Secretary Marco Rubio has firmly stated the U.S. has a strategy for Venezuela’s post-transition governance, seeking to counter claims from Democrats that the Trump administration prioritized capturing Nicolás Maduro over outlining a coherent plan. After addressing Congress, Rubio detailed a three-phase approach: stabilization, recovery, and transition. However, many Democrats, after reviewing classified briefings, expressed skepticism. Senator Tim Kaine from Virginia remarked, “I heard no detailed plan,” highlighting doubts about the administration’s roadmap for Venezuela.
The contention underscores a significant debate surrounding the Trump administration’s strategy for Venezuela. Critics question whether the policy is driven by military and economic leverage without a clear political endpoint. Rubio defended the administration’s actions, asserting, “This is not just winging it,” and insisted, “It’s already happening.” He emphasized that the first phase involves stabilizing the nation, largely through controlling Venezuela’s oil exports. According to Rubio, the U.S. is poised to address the issue of oil currently stuck in Venezuela due to sanctions: “We are in the midst right now, and in fact about to execute on a deal to take all the oil they have that’s stuck in Venezuela.” He conveyed hope that the funds generated from the oil would be used to benefit the Venezuelan people rather than fund the current regime.
In the second phase, labeled “recovery,” Rubio mentioned that it would entail allowing American and other Western companies to access Venezuela’s oil markets while simultaneously addressing human rights issues, such as releasing political prisoners and granting amnesty to opposition figures. The final phase, “transition,” was less clearly defined, with Rubio stating that the ultimate transformation of Venezuela should rest in the hands of its citizens. However, he did not delineate a timeline for elections or detail how a new government would be formed.
Insiders who attended the briefings reported that Trump officials recognize the ongoing power struggle among remaining Venezuelan leaders, who seem to be “jockeying for power” instead of working toward a unified plan. While many Republican attendees defended Rubio’s presentation, acknowledging that it showcased considerable preparation, some admitted uncertainty about the next steps. Senator John Kennedy humorously acknowledged this uncertainty: “No, we don’t know what comes next,” adding, “It’s like Mike Tyson said: ‘Everybody has a plan until you get punched in the face.’” Despite this, other Republicans felt reassured by Rubio’s thorough explanation. Congressman Warren Davidson described the briefing as timely and well-articulated.
The situation became even more complex when President Trump publicly questioned whether opposition leader María Corina Machado has adequate support to govern, even as she is a preferred figure among Western leaders. Additionally, the administration’s apparent openness to Delcy Rodríguez, Maduro’s vice president, has raised eyebrows, with some viewing this as a deviation from supporting the opposition. White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt claimed the administration possesses “maximum leverage” over the interim authorities, despite their association with Maduro’s regime.
Lawmakers shared concerns regarding the absence of a clear timeline for new elections. Congressman Carlos Gimenez noted, “There’s no playbook for this,” underscoring the unpredictability of the situation while affirming a shared goal of achieving a “free and democratic Venezuela.” Some Republicans articulated that transition efforts will take time and will ultimately lead to elections. Senator Tim Sheehy remarked, “It’s going to take time,” hoping for Machado’s return to an elected position in the future.
Democrats, however, left the briefings with lingering questions about the administration’s underlying objectives and exit strategy. Senator Richard Blumenthal expressed dissatisfaction, stating, “I emerged having more questions than answers.” He also raised concerns about the military presence in the region, questioning the necessity of maintaining a strong naval force if the objective is law enforcement following Maduro’s capture. Others voiced doubts about the administration’s ability to provide an effective or truthful account regarding their operations. Congressman Seth Moulton accused them of being less than forthright, saying, “But the problem with lying is you don’t really know exactly when they’re lying.” With this sentiment, he voiced a decrease in his confidence in the current administration’s capabilities.
Some Democrats warned that the administration’s strategy might replicate past U.S. failures abroad. Senator Chris Murphy labeled the plan as “insane,” finding fault with the proposal of using Venezuelan oil as leverage for regime change without a defined timeline. He argued, “An embargo is an act of force,” suggesting that treating the economic situation in Venezuela through force could mirror historical mistakes made in Iraq and Afghanistan.
The complexity and challenges of managing Venezuela’s transition phase become apparent as various lawmakers articulate their concerns. With differing opinions on the administration’s approach, the path forward in Venezuela remains uncertain and contentious.
"*" indicates required fields
