Venezuelans reject Trump as president even as celebrations erupt abroad following Nicolas Maduro’s capture, with growing fear inside the country that authoritarian rule is being replaced by foreign management.
As Venezuela absorbs the shock of Nicolas Maduro’s dramatic arrest, public relief is colliding with anxiety that sovereignty is slipping away amid Donald Trump’s unprecedented intervention.
Photos released by the White House showed Maduro cuffed and blindfolded during his transfer to New York, where US prosecutors confirmed forthcoming narco-terrorism charges against him.
The images, broadcast globally, marked a historic moment for a country long trapped between authoritarianism, sanctions, economic collapse, and fractured international diplomacy.
In Caracas, however, jubilation was muted, with residents quietly stocking supplies and avoiding paramilitary-controlled streets amid uncertainty about who truly governs the nation now.
At a press conference on Saturday, Donald Trump declared the United States would “run the country” until what he called a safe and orderly political transition.
That statement sent shockwaves through Venezuela’s political class, civil society groups, and regional governments already alarmed by Washington’s aggressive posture.
Trump framed the intervention as necessary, describing Venezuela as “broken” and requiring American oversight to restore democracy, stability, and economic productivity.
Yet critics argue such rhetoric dangerously blurs humanitarian justification with geopolitical ambition, particularly given Trump’s explicit emphasis on Venezuela’s vast oil reserves.
“We’re going to have our very large US oil companies go in, spend billions, and start making money,” Trump said, appearing unapologetic about economic motives.
“We’re going to be taking a tremendous amount of wealth out of the ground,” he added, reinforcing concerns about resource-driven regime change.
Inside Venezuela, many fear these remarks confirm suspicions that national liberation is being subordinated to foreign commercial interests rather than democratic principles.
Celebrations among Venezuelan expatriates in cities like Buenos Aires contrasted sharply with the tense atmosphere inside the country, where uncertainty has replaced repression.
For years, Maduro’s rule depended on fear, patronage, and military loyalty, leaving citizens accustomed to survival rather than political participation.
Now, with Maduro removed, expectations of immediate democratic renewal are colliding with the reality that the same power structures remain intact.
Vice President Delcy Rodríguez, whom Trump described as a potential transitional leader, publicly denied any cooperation with Washington’s plans.
In a televised statement, Rodríguez insisted Maduro remains Venezuela’s only legitimate president, framing US actions as illegal aggression against a sovereign nation.
Her comments raised questions about whether she is defying Washington or merely positioning herself domestically to preserve Chavista authority.
Analysts note that despite Maduro’s capture, no meaningful transfer of power has occurred within Venezuela’s institutions.
“The same Chavista government and army that ruled yesterday still rule today,” Venezuelan author Carlos Lizarralde explained.
According to Lizarralde, Rodríguez and her brother Jorge Rodríguez, head of the legislature, remain visible, defiant, and unified.
This continuity undermines claims that Venezuela has entered a genuine post-Maduro era, despite international headlines suggesting otherwise.
Trump’s failure to mention Edmundo González Urrutia further deepened skepticism about Washington’s commitment to democratic legitimacy.
González, widely recognized by the US and allies as the winner of Venezuela’s disputed 2024 election, has been conspicuously sidelined.
Instead, Trump dismissed opposition leader María Corina Machado, questioning her “respect” and “support” among Venezuelans.
That dismissal angered civil society groups who credit Machado with mobilizing democratic resistance despite years of persecution.
Ana María Diez, a leading civil society organizer, stressed that Venezuela already has a president-elect chosen by popular vote.
“There is no power vacuum,” Diez said. “Venezuelans overwhelmingly elected Edmundo González Urrutia, and he should be sworn in immediately.”
Diez warned that bypassing the electorate risks replacing internal authoritarianism with externally imposed governance lacking legitimacy.
Political analyst María Corina Roldán Robles echoed those concerns, describing the situation as a dangerous reconfiguration rather than a clean break.
“This is not a democratic transition,” Roldán Robles said. “It is power being rearranged under US mediation.”
“Oil cannot be the organizing principle of a political transition,” she added, cautioning against repeating Latin America’s history of extractive interventions.
International law experts have also raised alarms about the precedent set by bombing a sovereign state and abducting its sitting leader.
Read also: Nicolás Maduro cocaine corruption charges shake Venezuela as US unseals explosive indictment
While Maduro faces serious criminal accusations, critics argue legal accountability must not come at the expense of global norms.
Russia and Iran, both allies of Maduro, have condemned the operation, warning of destabilizing consequences for international order.
China joined calls for restraint, urging Washington to respect Venezuelan sovereignty and pursue dialogue rather than unilateral action.
Trump’s approach has been dubbed the “Don-roe Doctrine,” a play on the Monroe Doctrine asserting US dominance in the Western Hemisphere.
Unlike its 19th-century predecessor, critics say Trump’s doctrine openly embraces economic extraction alongside geopolitical control.
Supporters argue decisive action was overdue after years of failed diplomacy and worsening humanitarian conditions.
Yet even some US allies have expressed discomfort with the breadth of Washington’s self-appointed authority over Venezuela’s future.
UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer called for a swift return to Venezuelan-led governance, emphasizing international oversight rather than unilateral rule.
Within Venezuela, ordinary citizens remain caught between hope and fear, unsure whether life will materially improve.
Many are quietly asking whether replacing Maduro with American administrators truly represents freedom.
One resident in Caracas summed up the mood bluntly: “We removed one ruler, but now we must ask who rules us.”
This uncertainty reflects deep scars left by decades of political manipulation, corruption, and external interference.
For Venezuelans, legitimacy matters as much as liberation, and sovereignty remains central to national identity.
Trump may have demonstrated overwhelming military and political power, but controlling outcomes is far more complex.
History suggests that imposed transitions rarely deliver lasting stability without broad domestic consent.
As Venezuela stands at this crossroads, the question is no longer simply who removed Maduro.
The question is who will truly govern Venezuela — and whether the people will finally be allowed to decide.
