco Research

Andrew Lipow – president of Lipow Oil Associates

Phil Gunson – senior analyst at the International Crisis Group

Following United States forces’ abduction of Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro, a new set of questions is emerging as to how far Donald Trump is prepared to go in pushing US power abroad through direct intervention.

But is this a real break with past policy – or the latest iteration of the US’s longstanding interventionist power play in Latin America?

And with Cuba back in the administration’s sights, will Trump push for further action in the region?

This week on UpFront, Marc Lamont Hill speaks with Senior Analyst at the National Security Archive, Peter Kornbluh.

The Trump administration has provided around $300 million to the Rodriguez government after seizing tankers and selling oil stockpiled in the country. The funds are being managed through accounts in Qatar and will be subject to audits by US agencies, Rubio told the Senate on Wednesday.

The idea that the US can somehow remote-control its way into a coherent audit of Venezuelan public spending defies imagination. Venezuela has never been an easy place to follow money. Road construction in Venezuela was for much of the 20th century a famous form of campaign finance that bankrolled politicians through well-greased kickback systems. Even in the country’s more prosperous days, public hospitals were notorious rat’s nests of corruption that allowed suppliers of everything from aspirin to X-ray machines to mark up prices for illicit gain and political financing.

Chavismo put this on steroids. Because there has been no alternation of power since Chávez’s 1998 election, no one in a position to audit government books has ever had an incentive to. The government comptroller’s office, once an institutional check on the ruling party, has for decades been used primarily to disqualify opposition politicians from holding office on the basis of fabricated accounting discrepancies.

The Chávez era saw the wholesale unraveling of basic parliamentary oversight of spending. State oil company PDVSA went from being an internationally respected company to a piggy bank used for everything from food imports to housing development. Multibillion-dollar slush funds with no rules about spending and no reporting requirements to the general public came to manage more than parliament. Bilateral financing agreements with China, Russia, and Iran led to secretive and inscrutable financing arrangements that made the country’s borrowing a black box.

Rampant corruption and damaged financial accountability do not mean that outsiders cannot be involved there. When the war in Ukraine broke out, international agencies famously relaxed what had been stringent standards around Ukrainian corruption. Aid agencies and nonprofits working in Haiti have had to quietly make concessions to the realities of operating there. As did the organizations that worked to reduce hunger in Venezuela during the crisis years. Expecting to maintain Swiss-level accounting standards in these types of environments is a recipe for making sure nothing gets done.

Which is a bit of what Rubio is promising by putting the US Export-Import Bank in charge of following every last dollar that Venezuela receives from US-brokered oil sales. Nobody was able to fully follow the money in Venezuela even when they were trying. After almost 30 years of systematically undermining public transparency, a remote-controlled, third-party audit conducted by foreigners from thousands of miles away doesn’t stand a ghost of a chance.

The inevitable conclusion is that the United States will simply have to start turning a blind eye to what actually happens with the money. With clear marching orders to get the economy up and running and oil production moving as fast as possible, there simply won’t be time to stand on accounting formalities. Ask too many questions and the progress will start to slow down. It seems like an unexpected consequence of a transition under tutelage: the Trump administration will quietly become part of the chavista machine.

Rodriguez calls for healing ‘wounds left by political confrontation’ while announcing notorious El Helicoide prison to shut down.

Venezuela’s interim President Delcy Rodriguez has announced an amnesty bill that could lead to the release of hundreds of prisoners, her latest major reform since the US military abducted the country’s President Nicolas Maduro and his wife earlier this month.

“We have decided to push ahead with a general amnesty law that covers the whole period of political violence from 1999 to the present day,” Rodriguez said on Friday.

Speaking at a gathering of justices, magistrates, ministers, military officials and other government leaders, the acting president said the National Assembly would take up the amnesty bill with urgency.

“May this law serve to heal the wounds left by the political confrontation fuelled by violence and extremism,” Rodriguez said in the prerecorded televised event.

“May it serve to redirect justice in our country, and may it serve to redirect coexistence among Venezuelans,” she said.

Rodriguez also announced the shutdown of El Helicoide, a notorious secret service prison in Caracas, where torture and other human rights abuses have been documented by independent organisations.

El Helicoide, she said, will be transformed into a sports, social and cultural centre for the surrounding neighbourhoods.

Rodriguez made her announcement before officials whom former prisoners and human rights watchdogs have accused of overseeing El Helicoide and other detention facilities.

The Venezuelan-based prisoners’ rights group Foro Penal estimates that 711 people are in detention in facilities across Venezuela over their political activities. Of those, 183 have been sentenced, the group said.

Foro Penal President Alfredo Romero welcomed the planned amnesty but said it must apply to all prisoners “without discrimination”.

“A general amnesty is welcome as long as its elements and conditions include all of civil society, without discrimination, that it does not become a cloak of impunity, and that it contributes to dismantling the repressive apparatus of political persecution,” Romero wrote in a post on social media.

Foro Penal has calculated that some 302 prisoners have been released by Rodriguez’s government in the aftermath of the abduction of Maduro by the US.

The organisation later released a video clip on social media of what is said showed the moment that human rights worker Eduardo Torres was released from prison on Friday night, following his detention since May 2025.

Translation: Our colleague from @proveaong Eduardo Torres has been released from prison, human rights defender, former political prisoner.

Families and rights advocates have long demanded that charges and convictions against detainees who are considered political prisoners be dropped.

Government officials – who ⁠deny holding political prisoners and say those jailed have committed crimes – report that more than 600 people have been released from prison, but they have not been clear on the timeline and appear to be including prisoners released in previous years.

Caracas, January 30, 2026 (venezuelanalysis.com) – The Venezuelan National Assembly has approved a sweeping reform of the country’s 2001 Hydrocarbon Law that rolls back the state’s role in the energy sector in favor of private capital.

Legislators unanimously endorsed the bill at its second discussion on Thursday, with only opposition deputy Henrique Capriles abstaining. The legislative overhaul follows years of US sanctions against the Venezuelan oil industry and a naval blockade imposed in December.

National Assembly President Jorge Rodríguez hailed the vote a “historic day” and claimed the new bill will lead oil production to “skyrocket.” 

“The reform will make the oil sector much more competitive for national and foreign corporations to extract crude,” he told reporters. “We are implementing mechanisms that have proven very successful.”

Venezuelan Acting President Delcy Rodríguez signed and enacted the law after the parliamentary session, claiming that the industry will be guided by “the best international practices” and undertake a “historic leap forward.”

Former President Hugo Chávez revamped the country’s oil legislation in 2001 and introduced further reforms in 2006 and 2007 to assert the Venezuelan state’s primacy over the industry. Policies included a mandatory stakeholding majority for state oil company PDVSA in joint ventures, PDVSA control over operations and sales, and increased royalties and income tax to 30 and 50 percent, respectively. Increased oil revenues bankrolled the Venezuelan government’s expanded social programs in the 2000s.

The text approved during Thursday’s legislative session, following meetings between Venezuelan authorities and oil executives, went further than the draft preliminarily endorsed one week earlier.

The final version of the legislation establishes 30 percent as an upper bound for royalties, with the Venezuelan government given the discretionary power to determine the rate for each project. A 33 percent extraction tax in the present law was scrapped in favor of an “integrated hydrocarbon tax” to be set by the executive with a 15 percent limit.

Similarly, the Venezuelan government can reduce income taxes for companies involved in oil activities while also granting several other fiscal exemptions. The bill cites the “need to ensure international competitiveness” as a factor to be considered when decreasing royalty and tax demands for private corporations.

The reform additionally grants operational and sales control to minority partners and private contractors. PDVSA can furthermore lease out oilfields and projects in exchange for a fixed portion of extracted crude. The new legislation likewise allows disputes to be settled by outside arbitration instances.

Thursday’s legislative reform was immediately followed by a US Treasury general license allowing US corporations to re-engage with the Venezuelan oil sector.

General License 46 (GL46) authorizes US firms to purchase and market Venezuelan crude while demanding that contracts be subjected to US jurisdiction so potential disputes are referred to US courts. The license bars transactions with companies from Russia, Iran, North Korea, or Cuba. Concerning China, it only blocks dealings with Venezuelan joint ventures with Chinese involvement.

Economist Francisco Rodríguez pointed out that the sanctions waiver does not explicitly allow for production or investment and that companies would require an additional license before signing contracts with Venezuelan authorities.

GL46 also mandates that payments to blocked agents, including PDVSA, be made to the US Foreign Government Deposit Funds or another account defined by the US Treasury Department.

Following the January 3 military strikes and kidnapping of Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro, the Trump administration has vowed to take control of the Venezuelan oil industry by administering crude transactions. Proceeds from initial sales have been deposited in US-run bank accounts in Qatar, with a portion rerouted to Caracas for forex injections run by private banks. US Secretary of State Marco Rubio vowed that the resources will begin to be channeled to US Treasury accounts in the near future.

In a press conference on Friday, Trump said his administration is “very happy” with the actions of Venezuelan authorities and would soon invite other countries to get involved in the Caribbean nation’s oil industry. Rubio had previously argued that Caracas “deserved credit” for the oil reform that “eradicates Chávez-era restrictions on private investments.”

Despite the White House’s calls for substantial investment, Western oil corporations have expressed reservations over major projects in the Venezuelan energy sector. Chevron, the largest US company operating in the country, stated that it is looking to fund increased production with revenues from oil sales as opposed to new capital commitments.

Since 2017, Venezuela’s oil industry has been under wide-reaching US unilateral coercive measures, including financial sanctions and an export embargo, in an effort to strangle the country’s most important revenue source. The US Treasury Department has also levied and threatened secondary sanctions against third-country companies to deter involvement in the Venezuelan petroleum sector.

Venezuelans are bracing for an uncertain future after the United States military abduction of President Nicolas Maduro. Reactions across the country have been sharply divided. Some are celebrating what they see as the end of an era while others have expressed fear and anger, accusing the US of trying to impose a government subordinate to Washington to secure access to Venezuela’s oil reserves, the largest in the world.

Presenter: Stefanie Dekker

Guests:
Luis Ernesto Patino – activist and political commentator

Adelys Ferro – executive director, Venezuelan American Caucus

Marc Owen Jones – professor of media analytics, Northwestern University

Jan. 29 (UPI) — An appeals court ruled that Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem unlawfully ended immigration protections for Haiti and Venezuela.

The three judges of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled against Noem, who ended the Temporary Protected Status for Venezuelans on Jan. 29, 2025. She ended TPS protection for Haitians on June 28.

The opinion, written late Wednesday by Judge Kim McLane Wardlaw, said Noem’s “unlawful actions have had real and significant consequences for the hundreds of thousands of Venezuelans and Haitians in the United States who rely on TPS.”

She said the move has hurt immigrants who came here to work.

“The record is replete with examples of hard-working, contributing members of society — who are mothers, fathers, wives, husbands, and partners of U.S. citizens, pay taxes, and have no criminal records — who have been deported or detained after losing their TPS,” Wardlaw wrote.

“The Secretary’s actions have left hundreds of thousands of people in a constant state of fear that they will be deported, detained, separated from their families, and returned to a country in which they were subjected to violence or any other number of harms,” she said.

The concurring opinion by Judge Salvador Mendoza Jr. noted that Noem and President Donald Trump had made racist remarks about the people of Venezuela and Haiti, meaning that the decision to end TPS was “preordained” and not based on need.

“The record is replete with public statements by Secretary Noem and President Donald Trump that evince a hostility toward, and desire to rid the country of, TPS holders who are Venezuelan and Haitian,” Mendoza wrote. “And these were not generalized statements about immigration policy toward Venezuela and Haiti or national security concerns to which the Executive is owed deference. Instead, these statements were overtly founded on racist stereotyping based on country of origin.”

The concurring opinion cites Noem calling Venezuelans “dirtbags” and “criminals,” and Trump saying that immigrants are “poisoning the blood” of Americans.

The ruling, though, won’t change the TPS removal for Venezuelans. The Supreme Court ruled in another case in October to allow Noem to end the TPS while the court battles continue.

TPS began as part of the Immigration Act of 1990. It allows the Department of Homeland Security secretary to grant legal status to those fleeing fighting, environmental disaster or “extraordinary and temporary conditions” that prevent a safe return. TPS can last six, 12 or 18 months, and if conditions stay dangerous, they can be extended. It allows TPS holders to work, but there is no path to citizenship.

Haiti was given TPS in 2010 after a magnitude 7 earthquake that killed about 160,000 people. It left more than 1 million without homes.