The key thing missing from Trump’s regime change plan

​

The Trump administration’s plan for Venezuela’s future is flawed, as it supports Delcy Rodríguez, a sanctioned Maduro loyalist, as interim president. This undermines the goal of establishing a democratic government, as legitimate opposition figures like Maria Corina Machado and Edmundo González are excluded from the process. The administration’s focus on oil access and lack of a clear plan for a stable transition raise concerns about the true intentions behind the regime change.

​

After the extraordinary U.S. tactical victory removing Venezuelan leader Nicolás Maduro and his wife, Cilia Flores, from Caracas, President Donald Trump appears to have stumbled immediately. During a self-congratulatory press conferenceSaturday rolling out their post-Maduro strategy, Trump, Cabinet members and other U.S. officials provided details about the special operations mission that captured Maduro without the loss of any U.S. personnel. They also made several claims about plans for Venezuela’s future that could unsettle even the most optimistic among us. 

While there is global debate about the legality of rendering Maduro to the U.S. criminal justice system, both the Trump and Biden administrations were in sync on a fundamental point: Maduro was an illegitimate president that the United States has not recognized since January 2019. But at Saturday’s press conference, U.S. officials expressed support for Delcy Rodríguez, the executive vice president of Venezuela, to be the country’s interim president.

There is a logic problem: If Maduro was an “illegitimate dictator,” then wouldn’t his executive vice president similarly be illegitimate?

Here are some basic facts that existed before U.S. actions Saturday: Delcy Rodríguez has been sanctioned by the U.S. Treasury Department since 2018 for antidemocratic actions and violating human rights. She has also been sanctioned since 2018 by the European Union, a rarer designation reserved for particularly bad actors. She has been a part of Maduro’s various governments since 2013, when he took over for the deceased Hugo Chavez. She is a staunch Maduro loyalist. 

At his press conference, Trump indicated that Secretary of State Marco Rubio had engaged with Rodríguez by phone and that she had been “quite gracious” and was willing to do whatever is necessary to facilitate a transition of power. Notably, Rubio appeared visibly uncomfortable with Trump’s characterization of the nascent relationship. But a more forceful contrast came from Rodríguez, who gave her own press conference on Saturday and railed against the Trump administration. Rodríguez denounced the U.S. action as an “illegal and illegitimate kidnapping,” rejected the idea of U.S. authority to oversee Venezuela and insisted that Maduro remains the country’s “only president.”

Meanwhile, the Trump administration apparently has no plans to bring into the governing process either of the opposition figures who would have legitimate claims to lead a democratic Venezuela: Nobel Peace Prize laureate Maria Corina Machado, the undisputed head of the opposition; or Edmundo González, who garnered more votes in the July 2024 presidential election that Maduro claimed to have won. Either could be a unifying figure seeking to stabilize Venezuela moving forward. In the absence of a leader with legitimate credentials, the Trump strategy of regime change is a farce. Removing only Maduro while rogue figures on the U.S. Treasury’s Specially Designated Nationals blacklist are still firmly in control in Caracas is like repositioning deck chairs on the Titanic. It would be laughable were the stakes not so high.  

Perhaps Trump’s reference Saturday to the potential for “more powerful strikes” was meant to encourage individuals with ties to Maduro to depart the country. Personally, I’m paying attention to how quickly wrongfully detained Americans are released and when political and military prisoners of conscience are allowed to return to society. If the notorious Helicoide torture center in Caracas remains full, then Venezuelans will know that the Maduro regime continues in some form – and that their hopes for genuine democratic change should remain low.

The other chilling comment from Trump’s press conference was his announcement that the United States plans to “run” Venezuela. How, exactly, and for how long? “We’re going to run the country until such time as we can do a safe, proper and judicious transition” to new leadership, the president said. Without significant security forces on the ground, it is hard to see how a failed state, riddled with illegal armed groups and foreign terrorist organizations, will somehow remain stable merely by removing a deeply unpopular dictator.

Many believed that the Trump administration’s focus on Venezuela was ultimately about regional stability, stopping drugs and the relationships Venezuela nurtured with our strategic adversaries. Some of us, perhaps more naively, hoped that restoring democracy and stopping human rights abuses were objectives. Those are all laudable goals, even if reasonable people can disagree about the legality of and fallout from directed U.S. action. The president’s remarks Saturday, however, underscored his administration’s interest in access to oil. Given the number of oil companies whose assets have been expropriated in Venezuela and that have won international arbitration awards, a quick return of U.S. oil companies to invest in Venezuela and boost oil production is unlikely. Steep investments will be a hard sell if the rule of law remains shaky. 

I served for five years total as chief of mission and U.S. ambassador to Venezuela. I know how deeply some have yearned for this regime change. And yet: The world has asked so much of the Venezuelan opposition. They have protested in the streets, drawn global attention to the dictatorship’s many abuses, engaged in negotiations – all to no avail. Opposition candidates have run in and won elections only to see the Maduro regime refuse to hand over power. And now that Maduro has been relieved of his illegitimate presidency, the opposition could again be asked to suffer the indignity of watching the regime remain in power during this “transition.”

If the United States expects a different result from the same people, we collectively will have failed to learn from the Maduro regime’s record.  As we say in South Carolina, there is no education in the second kick of a mule.