Summary: The U.S. special-operations removal of Nicolás Maduro was presented as a tactical victory, but the administration’s transition plan exposed a major contradiction: supporting Delcy Rodríguez — a long‑time Maduro loyalist and U.S./EU‑sanctioned official — undermines claims that Maduro’s government was illegitimate. The plan excludes credible opposition leaders like María Corina Machado and Edmundo González, raises questions about security and prisoner releases, and signals strong U.S. interest in Venezuelan oil. Without legitimate domestic leadership and a clear rule‑of‑law framework, any transition risks leaving core power structures intact.
Trump’s Venezuela Strategy Lacks One Critical Element: Legitimate Domestic Leadership
The key thing missing from Trump’s regime change plan
The U.S. special-operations raid that removed Nicolás Maduro and Cilia Flores from Caracas was presented in Washington as a tactical success. But the Trump administration’s public rollout of a post‑Maduro plan exposed a crucial gap that could undermine its stated goals: a lack of credible, legitimate domestic leadership to guide Venezuela through a transition.
Contradiction at the Core
If Maduro is illegitimate, why promote his deputy? At a Saturday briefing, U.S. officials signaled support for Delcy Rodríguez — Maduro’s executive vice president — to serve as an interim leader. That position is inconsistent with the long-standing U.S. view that Maduro has been an illegitimate president since January 2019.
Rodríguez is no neutral technocrat: the U.S. Treasury sanctioned her in 2018 for anti‑democratic actions and human‑rights abuses, and the European Union imposed similar measures the same year. She has held senior posts in Maduro’s governments since 2013 and is widely regarded as a staunch loyalist.
Mixed Signals and a Missed Opportunity
President Trump said Secretary of State Marco Rubio had spoken with Rodríguez by phone and described her as "quite gracious" and willing to facilitate a transition — a characterization that Rubio appeared to greet with discomfort. Rodríguez, meanwhile, held her own press conference condemning the U.S. action as an "illegal and illegitimate kidnapping" and insisting that Maduro remains Venezuela’s only president.
Absent from the U.S. plan, however, were credible opposition figures with democratic legitimacy who could unify Venezuelans. Names frequently cited as potential unifiers include María Corina Machado, widely recognized as a leader of the opposition, and Edmundo González, who reportedly won more votes than Maduro in the disputed July 2024 presidential contest. Excluding recognized opposition leaders risks leaving the country in the hands of officials tied to the old regime.
Security, Prisoners and the Rule of Law
Trump’s reference to possible "more powerful strikes" and his statement that the United States would "run" Venezuela "until such time as we can do a safe, proper and judicious transition" raised further questions: how long would that last, and how would stability be maintained without significant, legitimate security forces on the ground? Venezuela is fragmented by illegal armed groups and the presence of foreign actors — stability cannot be assumed after removing a single figure.
Immediate humanitarian and human‑rights benchmarks matter. Observers will watch closely whether wrongfully detained Americans are released and whether political prisoners and inmates of centers like the notorious Helicoide are freed. If torture centers remain operational, Venezuelans will rightly conclude that core features of the old regime persist.
Oil, Investments and the Limits of Quick Fixes
U.S. interest in Venezuela’s oil reserves was evident in the president’s remarks. But restoring foreign investment — particularly from companies whose assets were expropriated and who have since won international arbitration awards — will be difficult unless the rule of law and property protections are demonstrably restored.
Author’s perspective: I served five years as chief of mission and U.S. ambassador to Venezuela. I understand why many have yearned for regime change, and I respect the sacrifices of the Venezuelan opposition. But asking the same domestic actors to deliver different results without changing who governs is unlikely to succeed.
Conclusion
The tactical removal of Maduro may be an important event, but it is only the first step. Without a clear plan to install legitimate domestic leadership, ensure security, free political prisoners, and restore the rule of law, the United States risks presiding over a hollow transition that leaves the underlying power structures intact. As the South Carolina proverb goes, "there is no education in the second kick of a mule." If Washington expects different results from the same actors without meaningful changes, it will have missed an opportunity to help Venezuela achieve a genuine democratic transition.
Help us improve.
