Venezuela

Even if we aren’t yet in a place where we can say that a democratic transition has begun, election talk is back, and with it, the activity of political parties, as many political prisoners are being released and some being granted full freedom. The old reflexes of electoral politics, that constitute the backbone of all political forces in Venezuela, are kindling again after the long, hard night of brutal repression that came with the steal of the July 2024 presidential election. The unsaid assumption is that Edmundo González Urrutia already did his historical role, and that fresh elections with a new CNE and a new TSJ must come to effectively start a democratic transition and put in place an essential component that has been missing for years, and is still missing after January 3: the people’s will.

A recent poll by Gold Glove Consulting, based on 1,000 in-person interviews on the ground, found that María Corina Machado would capture 67% of the vote against Delcy Rodríguez in a hypothetical head-to-head, although the latter’s tenure in office isn’t met with complete rejection by many respondents. The idea of that matchup remains a cherished possibility among Machado’s staunch supporters, who would love to see her being allowed to run in a presidential election against PSUV for the first time. But with the opposition leader still in Washington DC, and a domestic political ban still in place, others have emerged from the opposition dugout to stir up the yearning for change that the 2024 electoral campaign awakened.

People have seen how presidential pre-candidate Delsa Solórzano and Primero Justicia leader Juan Pablo Guanipa, visible members of Machado’s campaign entourage in 2024, have come back to give press conferences and even stir the pot, challenging the newly enacted amnesty law and demanding more releases (which initially earned Guanipa a few days in house arrest). In a new effort to embody a non-aligned or centrist lane, former presidential candidate Enrique Márquez showed up at the US Congress in a seemingly staged TV moment meant to let Trump boast about the success of his Venezuela operation. There has been speculation about whether Márquez was being considered as the White House’s favorite for a transition, and the Zuliano politician started to speak like a man with a mission, even if he got only a tiny fraction of the vote in 2024 (minor runners including Márquez, Antonio Ecarri, and the faux AD candidate Luis Eduardo el Burro Martínez together garnered 2%).

The most coherent voice in the Trump administration, Secretary Marco Rubio, said last week during a summit in St. Kitts and Nevis that “ultimately, in order for them [us Venezuelans] to take the next step to truly develop that country and to truly benefit from that country’s riches for the benefit of their people, they will need the legitimacy of fair, democratic elections.” Other US officials had mentioned that the US expects to see elections taking place in Venezuela around 2027. They know that a legitimate government—and Delcy Rodríguez’s local management is not one—would not only give more confidence to foreign investors, especially if such a government is not burdened with a history of expropriations as chavismo is. It would be free of sanctions and have access to multilateral organizations, financial aid, international arbitrage, commercial treaties, and diplomatic and commercial relations with everyone. Machado’s message last weekend, announcing plans to return to Venezuela in the coming weeks, revitalized electoral spirits in parts of the country and gave opposition parties fodder to build suspense on social media.

Could Vente be Venezuela’s largest movement? Potentially. Machado remains undisputed as the country’s dominant political leader.

As calls for the release of political prisoners evolve into a broader push for a true democratic transition, the country’s political heat map is beginning to warm up. Let’s examine how party movements are re-emerging: who the opposition is coalescing around, the numbers that might back each group, and which players are positioned to exert influence.

Vente Venezuela

Machado’s party was founded in 2012, and after a decade being a marginal group in the anti-Maduro coalition, it managed to exploit María Corina’s 2023-2024 electoral marathon by catching a wave of new recruits, which is not uncommon when a party with a suddenly popular leader takes the reins of the opposition. But this transformation is not just a product of public disaffection with the mainstream G4 parties (the interim government of Guaidó being the latest, crucial example). The Machado phenomenon and her connection with deprived Venezuelans produced the country’s most formidable electoral force since Hugo Chávez, and its performance in 2024 can put Vente among the strongest parties in the country. Except for a minor detail: the CNE has never allowed it to register as a political party—if elections were held in Venezuela tomorrow, its candidates would need to use the MUD slot to run (unless the likes of Capriles and Rosales also decided to support them).

Could Vente be Venezuela’s largest movement? Potentially. Machado remains undisputed as the country’s dominant political leader (with a 52% approval rating according to the Gold Glove Consulting survey) and her party saw significant growth two years ago. Of course, these organizations don’t disclose their actual membership numbers, and if they did so (even before an internal audience) they would almost certainly inflate the figures. Whatever the scale of the actual growth, Machado is faced with two realities. Number one: Vente’s human capital is unable to cover the country’s 30 thousand polling stations, and as in 2024, it would need help from other experienced parties and regional platforms to attempt a repeat of the 28J feat. And number two: Venezuelan politics is waking up from a calamitous hangover lasting from the last presidential vote to the US intervention on January 3rd, a period where Machado’s party bore the brunt of State terror.

Around 150 members were arrested soon after the CNE declared Maduro the elected president, while Machado had to hide and her top aides were besieged in the Argentinean Embassy in Caracas. Since Delcy took power, however, Vente Venezuela and other parties have turned the release of political prisoners into a public celebration, which is both a challenge to the security apparatus still in place, and a recognition for much-needed activists (and their families) after months of despair, where it was natural for many of them to question whether being in politics was worth the risk. Reassured by the level of American surveillance on the interim post-Maduro management, Vente activists have started to meet again, and you can see how they are summoning small groups in places like Margarita municipality Antolin del Campo, Guama in Yaracuy or Monay in Trujillo. In Portuguesa, María Oropeza, the local leader who became famous when she broadcasted her detention in Acarigua, has openly spoken about how to rebuild a true democracy. In Mérida, they gathered an even larger crowd, while Machado summoned party supporters in the US for a meeting in Washington DC. She has insisted she is ready to lead a genuine transition, offering her own timeframe and reform goals to challenge other stakeholders in the current political process. On February 5, she told Politico that elections could be organized within nine to ten months, not with the existing electronic machines, but by shifting to a manual voting system that for over a decade she has claimed would make domestic elections more effective and transparent.

Acción Democrática, Primero Justicia & Voluntad Popular

Acción Democrática is a historical party in a permanent state of survival-through-maneuvering; the other two (Primero Justicia and Voluntrad Popular) were once led by charismatic young figures meant to be a new generation of politicians that would lead the country into a new era and failed because dictatorship. Today, they all seem to be placing their cadres at the service of a Machado-led democratic transition. Two days ago in Valencia, AD’s Henry Ramos Allup said in front of his national leadership board that the party would endorse Machado in a presidential election—“with a dedicated and generous campaign”—if that’s what it took to get rid of the Delcy Rodríguez regime. Party Vice President Édgar Zambrano didn’t look too happy and didn’t applaud, but Ramos Allup is the boss, one that knows very well that AD could again fall to irrelevance if Maria Corina gave him the Capriles treatment (bear in mind that Acción Democratica was the last mainstream party that decided to boycott the May 2025 regional vote, where Capriles and Un Nuevo Tiempo formed an ephemeral alliance that could not win a single governorship while Machado called for abstention, something she later labelled an outright victory).

It’s no wonder that Primero Justicia members are relieved to know they have a national leader that has the charisma to be a presidential contender at some point.

The other two parties were also hit hard during the post-election crackdown, with leaders from recent years like María Beatriz Martínez and Paola Bautista from PJ still in hiding or exiled, or Freddy Superlano as an emblematic victim of forced disappearance and abuse. But these organizations will benefit from having Juan Pablo Guanipa and now Superlano roaming the streets again. In the case of Guanipa, who María Corina considers a dear friend (not just an ally), he has the potential to be more than a supporting actor in a democratic transition. Many opposition supporters see him as a brave, honorable figure that never bent the knee before chavismo, with tons of energy to address crowds and journalists whenever he has a chance, even instants after setting foot outside El Helicoide for the first time in eight months.

The re-arrest episode a few weeks ago only showed he’s still a man eager to talk truth to power sin medias tintas, like demanding the release of all political prisoners and the return of fellow politicians in exile. It’s no wonder that PJ members are relieved to know they have a national leader that has the charisma to be a presidential contender at some point—somewhere Julio Borges couldn’t get to, and a position a now-ostracized Henrique Capriles couldn’t cement—but we’ll see where that leaves him as long as María Corina tries to land in Miraflores. Machado will require the organizational structures these leaders command once an electoral process begins to unfold. In turn, these leaders recognize that Machado represents their best chance to be part of (or at least influence) a democratic national government that would allow them to capitalize on decades of anti-chavista struggle and serve as core components of a new era’s party system.

Bancada Libertad: the Capriles-UNT faction

Capriles and Tomás Guanipa finally broke away from Primero Justicia last year, having negotiated with the regime to lift their individual political bans. This allowed them to run in the parliamentary elections and secure an official CNE slot for their fledgling platform, Unión y Cambio. The former PJ figures are not the loudest voices in the National Assembly presided over by Jorge Rodríguez; that role has been assumed by their Un Nuevo Tiempo partners—Stalin González, Nora Bracho, and Luis Florido—alongside occasional interjections from former presidential candidate Antonio Ecarri, whom Rodríguez silences from time to time.

In terms of numbers, none of these figures know their true vote count from 2025. While CNE Rector Carlos Quintero claimed they got 5% of the total (roughly 300,000 votes), they did not demand the physical tally sheets as the Edmundo González coalition had done in 2024 (which both Capriles and Stalin were part of). That silence has to do with the fact that Jorge Rodríguez granted them approximately ten more seats than a correct application of the seat-allocation method would have yielded, but that’s that.

Delcy fares better in terms of popularity than security chiefs like Cabello and Vladimir Padrino, or even Capriles.

Are Capriles et al a significant political force? Not in the slightest. Their relevance is derived from being the only non-chavista group currently permitted to participate in elections, opposite to Vente Venezuela and others. They serve as a useful ‘legitimate’ counterpart for Delcy Rodríguez when sanctioning laws or naming new public officials, like we just saw with the appointment of Larry Devoe as Chief Prosecutor and the passage of the amnesty law (the latter featured a poor simulation of a debate with the Libertad fraction, while the critical fine print was being negotiated exclusively among chavistas who control the National Assembly). María Corina Machado views this group as irrelevant to any effort to influence the Rodríguez siblings’ agenda. However, political calculus shifts when elections appear on the horizon. A pivotal reform to the Organic Law of Electoral Processes, now in preliminary stages, may be enough to set old political gears back in motion.

Delcy Rodríguez and the chavista amalgam

The unpopular Diosdado Cabello continues to represent the eternal revolution (even if his characteristic aggressiveness has toned down after the capture of his boss), taking part in PSUV events or attempting to lead a lacking PSUV youth. The Rodríguez tribe might be looking for an electoral rebrand that creates some distance between a discredited PSUV and the technocratic style they want to project.

They know that their status is being reassessed by an electorate that wants quick economic reforms and sees compliance with the United States as favorable. As both the Gold Glove Consulting poll and a February study from Latam Pulse show, Delcy fares better in terms of popularity than security chiefs like Cabello and Vladimir Padrino, or even Capriles. The obvious strategy for the Rodríguez siblings is to capitalize on their time in power by tethering their image to potential improvements in the economy and quality of life, pressing concerns that (they hope) would cushion demands for democratic elections. In other words, they would reasonably try to rule long enough for the public to associate them to a limited recovery, and not the horrors they were part of, eventually running in future elections under banners no longer synonymous with devastation. Delcy may have some of that infrastructure: eight years ago, she founded a progressive political party under the revolutionary umbrella, Movimiento Somos Venezuela, and the Héctor Rodríguez-led Movimiento Futuro (the Chávez-era golden boy, unrelated to Delcy and Jorge) waits in the wings to finally break through with a sanitized version of chavismo claiming to foster youth sports and cultural activities within the framework of the Communal State.

We might see old-school, Siberia-based chavistas like Miguel Rodríguez Torres joining this camp. Old supporters of the former interior minister and political prisoner (2018-2023) are already promoting him as a reasonable acquisition for the Delcy cabinet. And he seems to have a tailwind compared to folks like Cabello, who look condemned, with no place in the future. Tensions that became evident during the amnesty bill’s saga might be early signs: the alliance we have known as the Gran Polo Patriótico could split, sooner or later.

A couple of weeks ago, US Energy Secretary Chris Wright did not just visit Caracas. He was hosted at the presidential palace with a traditional joropo presentation before being taken on a tour of oilfields like the estate owner who comes to check in on his land and cattle. His statements were clear enough: Washington has sights set on oil, gas, and “critical minerals.”

The spectacle of a Trump administration official getting the red carpet treatment, six weeks after that same administration bombed Caracas and kidnapped the Venezuelan president, was puzzling for many of us, to put it mildly.

We are told that Delcy Rodríguez has a gun to her head, and I totally agree. But she smiles while this gun is cocked and I find it hard to completely ignore what I see and hear.

Days after Wright, it was the Southern Command chief, Francis Donovan, alongside Acting Assistant War Secretary Joseph Humire, to drop in to meet Rodríguez, alongside Interior Minister Diosdado Cabello and Defense Minister Vladimir Padrino. Both US officials were likewise heavily involved in the January 3 attacks that killed over 100 Venezuelans. Donovan promised to return “soon” because he is apparently involved in “stabilizing (Venezuelan) security and transition toward a new era.”

At the time, the Venezuelan government talked about a “cooperation agenda” with the US against drug trafficking and terrorism. Just a few months ago, Venezuelan leaders were denouncing the US as the main source of drug trafficking and terrorism in the hemisphere (and it’s true). Speaking about the meeting days later, the acting president said it wasn’t easy: “I had to sit face to face with those who murdered my father [leftist leader assassinated in 1976 while detained by the Venezuelan state] and with those responsible for killing our January 3 heroes […]. I did it for Venezuela.” 

She did it for Venezuela? Are all these things being done for Venezuela? Many are quick to point out the Venezuelan forces’ underwhelming response against the US attack, though we have to wonder what the cost would have been otherwise, assuming it was actually possible to have done more. Maybe the reaction is due to having spent months listening to one leader after another praise the readiness of the defense forces and vowing that such an event would never happen. The armed forces have given no explanation about the January 3 events.

National Assembly President Jorge Rodríguez gave an interview to NewsMax where he talked about implementing a “free market economy” and “adapting legislation” to attract US investment. At the same time, he ruled out elections in the near term, though he left the door open for far-right candidate María Corina Machado to eventually participate. Meanwhile, Machado has been announcing her return to the country for weeks but has faded from the spotlight. She clearly needs Trump’s approval for whatever she wants to do next.

In contrast, Trump surprised everyone by inviting former electoral rector and presidential candidate Enrique Márquez to his State of the Union address, showcasing him as one of the high-profile people recently released from the Helicoide prison. It’s already fueling speculation that the White House might choose to back a figure much more moderate than Machado as part of its announced “three-phase plan” for Venezuela.

Nevertheless, in the same speech, Trump praised his “new partner and friend, Venezuelan,” bragging about his “close relationship” with the acting president while accusing Maduro of being an “outlaw dictator” and honoring Eric Slover, a pilot who was injured in the January 3 operations against Venezuela. For its part, the government has stood by Maduro and First Lady Cilia Flores, but has framed the US attacks as a “stain” in the two countries’ relationship.

On the domestic front, authorities are releasing hundreds and hundreds of people, from opposition politicians to poor saps, whom we never knew why they were arrested in the first place. Some of the spokespeople who today praise the government’s gesture and commitment to peace with the Amnesty Law are the same ones who months ago would rail against anyone who questioned the detention of campesino or trade union activists, of young idiots who made TikTok videos criticizing Maduro, or pointed out the double standards in letting Guaidó and other confessed criminals walk free.

The cabinet has also seen some major changes, including the appointment of a career opposition politician, Oliver Blanco, as vice minister for Europe and North America. At the same time, Alex Saab’s middle name is now “unknown,” because there has been no official update since the rumors of his arrest. Additionally, some media speculated that former Oil Minister Tareck El Aissami was extradited to the US; others denied it, but we’ve only heard of him once since his arrest in early 2023.

Venezuelan foreign policy has changed dramatically as well. Gone are the references to imperialism, even to the highly touted “multipolar world.” It’s not just the express rapprochement with the US, thanking Trump officials for their “respect and courtesy” while they manage our oil revenues. Days ago, when the US and Israel launched the attack against Iran, the Venezuelan Foreign Ministry published an unbelievable statement that even condemned Iran for retaliating against US bases in the region. In fact, the communiqué was taken down after a barrage of criticism.

Meanwhile, familiar problems persist… People are still waiting for the currency to stabilize and for some increase to their incomes, but that has yet to happen. Direct flights to the US are set to resume, and the deportation of Venezuelans also continues apace.

Nicolás Maduro Guerra, a deputy and the president’s son, has assured everyone that he talks to his father regularly and he “agrees with everything.” I find myself asking: does Maduro also agree with the US Treasury blocking the Venezuelan government from funding his legal defense?

Brazil’s Lula da Silva, trapped between his short memory and his desire to be friends with God and the Devil at the same time, says that Maduro’s arrest is a minor issue and that democracy is the main issue. How can you talk about democracy in a country where the president was just kidnapped and 100 people were killed? Colombia’s Gustavo Petro echoes this line, and we’re inevitably reminded of past Colombian treason against Venezuela.

Social media plays a crucial part in all this, hogging attention on everything from Bad Bunny to the “therian phenomenon” or the adorable monkey Punch in a Japanese zoo. Well… what about Trump’s deadly antics? Or the Epstein files? And Palestine? Venezuela suffered an unusual invasion, and the world is too numb to take note.

These two months have felt like five years. At some point we’ll be able to calmly take stock of how the pieces have fallen and think about the next steps. But first we need a chance to breathe. The struggle continues.

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.

US forces launched a military attack against Venezuela on January 3, reportedly killing over 100 people and kidnapping Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro and first lady Cilia Flores, who also serves as a National Assembly deputy.

Western corporate media have played an active role in recent years in legitimizing escalated US aggression against the Venezuelan people, from whitewashing economic sanctions that killed tens of thousands (FAIR.org, 6/4/21, 6/13/22) to outright calling for a military intervention (FAIR.org, 2/12/25, 11/19/25). They also exposed themselves once again as the fourth branch of the US national security state, opting not to publish information they had prior to the January 3 operation in order to “avoid endangering US troops” (FAIR.org, 1/13/26).

The brazen act of war has elicited zero dissent from the Western media establishment, no urge to challenge Trump’s return to early 20th century “gunboat diplomacy.” Worse, with the White House pushing to impose a semi-colonial protectorate and plunder Venezuela’s wealth, corporate outlets continue working overtime to normalize US imperialist predations.

Damage control

In the weeks since the attack, Western media have made a point of referring to Maduro as “arrested” (NBC, 1/5/26), “captured” (PBS, 2/10/26) or “ousted” (ABC, 1/5/26). The choice is far from innocent. By not stating that the Venezuelan leader was “kidnapped” or “abducted,” in a blatant violation of international law, establishment journalists are normalizing the US’s rogue actions, denying Maduro the proper protections of prisoner of war status (FAIR.org, 1/20/26).

But it is not just through semantic distortion that corporate outlets have quarantined any critique of the administration’s lawlessness. Another common feature has been a certain “damage control” in covering up Trump’s most outlandish statements.

After the January 3 military operation, Trump stated in a press conference that “many Americans, hundreds of thousands over the years…died because of [Maduro].” No corporate outlets reported the outrageously false statement. (A couple of factchecking pieces—CBS, 1/6/26; New York Times, 1/8/26—addressed his adjacent, essentially unfalsifiable claim that “countless Americans” died due to Maduro.)

The attempts to make Trump’s Venezuela policy claims appear more rational are not new. For instance, in presidential press conferences, he constantly said that Venezuela had “emptied” its mental institutions into the US (X, 10/15/25, 11/2/25, 12/3/25, 1/3/26). But throughout 2025, the New York Times  (11/4/25) mentioned this absurd statement just once, and the Washington Post (10/22/25, 12/21/25) did so twice.

On the domestic policy front, corporate journalists have had fewer qualms labeling Trump claims as “false,” when it comes to ending wars (CNN, 1/20/26), immigration (NBC, 2/4/26) or the 2020 US election (Guardian, 1/12/26). But they seem happy to carefully conceal or openly parrot false accusations that build the case for wars of aggression, whether in Yugoslavia, Iraq, Libya, Syria, Iran and now Venezuela (FAIR.org, 8/1/05).

The vanishing cartel

In recent years, and especially in the second half of 2025, US officials justified escalating attacks against Venezuela on the grounds that Maduro and associates ran a drug trafficking operation, the so-called Cartel of the Suns. Trump himself, during his January 3 press conference, claimed Maduro “personally oversaw the vicious cartel known as Cartel de los Soles.”

While experts consistently questioned the cartel’s existence, and specialized agencies, including the DEA, found Venezuela to play a marginal role in drug trafficking, media outlets reproduced the warmongering claims without scrutiny, citing only the denials from the Venezuelan president they have systematically demonized for over a decade (e.g., New York Times, 10/06/25; NPR, 11/12/25; CNN, 11/14/25).

But the biggest rebuff came from the Justice Department itself. When the time came to indict Maduro, US prosecutors dropped the accusation that the Venezuelan leader headed an actual drug cartel, and downgraded the Cartel of the Suns to a “patronage system.” In other words, the Justice Department was aware that the cartel charge had no substance, and instead accused Maduro of a much looser “drug trafficking conspiracy.”

But this remarkable about-face brought no accountability for the media establishment. Having spent years echoing claims that US prosecutors admitted would not hold in court, corporate outlets chose to ignore the new development, rather than exposing their shameful stenography over the years and taking responsibility for its deadly consequences. FAIR used Google to search for reporting on this crucial about-face in outlets including the Washington Post, Reuters, CNN, NBC and NPR, and found no results.

The one notable exception in this quasi-state corporate media circus was the New York Times‘ Charlie Savage (1/5/26), reporting on the administration’s quiet dropping of its casus belli. Savage wrote that this “called into greater question the legitimacy” of the administration’s designation of the Cartel of the Suns as a foreign terrorist organization. However, the piece stopped short of challenging the US military operation and illegal kidnapping of Maduro, referring to the Venezuelan leader as “captured” and “removed from power.”

The paper of record was quick to compensate for the vanishing of a flimsy regime-change trope by bringing up another one, focusing on a tried and tested dishonest narrative: Venezuela’s alleged ties with Hezbollah, one of the main opponents of the US and Israel in West Asia (FAIR.org, 5/24/19). Under the headline, “What to Know about Hezbollah’s Ties to Venezuela,” Times reporter Christina Goldbaum (1/19/26) offered nothing but a laundry list of unsubstantiated claims from anonymous officials.

Media connivance with Washington’s official narratives to justify imperialist attacks only pave the way for new iterations. Recently, in tightening the murderous blockade against Cuba, the Trump administration proffered the totally baseless claim of the Cuban government “providing a safe haven” for Hamas and Hezbollah. While the New York Times (1/30/26) uncharacteristically reminded readers that Trump offered no evidence, other outlets (NBC, 1/29/26; CNN, 1/30/26) were happy to echo the accusation uncritically.

Holding a country hostage

The media establishment’s support for US foreign policy did not end with the January 3 act of war. Since the attacks and presidential kidnapping, the Trump administration has taken control of Venezuelan oil exports at gunpoint after a month-long naval blockade that involved seizing tankers in the high seas for allegedly transporting Venezuelan crude in violation of unilateral US sanctions.

Under an initial agreement, Venezuela surrendered 30–50 million barrels for White House–picked intermediaries to transport and sell. Proceeds were deposited in bank accounts in Qatar, with a portion being returned to Carácas at the administration’s discretion (Venezuelanalysis, 1/21/26, 1/29/26). Analysts have argued that this arrangement explicitly violates the Venezuelan constitution.

Some articles have given space for Democrats to oppose the Trump deal, but mostly on the grounds of lack of transparency or opportunities for corruption (CNN, 1/15/26; Politico, 2/11/26; New York Times, 2/11/26). Readers will find no opposition on principle to the Trump administration’s Mafia-esque extortion of a sovereign nation’s natural resources, from the president himself saying the US will “keep some” of the hijacked Venezuelan oil (CNBC, 1/22/26) to Secretary of State Marco Rubio announcing that the administration is “prepared to use force to ensure maximum cooperation” (New York Times, 1/28/26).

It is hard to find double standards, because no other nation on Earth unleashes this kind of gangster imperialism. But concerning Russia, Western media did not hold back from denouncing its “stealing,” “robbing” or “plundering” of Ukrainian minerals or grain, despite these resources being in territory that Russia occupies and claims sovereignty over (Washington Post, 8/10/22; Guardian, 12/11/23; DW, 8/28/23; New York Times, 6/5/22).

In a nutshell, when Washington imposed deadly sanctions against Venezuela, corporate pundits said these only targeted Maduro and were meant to promote democracy (FAIR.org, 6/14/19, 6/4/21, 6/13/22, 6/22/23). When the White House ramped up military threats, mainstream journalists parroted drug trafficking allegations (FAIR.org, 2/12/25, 11/19/25). When the drug trafficking charges were exposed, Western outlets reheated baseless stories about Hezbollah. And when Trump seized Venezuelan oil at gunpoint, the only mild concern was whether he would use it to enrich himself.

True to its roots in the “yellow journalism” of Joseph Pulitzer and William Randolph Hearst, the liberal media establishment is fully on board with Trump’s “Donroe Doctrine.” They have undoubtedly earned the title, to paraphrase Gen. Smedley Butler, of “gangster journalists for capitalism.”

Source: FAIR

Caracas, February 27, 2026 (venezuelanalysis.com) – Venezuelan National Assembly President Jorge Rodríguez announced on Wednesday that he had received the resignations of Attorney General Tarek William Saab and Ombudsman Alfredo Ruiz. 

Both officials had been ratified in their positions in October 2024 for a seven-year term extending through 2031. Rodríguez did not specify the motives expressed by Saab and Ruiz in their resignation letters.

Following the officials’ departure, lawmakers declared a parliamentary urgency and appointed a 13-member committee tasked with selecting candidates and appointing new figures to both posts within 30 days.

In the interim, at Rodríguez’s proposal, the Venezuelan parliament appointed Saab as acting ombudsman, while naming Larry Devoe—formerly executive secretary of the National Human Rights Council—as acting attorney general.

Under normal legal procedure, Saab’s post would be temporarily filled by the deputy attorney general. However, Rodríguez explained that the position is currently vacant, requiring parliament to adopt extraordinary measures.

A lawyer by training, Tarek William Saab was part of the legal defense team for Hugo Chávez following the 1992 civil-military uprising and later represented relatives of leftist militants and guerrillas who were tortured or disappeared during the Fourth Republic period. He served as ombudsman from 2014 to 2017, when the National Constituent Assembly appointed him attorney general after the removal of his controversial predecessor Luisa Ortega Díaz.

As the country’s top prosecutor, Saab took charge of several high-profile cases, including the arrest of former Oil Minister Tareck El Aissami. Saab likewise headed Venezuela’s relations with the International Criminal Court, accusing the tribunal of “lawfare” in its investigation of human rights abuses committed by Venezuelan authorities.

Alfredo Ruiz, a professor and founding member of the social organization Red de Apoyo por la Justicia y la Paz (Support Network for Justice and Peace), had served as ombudsman since 2017.

Larry Devoe is a lawyer specializing in criminal and criminological sciences. He previously held several positions within the Ombudsman’s Office and was appointed executive secretary of the National Human Rights Council in 2014. He is currently a member of the Peace and Coexistence Program established in January by Acting President Delcy Rodríguez.

Following the temporary appointments, opposition lawmaker Henrique Capriles described Saab’s designation as acting ombudsman as “an insult to victims.”

Speaking to reporters after the legislative session, Capriles accused Saab of being “responsible for persecution and criminalization” in Venezuela and criticized his new role. 

“It is an insult to victims, to those of us who expect that public powers in this country will change—that there will be institutions serving the interests of Venezuelans and not the government,” he said.

Regarding Devoe, Capriles argued that he is “someone close to the ruling party,” adding that the country “needs a truly independent attorney general and ombudsman.”

Parliamentary commission processes amnesty requests

The resignations come amid the implementation of an Amnesty Law that has facilitated the release of detainees accused or convicted of political violence dating back to 1999. The legislation covers 13 specific periods between January 1, 1999, and 2026, mostly related to “protests and violent events.”

Jorge Arreaza, head of the National Assembly’s Special Commission for the Development and Implementation of the Amnesty Law for Democratic Coexistence, reported on Friday that 8,110 individuals have filed petitions for amnesty since the law’s approval last week.

According to the Socialist Party deputy, 223 individuals previously in prison have been released, while 4,534 people subject to parole-type measures—such as mandatory court appearances or house arrest—have been fully cleared.

Far-right politicians Freddy Superlano and Juan Pablo Guanipa, both accused by authorities of terrorism and criminal conspiracy, were among those released in recent days.

In total, 4,757 individuals have benefited from the law to date, according to Venezuelan officials. Arreaza added that Venezuela’s justice system remains on permanent alert to expedite procedures for cases that qualify for amnesty.

Edited by Ricardo Vaz in Caracas.

Venezuelanalysis editor Ricardo Vaz joined Ileana Chan on the Global Majority for Peace podcast to take stock of Venezuela’s political reality following the January 3 US attacks and kidnapping of President Nicolás Maduro.

The discussion focuses on the long history of imperialist attacks against the Bolivarian Revolution and the US’ efforts to take control of the Venezuelan oil industry.

Source: Empire Watch

Caracas, February 25, 2026 (venezuelanalysis.com) – Venezuelan rice producers have staged demonstrations in recent days, demanding responses from authorities to secure fair prices for their harvests.

Campesino organizations from Barinas, Cojedes, Guárico, and Portuguesa states have held meetings with their respective governors and local representatives of the Agriculture Ministry to denounce pressure from agribusiness conglomerates imposing lower prices for their crops.

Victor Martínez, a rice producer and representative from a rural association in Portuguesa state, told Venezuelanalysis that there is an urgent need to establish appropriate crop prices with harvesting set to begin in the coming days.

“We are calling on the Venezuelan government, from Acting President Delcy Rodríguez to Agriculture Minister Julio León Heredia, to intervene and help set fair prices for rice that take into account our production costs,” he explained. “We cannot have the agroindustrial conglomerates imposing prices unilaterally.”

According to Martínez, rural producers sold rice crops at $0.50-0.55 per kilogram last year, and presently the Iancarina group, the biggest agribusiness firm in Portuguesa state, is offering $0.32-0.38 per kilo. Iancarina holds significant market shares nationwide in corn flour and rice distribution with its “Mary” brand and has ties to the US-based transnational commodities marketer GSI Food.

“These prices would mean the extinction of rice production, jeopardizing thousands of jobs in the countryside,” Martínez continued. “We urge authorities to establish dialogue mechanisms that take our production costs into account.”

The rice growers additionally denounced that corporations have recently imported rice to drive down crop prices and that Venezuelan producers cannot compete with international prices due to “exorbitant production costs.” AgroPatria, a state-owned company that supplied agricultural inputs to campesinos, was turned over to private group AgroLlano in 2020.

Martínez stated that $0.70 per kilo of rice is the price Portuguesa producers have set as a target in negotiations.

“There are too many hurdles to produce right now, from very expensive inputs to a lack of access to credit,” he went on to add. “The same agroindustry corporations offer financing but with draconian conditions and our profit margins vanish.”

According to Martínez, current financing agreements see companies supply inputs and then collect as much as 60 percent of the crop as payment. 

“Agribusiness oligopolies say that they are better off just importing rice, which carries no risk for them. But no country can survive without agriculture.” He concluded with a call for halting imports and extending state support to campesino producers.

In recent days, rural collectives in different states have shared their production costs and come up with different proposals for Venezuelan authorities. They are likewise weighing the possibility of staging a rally in Caracas to demand the intervention of the Agriculture Ministry. Venezuelan government officials have yet to comment on the controversy.

In recent years, with the economy heavily constrained by US sanctions, the Nicolás Maduro government moved to liberalize agricultural policies, transferring former state competencies to the private sector, including provisioning of seed and fertilizer inputs and access to tractors. Fuel subsidies have likewise been phased out, with small-scale producers denouncing it as a major factor driving up production costs.

Campesino collectives have repeatedly drawn attention to a growing agribusiness influence both in the supply of inputs and the commercialization of harvests. Food conglomerates have used their control of silos and retail channels as well as imports during harvest season, to drive up profit margins by imposing lower prices on producers.

Apart from rice, farmers have condemned similar coercive practices with sugar and coffee. Standoffs have traditionally led to mediation from state authorities and a temporary agreement on prices. However, campesinos have repeatedly alerted that agribusiness firms stop honoring established prices or delay payments to take advantage of the Venezuelan currency devaluation.

Edited by Lucas Koerner in Fusagasugá, Colombia.

US eases oil embargo on Cuba as Caribbean neighbours warn worsening humanitarian crisis could destabilise region.

The United States has said it will allow the resale of some Venezuelan oil to Cuba in a move that could ease the island’s acute fuel shortages, as neighbouring countries raised the alarm over a rapidly deteriorating humanitarian situation caused by Washington’s oil blockade.

In a statement on Wednesday, the US Department of the Treasury said it would authorise companies seeking licences to resell Venezuelan oil for “commercial and humanitarian use in Cuba”.

It said the new “favorable licensing policy” would not cover “persons or entities associated with the Cuban military, intelligence services, or other government institutions”.

Venezuela had been the main supplier of crude and fuel ⁠to Cuba for the past 25 years through a bilateral pact mostly based on the barter of products and services. But since the US abducted Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro last month and took control of the country’s oil exports, Caracas’s supply to Cuba has ceased.

Mexico, which had emerged as an alternate supplier, also halted shipments to the Caribbean island after the US threatened tariffs on countries that send oil to Cuba. The US blockade has worsened an energy crisis in Cuba that is hitting power generation and fuel for vehicles, houses and aviation.

The shift in US policy came as Caribbean leaders gathering in Saint Kitts and Nevis expressed alarm at the impacts of the blockade on the island nation of some 10.9 million people. Speaking to Caribbean leaders during a meeting of the regional political group CARICOM on Tuesday, Jamaican Prime Minister Andrew Holness affirmed solidarity with Cuba.

“Humanitarian suffering serves no one,” Holness said at the meeting. “A prolonged crisis in Cuba will not remain confined to Cuba.”

The Caribbean summit’s host, Saint Kitts and Nevis Prime Minister Terrance Drew, who studied in Cuba to be a doctor, said friends have told him of food scarcity and rubbish strewn in the streets.

“A destabilised Cuba will destabilise all of us,” Drew said.

But addressing the meeting in Saint Kitts and Nevis on Wednesday, US Secretary of State Marco Rubio claimed that the humanitarian crisis had been caused by the Cuban government’s policies, not Washington’s blockade.

Rubio, whose parents migrated to the US from Cuba in 1956, warned that the sanctions would be snapped back if the oil winds up going to the government or military.

“Cuba needs to change. It needs to change dramatically because it is the only chance that it has to improve the quality of life for its people,” Rubio told reporters.

It is “a system that’s in collapse, and they need to make dramatic reforms”, he said.

Rubio went on to blame economic mismanagement and the lack of a vibrant private sector for the dire situation in Cuba, which has been under communist rule since Fidel Castro’s 1959 revolution.

“This is the worst economic climate Cuba has faced. And it is the authorities there, and that government, who are responsible for that,” Rubio said.

The US pressure on Venezuela and Cuba ⁠has left several fuel cargoes undelivered since December, according to the Reuters news agency, contributing to the island’s inability to keep the lights on and cars circulating. A Cuba-related vessel that loaded Venezuelan gasoline in early February at a port operated by state-run company PDVSA remained this week anchored in Venezuelan waters waiting for authorisation to set sail.

Mexico and Canada have meanwhile announced they would be sending aid to Cuba, and Russia’s Deputy Prime Minister Alexander Novak also said his government was discussing the possibility of providing fuel to the island.

Separately on Wednesday, Cuba’s Ministry of the Interior announced killing four people and wounding six others on board a Florida-registered speedboat that it said entered Cuban waters.

Rubio told reporters it was not a US operation and that no US government personnel were involved.

“Suffice it to say, it is highly unusual to see shootouts in open sea like that,” he said. “ It’s not something that happens every day. It’s something frankly that hasn’t happened with Cuba in a very long time.”

Venezuela’s National Assembly says thousands of people have regained freedom under a new amnesty law.

A special commission of Venezuela’s National Assembly reports that more than 3,200 individuals have been granted full release from prison since the country’s amnesty law took effect last week.

The figures, announced on Tuesday, include former prisoners and individuals who were previously held under house arrest or subject to other restrictive judicial measures.

Lawmaker Jorge Arreaza, head of the commission overseeing implementation of the amnesty, said during a news conference that authorities had received a total of 4,203 applications for amnesty since the law was passed on February 20.

Arreaza said after evaluating these requests, 3,052 people previously under house arrest or other restrictive measures were granted full freedom. Additionally, 179 individuals who were in prison have also been released.

Last week, Venezuela’s interim President Delcy Rodriguez signed the amnesty legislation into law after it was unanimously adopted by the National Assembly, which authorities said is intended to ease political tensions, promote reconciliation and accelerate the release of political prisoners.

During its signing, Rodriguez said the law showed that the country’s political leaders were “letting go of a little intolerance and opening new avenues for politics in Venezuela”.

Opposition figures have criticised the amnesty, which appears to include carve-outs for some offences previously used by authorities to target former President Nicolas Maduro’s political opponents.

Critics say the law explicitly does not apply to those prosecuted for “promoting” or “facilitating … armed or forceful actions” by foreign actors against Venezuela’s sovereignty.

The law also excludes amnesty for members of the security forces convicted of terrorism-related charges.

Hundreds of detainees had already been granted conditional release by Rodriguez’s government since the deadly US raid that led to the abduction of Maduro last month.

United Nations human rights experts welcomed the amnesty with “caution”, stressing that it must apply to all victims of unlawful prosecution and be embedded in a comprehensive transitional justice process consistent with international standards.

Hundreds, perhaps thousands, of Venezuelans have been jailed in recent years over plots, real or imagined, to overthrow the government of Maduro, who was flown to New York after his abduction by the US military.

Venezuela-based prisoners’ rights group Foro Penal said on Tuesday that it has verified only 91 “political releases” since the amnesty law took effect on February 20.

The organisation added that it has requested a review of 232 cases currently excluded from the amnesty, and that nearly 600 people remain in detention.

The kidnapping of a sitting head of state marks a grave escalation in US-Venezuela relations. By seizing Venezuela’s constitutional president, Washington signaled both its disregard for international law and its confidence that it would face little immediate consequence.

The response within the US political establishment to the attack on Venezuela has been striking. Without the slightest cognitive dissonance over President Maduro’s violent abduction, Democrats call for “restoring democracy” – but not for returning Venezuela’s lawful president.

So why didn’t the imperialists simply assassinate him? From their perspective, it would have been cleaner and more cost-efficient. It would have been the DOGE thing to do: launch a drone in one of those celebrated “surgical” strikes.

Targeted killings are as much a part of US policy now as there were in the past. From Obama’s drone strikes on US citizens in 2011 to Trump’s killing of Iranian General Qasem Soleimani, lethal force has been used when deemed expedient. And only last June, the second Trump administration and its Zionist partner in crime droned eleven Iranian nuclear scientists.

The US posted a $50-million bounty on Maduro, yet they took him very much alive along with his wife, First Combatant (the Venezuelan equivalent of the First Lady) Cilia Flores.

The reason Maduro’s life was spared tells us volumes about the resilience of the Bolivarian Revolution, the strength of Maduro even in captivity, and the inability of the empire to subjugate Venezuela.

Killing Nicolás Maduro Moros appears to have been a step too far, even for Washington’s hawks. Perhaps he was also seen as more valuable to the empire as a hostage than as a martyr.

But the images of a handcuffed Maduro flashing a victory sign – and declaring in a New York courtroom, “I was captured… I am the president of my country” – were not those of a defeated leader.

Rather than collapsing, the Bolivarian Revolution survived the decapitation. With a seamless continuation of leadership under acting President Delcy Rodríguez, even some figures in the opposition have rallied around the national leadership, heeding the nationalist call of a populace mobilized in the streets in support of their president.

This has pushed the US to negotiate rather than outright conquer, notwithstanding that the playing field remains decisively tilted in Washington’s favor. Regardless, Venezuelan authorities have demanded and received the US’s respect. Indeed, after declaring Venezuela an illegitimate narco-state, Trump has flipped, recognized the Chavista government, and invited its acting executive to Washington.

NBC News gave Delcy Rodríguez a respectful interview. After affirming state ownership of Venezuela’s mineral resources and Maduro as the lawful president, she pointed out that the so-called political prisoners in Venezuelan prisons were there because they had committed acts of criminal violence.

Before a national US television audience she explained that free and fair elections require being “free of sanctions and…not undermined by international bullying and harassment by the international press” (emphasis added).

Notably, the interviewer cited US Energy Secretary Chris Wright’s admission made during his high-level visit to Venezuela. The US official brushed aside demands for short-term elections, instead arguing that they could be held by the end of 2027. In contrast, Rodríguez stressed that Venezuela’s electoral calendar is set by the country’s Constitution.

As for opposition politician María Corina Machado, the darling of the US press corps, Rodríguez told the interviewer that Machado would have to answer for her various treasonous activities if she came back to Venezuela.

Contrary to the corporate press’s media myth, fostered at a reception in Manhattan, that Machado is insanely popular and poised to lead “A Trillion-Dollar Opportunity: The Global Upside of a Democratic Venezuela,” the US government apparently understood the reality on the ground. “She doesn’t have the support within, or the respect within, the country,” was the honest evaluation, not of some Chavista partisan, but of President Trump himself.

Yader Lanuza documents how the US provided millions to manufacture an effective astroturf opposition to the Chavistas. It is far from the first time that Washington has squandered money in this way – we only have to look back at its failed efforts to promote the “presidency” of Juan Guaidó. Its latest efforts have again had no decisive result, leaving Machado in limbo and pragmatic engagement with the Chavista leadership as the only practical option.

Any doubts that there is daylight between captured President Maduro and acting President Rodríguez can be dispelled by listening to the now incarcerated Maduro’s New Year’s Day interview with international leftist intellectual Ignacio Ramonet.

Maduro said it was time to “start talking seriously” with the US – especially regarding oil investment – marking a continuation of his prior conditional openness to diplomatic engagement. He reiterated that Venezuela was ready to discuss agreements on combating drug trafficking and to consider US oil investment, allowing companies like Chevron to operate.

That was just two days before the abduction. Subsequently, Delcy Rodríguez met with the US energy secretary and the head of the Southern Command to discuss oil investments and combating drug trafficking, respectively.

Venezuelan analysts have framed the current moment as one of constrained choice. “What is at stake is the survival of the state and the republic, which if lost, would render the discussion of any other topic banal,” according to Sergio Rodríguez Gelfenstein. The former government official, who was close to Hugo Chávez, supports Delcy Rodríguez’s discussions with Washington – acknowledging that she has “a missile to her head.”

“The search for a negotiation in the case of the January 3 kidnapping is not understood, therefore, as a surrender, but as an act of political maturity in a context of unprecedented blackmail,” according to Italian journalist and former Red Brigades militant Geraldina Colotti.

The Amnesty Law, a longstanding Chavista initiative, is being debated in the National Assembly to maintain social peace, according to the president of the assembly and brother of the acting president, Jorge Rodríguez, in an interview with the US-based NewsMax outlet.

As Jorge Rodríguez commented, foregoing oil revenues by keeping oil in the ground does not benefit the people’s well-being and development. In that context, the Hydrocarbon Law has been reformed to attract vital foreign investment.

The Venezuelan outlet Mision Verdad elaborates: “The 2026 reform ratifies and, in some aspects, deepens essential elements of the previous legislation…[I]t creates the legal basis for a complete strategic adaptation of the Venezuelan hydrocarbon industry, considering elements of the present context.”

As Karl Marx presciently observed about the present context, people “make their own history, but they do not make it as they please; they do not make it under self-selected circumstances.” The present US-Venezuelan détente is making history. So far – in Hugo Chávez’s words, por ahora – it does not resemble the humanitarian catastrophes imposed by the empire on Haiti, Libya, Iraq, Syria, or Afghanistan.

But make no mistake: the ultimate goal of the empire remains regime change. And there is no clearer insight into the empire’s core barbarity than Secretary of State Marco Rubio’s speech at the Munich conference with his praising of the capture of a “narcoterrorist dictator” and his invocation of Columbus as the inspiration “to build a new Western century.”

Washington’s kidnapping of Maduro was intended to demonstrate the empire’s dominance. But it also exposed its limits: the durability of the Bolivarian Revolution and the reality that even great powers must sometimes negotiate with governments they detest. The outcome remains uncertain.

With minor edits by Venezuelanalysis.

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

The move is in line with a new law, giving hope to throngs of others jailed over alleged plots to oust the government.

Venezuelan authorities have granted amnesty to 379 political prisoners, according to a lawmaker, after a new law was enacted by interim authorities following the United States’ abduction of President Nicolas Maduro.

Venezuela’s National Assembly unanimously adopted the law on Thursday, providing hope that hundreds of political prisoners may soon be released.

National Assembly deputy Jorge Arreaza, the lawmaker overseeing the amnesty process, said in a televised interview on Friday that the 379 prisoners “must be released, granted amnesty, between tonight and tomorrow morning”.

“Requests have been submitted by the Public Prosecutor’s Office to the competent courts to grant amnesty measures,” he said.

Opposition figures have criticised the new legislation, which appears to include carve-outs for some offences previously used by authorities to target Maduro’s political opponents.

It explicitly does not apply to those prosecuted for “promoting” or “facilitating … armed or forceful actions” against Venezuela’s sovereignty by foreign actors.

Interim President Delcy Rodriguez has levelled such accusations against opposition leader Maria Corina Machado, who hopes to return to Venezuela at some point from the US.

The law also excludes members of the security forces convicted of “terrorism”-related activities.

Arreaza said earlier that “the military justice system will handle” relevant cases for members of the armed forces, “and grant benefits where appropriate”.

Hundreds have already been granted conditional release by President Rodriguez’s government since the deadly US raid that seized Maduro.

‘Amnesty is not automatic’

The NGO Foro Penal had said before the announcement that about 650 were detained, a toll that has not been updated since.

Foro Penal director Alfredo Romero said on Friday that receiving “amnesty is not automatic”, but would require a process in the courts, viewed by many as an arm of Maduro’s repression.

Opposition politician Juan Pablo Guanipa, a Machado ally, announced his release from detention shortly after the bill was passed.

Earlier this month, he had been freed from prison but then quickly re-detained and kept under house arrest.

“I am now completely free,” Guanipa wrote on social media. He called for all other political prisoners to be freed and exiles to be allowed to return.

Hundreds, perhaps thousands, of Venezuelans have been jailed in recent years over plots, real or imagined, to overthrow the government of Maduro – who was taken to New York to stand trial on drug trafficking and other charges.

Rodriguez was formerly Maduro’s vice president and took his place as the South American country’s leader with the consent of US President Donald Trump, if she toed Washington’s line.

The US has taken over control of Venezuela’s oil sales, with Trump promising a share for Washington in the profits.

More than 1,5000 political prisoners in Venezuela have applied for amnesty under a new law that came into effect just a few days ago, according to the head of the country’s legislature.

“A total of 1,557 cases are being addressed immediately, and hundreds of people deprived of their freedom are already being released under the amnesty law”, National Assembly chief Jorge Rodriguez told a news conference on Saturday.

Rodriguez’s announcement comes two days after the country’s legislature unanimously adopted a landmark amnesty law.

Amnesty is not automatic under the law: petitioners must ask the court handling their cases.

On Friday, the lawmaker overseeing the amnesty process, Jorge Arreaza, announced that prosecutors had asked courts to free 379 prisoners. They include opposition members, activists, human rights defenders, journalists and many others detained for months or even years.

So far, 80 prisoners have been freed, Rodriguez told the AFP news agency on Saturday. All of those released had been detained in the capital, Caracas, he said, without offering further details.

Further releases could be granted within 15 days, said Arreaza.

Venezuela’s interim president, Delcy Rodriguez, the sister of the top lawmaker, pushed for the United States-backed legislation after she rose to power following the US’s abduction of leftist leader Nicolas Maduro during a military raid on January 3.

The legislation’s approval marked a reversal for Venezuelan authorities, who have for decades denied holding political prisoners and say those jailed have committed crimes.

During its signing, Rodriguez said the law showed that the country’s political leaders were “letting go of a little intolerance and opening new avenues for politics in Venezuela”.

However, opposition figures have criticised the new legislation, which appears to include carve-outs for some offences previously used by authorities to target Maduro’s political opponents.

Human rights organisations are also calling for the law to be applied to all prisoners held for political reasons, even if they are not listed among the beneficiaries.

“It is discriminatory and unconstitutional to exclude imprisoned military personnel and persecuted political figures,” Alfredo Romero, president of rights group Foro Penal, said on X Saturday. Without this, “there can be no talk of national coexistence”.

The law explicitly does not apply to those prosecuted for “promoting” or “facilitating… armed or forceful actions” against Venezuela’s sovereignty by foreign actors.

Delcy Rodriguez has levelled such accusations against opposition leader and Nobel peace laureate Maria Corina Machado, who hopes, at some point, to return to Venezuela from the US.

Opposition politician Juan Pablo Guanipa, a close ally of Machado, had a house arrest order against him lifted, his brother, lawmaker Tomas Guanipa, told the Reuters news agency late on Thursday.

The law also excludes members of the security forces convicted of “terrorism”-related activities.

But the amnesty extends to 11,000 political prisoners who, over nearly three decades, were paroled or placed under house arrest.

“The law provides for those substitute measures to be lifted so that these people can enjoy full freedom”, Rodriguez told reporters.

Outside a national police facility in Caracas known as Zone 7, relatives – some of whom have been on site for weeks – waited patiently.

“Let’s hope it’s true,” Genesis Rojas told AFP.

A group of relatives who have been camped out for days chanted: “We want to go home!”

Hundreds have already been granted conditional release by Rodriguez’s government since the deadly US raid that resulted in Maduro’s capture.

Maduro and his wife are in US custody awaiting trial. He has pleaded not guilty to drug trafficking charges and declared that he was a “prisoner of war.”

Brazil’s President Lula says fate of Venezuelan president should be determined by the ‘people of Venezuela’ and ‘not by foreign interference’.

Brazilian President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva has said that Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro should face trial, but that it should take place in a Venezuelan court, rather than in the United States, where he is currently being held after his abduction by the US military.

“I believe that if Maduro has to be trialled, he has to be trialled in his country, not trialled abroad,” Lula said in an interview, emphasising that “what matters now is to re-establish democracy in Venezuela”.

“It has to be solved by the people of Venezuela, and not by foreign interference,” said Lula, citing a history of US-backed dictatorships in Latin America, including Chile, Argentina and Uruguay.

“We cannot accept that a head of state of one country could invade another country and capture the president,” the Brazilian leader added.

Lula’s comments come as Venezuela’s acting president, Delcy Rodriguez, has been working to release hundreds of politicians, activists and lawyers jailed during Maduro’s residency, which began in 2013.

The Brazilian has openly criticised the abduction of ⁠Maduro and his wife, Cilia Flores, in a military operation ordered by US President Donald Trump on January 3.

Maduro was flown to New York after his abduction in a bloody night raid on Caracas. He has since been accused by US authorities of planning to transport drugs to the US alongside other charges.

The US government’s own data shows that Venezuela is not among the world’s major drug producers; however, Trump administration officials have accused Maduro and others of working with the region’s largest drug trafficking groups, including in Colombia and Mexico.

While the Trump administration has claimed that its military buildup near Venezuela and maritime blockade of the country were focused on combating drug trafficking, Trump has laid claim to Venezuelan oil reserves since removing Maduro.

Trump has also invited US oil companies to exploit Venezuela’s oil and said he wants proceeds from the sale of Venezuelan oil “to benefit the people of Venezuela and the United States”.

More than 600 people may be in custody for political reasons, one Venezuelan rights group estimates.

Venezuela’s acting president has signed into law an amnesty bill that could see hundreds of politicians, activists and lawyers released soon, while tacitly acknowledging what the country has denied for years – that it has political detainees in jail.

The law, signed on Thursday, in effect reverses decades of denials in the government’s latest about-face since the United States military’s January 3 attack in the country’s capital, Caracas, and the abduction of President Nicolas Maduro.

Opposition members, activists, human rights defenders, journalists and others who were targeted by the governing party over the past 27 years could benefit from the new law.

But families hoping for the release of relatives say acting President Delcy Rodriguez has failed to deliver on earlier promises to release prisoners. Some of them have been gathered outside detention centres for weeks.

Venezuela-based prisoners’ rights group Foro Penal has tallied 448 releases since January 8 and estimates that more than 600 people are still in custody for political reasons.

The new law provides amnesty for involvement in political protests and “violent actions” which took place during a brief coup in 2002 and during demonstrations or elections in certain months going back to 2004.

It does not detail the exact crimes which would be eligible for amnesty, though a previous draft laid out several, including instigation of illegal activity, resistance to authorities, rebellion and treason.

People convicted of “military rebellion” for involvement in events in 2019 are excluded. The law also does not return assets of those detained, revoke public office bans given for political reasons or cancel sanctions against media outlets.

Opposition divided

“It’s not perfect, but it is undoubtedly a great step forward for the reconciliation of Venezuela,” opposition politician Nora Bracho said during a debate on the bill in the legislature on Thursday.

But the law was criticised by other members of the opposition, including Pedro Urruchurtu, international relations director for opposition leader and Nobel Peace Prize laureate Maria Corina Machado.

“A true amnesty doesn’t require laws, but rather will, something that is lacking in this discussion,” he said on X on Thursday. “It is not only an invalid and illegitimate law, but also a trap to buy time and revictimize those persecuted.”

Since Madura’s abduction, US President Donald Trump has praised Rodriguez, Maduro’s former deputy, while downplaying the prospect of supporting the opposition.

For her part, Rodriguez has overseen several concessions to the US, including freezing oil shipments to Cuba and supporting a law to open the state-controlled oil industry to foreign companies.

The US has said it will control the proceeds ⁠from Venezuela’s oil sales until a “representative government” is established.

Caracas, February 19, 2026 (venezuelanalysis.com) – Venezuelan Acting President Delcy Rodríguez met with US Southern Command (SOUTHCOM) chief General Francis Donovan in Miraflores Palace on Wednesday.

According to the presidential press, the previously unannounced high-level talks also included Venezuela’s interior and defense ministers, Diosdado Cabello and Vladimir Padrino López, respectively.

“During the meeting, both countries agreed to work on a bilateral cooperation agenda to fight against drug trafficking in our region, as well as on terrorism and migration,” a statement released on social media read.

The Venezuelan government argued that the meeting showed that “diplomacy” is the mechanism to address “differences and issues of regional interest.”

Donovan is the latest US high-ranking official to visit Caracas and meet with Rodríguez since the January 3 US military attacks that killed over 100 people and saw special operations forces kidnap Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro and First Lady Cilia Flores.

The acting president held talks with CIA Director John Ratcliffe on January 15 and hosted Energy Secretary Chris Wright last week at the presidential palace. US Chargé d’Affaires Laura Dogu has been in the country since late January, and Rodríguez has recently reported regular “respectful and courteous” communication with Trump and Secretary of State Marco Rubio.

SOUTHCOM confirmed the visit in a press release, disclosing that Donovan was accompanied by Acting Assistant Secretary of War Joseph Humire and stating that the officials expressed the US’ “commitment to a free, safe and prosperous Venezuela.”

The US military command added that discussions focused on “shared security across the Western Hemisphere,” and the Trump administration’s stated “three-phase plan” for the Caribbean nation: “stabilization, economic recovery and reconciliation, and transition.” For her part, Dogu reported Donovan’s visit on social media, calling it a “historic day” to “advance in the objective of having Venezuela aligned with the United States.”

Donovan took over the SOUTHCOM leadership in February after the resignation of Admiral Alvin Holsey over reported disagreements with US Secretary of War Pete Hegseth on the legality of US lethal strikes against boats suspected of carrying drugs.

Since September, through “Operation Southern Spear,” SOUTHCOM has coordinated over 40 bombings of small vessels that have killed more than 130 civilians. The latest strikes, on February 16, targeted two boats in the Eastern Pacific and one in the Caribbean, killing 11 people in total. Neither Donovan nor Rodríguez mentioned the ongoing attacks in their public readouts following the meeting.

SOUTHCOM has also participated in the seizure of oil tankers accused of violating US sanctions by transporting Venezuelan crude. After seizing seven ships in the Caribbean between December and January, US forces have boarded two tankers in the Indian Ocean this month.

In the months leading up to the January 3 operation, Maduro and other Venezuelan officials consistently denounced the US’ military buildup in the Caribbean Sea and the subsequent naval blockade against oil exports.

Venezuelan authorities likewise blasted Washington’s “narcoterrorism” accusations against Caracas, pointing to specialized reports, including from the DEA, that placed Venezuela as a marginal country for global narcotics flows. Venezuelan officials also recalled the history of US agencies’ involvement in drug trafficking.

However, in the weeks after the January 3 strikes, Washington and Caracas have fast-tracked a diplomatic rapprochement with a view toward reopening embassies. President Donald Trump has publicly recognized the acting government but the official change in policy has yet to be confirmed.

The acting Rodríguez administration also prioritized economic reforms to attract foreign investment, including a pro-business overhaul of the country’s Hydrocarbon Law. National Assembly President Jorge Rodríguez said that the government is “adapting” legislation to attract US corporations and aiming for a “free market economy.”

Natalia Burdynska Schuurman defended her MsC thesis at the University of Edinburgh on Venezuela’s struggle for food security and food sovereignty amid wide-reaching US-led unilateral sanctions.

See below for the abstract, research questions, and the full text.

Abstract

As global development actors grapple with mounting pressures to feed the world population, growing enforcement of unilateral coercive measures jeopardizes efforts to advance Sustainable Development Goal 2 (SDG-2, “Zero Hunger”). This dissertation examines efforts to achieve food security in Venezuela, a state currently targeted by over 1,000 unilateral coercive measures, since its incorporation as a constitutional right in 1999 and how such processes have been shaped by economic sanctions targeting its oil industry introduced by the United States in 2015. It employs a literature review, secondary data analysis and archival research, adopting a political economy and world systems lens as well as a historical, relational and interactive approach to food sovereignty research, centering the perspectives and experiences of Venezuelan communities. This dissertation argues that unilateral sanctions targeting Venezuela’s oil industry triggered the collapse of a political economy of food security structurally dependent on Venezuela’s macroeconomic stability within a dollarized international trade and financial system, catalyzing efforts to rebuild Venezuela’s food and agricultural system that transformed the landscape of national food sovereignty construction. It is hoped that this dissertation yields new insights into challenges and prospects facing national efforts to construct food sovereignty and global efforts to achieve food security today.

[…]

Research questions

This dissertation answers the primary question: How have unilateral sanctions
targeting Venezuela’s oil industry shaped efforts to achieve food security in
Venezuela?

It addresses the following contributory questions: What was the state of affairs characterizing Venezuela’s food and agricultural system prior to 2015? What advances and setbacks have been identified concerning the national goal to achieve food security, as enshrined in Venezuela’s Constitution of 1999? How have financial and trade sanctions targeting Venezuela’s oil industry introduced by the United States in 2015 correlated with macroeconomic and food security trends in Venezuela? How have financial and trade sanctions targeting Venezuela’s oil industry impacted food production, distribution and access in Venezuela? How have state and societal actors engaged in efforts to achieve food security in Venezuela responded to these consequences?

Mérida, February 18, 2026 (venezuelanalysis.com) – The Venezuelan government commemorated the 60th anniversary of the Geneva Agreement and urged Guyana to engage in “good faith negotiations” to settle the longstanding dispute over the Essequibo Strip.

In a statement published on Tuesday, Caracas celebrated six decades of the agreement and reiterated that the treaty is “the only valid legal instrument for reaching a mutually acceptable solution to the dispute” over the 160,000 square-kilometer territory.

The 1966 accord, signed by Venezuela, the United Kingdom, and British Guiana, a British colony at the time, saw the different parties pledge to find an agreeable solution to the border issue.

The Venezuelan government’s communique noted that the treaty was submitted to the United Nations, arguing that it overruled the controversial 1899 arbitration ruling which awarded the territory to the United Kingdom.

The text also reaffirmed Venezuela’s sovereignty claim over the resource-rich territory and referenced the popular mandate from the December 3, 2023, referendum that saw over 90 percent of respondents back the country’s rights over the Essequibo Strip.

“The only possible solution to the territorial controversy is to engage in good faith negotiations, to achieve a satisfactory arrangement for the two parties that signed the Geneva Agreement,” the declaration concluded.

The Guyanese government responded on Wednesday with its own statement, arguing that the Geneva Agreement did not annul the 1899 Arbitral Award but rather established a framework for resolving the dispute that arose when Venezuela questioned the border’s validity in 1962.

Georgetown likewise noted that, in January 2018, the Secretary-General of the United Nations determined that the “good offices” mechanism had been unsuccessful in resolving the dispute. 

“In accordance with Article IV (2) of the Geneva Agreement, the Secretary-General decided to submit the case to the International Court of Justice (ICJ) as the final means of resolution. Both Guyana and Venezuela were bound by that decision.”

Hours later, the Venezuelan government issued a second statement accusing Guyana of attempting to distort the spirit of the Geneva Agreement and reiterating Caracas’ position rejecting the ICJ’s jurisdiction over the border controversy.

“Venezuela will not recognize any decision emanating from the International Court of Justice on the territorial dispute surrounding Guayana Esequiba,” the document read.

Despite rejecting the Hague-based court’s authority on the matter, the Venezuelan government participated in a documentation-gathering process before the ICJ during 2023 and 2024. Acting President Delcy Rodríguez, then vice president, led the country’s legal efforts.

In August 2025, Caracas submitted further evidence backing its Essequibo sovereignty claim and challenging Georgetown’s historical and legal arguments. The case will advance to the oral hearings phase in May 2026.

In January, the Guyanese Minister of Foreign Affairs and International Cooperation, Hugh Todd, claimed that the ICJ’s ruling would be binding for both nations and that the case was now in the hands of “the highest and most respected judicial authority in the world.”

The longstanding territorial controversy flared up in 2015 after ExxonMobil discovered and began exploiting massive offshore oil reserves. Venezuelan authorities have raised their sovereignty claims and criticized Guyanese counterparts for giving drilling permits to multinational corporations in undelimited waters.

Caracas has also criticized the US’ interference in the issue, with successive administrations offering their full backing to Georgetown. Venezuelan authorities have accused Washington of stoking regional tensions amid plans to establish military bases in Guyana.

Edited by Ricardo Vaz in Caracas.