In his official 2025 portrait, Donald Trump appears resolute, energetic, with an implacable gaze, wearing a red tie and the American flag on the lapel of his blue suit. The caption presents him as the “interim president of Venezuela,” a position he has held since January of this year.
From Bolívar’s homeland, Delcy Rodríguez retorted: “Here there is a government that rules in Venezuela. Here there is an interim president and a president held hostage in the United States.”
Of course, neither in his country nor in the Caribbean nation did they appoint the Republican president of Venezuela. No one voted for him there, nor does he govern in those lands. No legislation supports his self-appointment.
In this case, as in almost all important matters concerning the relationship between Washington and Caracas, there are two distinct narratives. What Trump says will happen in the homeland of Simón Bolívar is different from what interim president Delcy Rodríguez claims will happen. This discursive schizophrenia is an indicator of the level of uncertainty plaguing Venezuela. Since the bombing, the kidnapping of President Nicolás Maduro, and the swearing-in of the interim president, a new stage has opened in that country. It is a cycle fraught with volatility, confusion, hesitation, mistrust, shadows, and suspicion.
Far from leading to a new order, what prevails there is uncertainty, part of the global disorder. Unforeseen events and violations of international law through unilateral acts of force follow one after another. There is no clarity on how this neocolonial adventure will end.
The theater of operations is riddled with multiple and disparate contradictions. The guidelines on the measures to be taken in Caracas, announced by Donald Trump at his January 3rd press conference, have been modified. It would seem that, rather than having a precise and orderly plan of action, Washington’s approach in that region is being adjusted on the fly. The confusion is even greater because the plans announced by the president don’t always align with what Marco Rubio, his Secretary of State, says. Richard Grenell’s negotiating role in the conflict, along with his disagreements and clashes with Rubio, further complicate the situation.
The system of contradictions at play encompasses both what is happening in the United States and what is happening in the land of Hugo Chávez. But it also involves the interests in the region of China, Russia, Iran, and the other Latin American nations. Here, we will only address the challenges Trump’s strategy faces within his own country.
The first contradiction revolves around the blow dealt to the presidential dream of enjoying the Bolivarian oil fields when it encountered the skepticism of the major oil companies. Despite the military aggression being justified in the name of black gold, oil company executives avoided committing to supporting a $100 billion investment project in Venezuela. The managers indicated they needed security guarantees and a review of Caracas’s legal and commercial framework. Without mincing words, the CEO of Exxon Mobil laid his cards on the table. “Investing is not viable,” he declared.
Faced with this setback, the White House occupant threatened them. “If you don’t want to come in, just tell me, because there are 25 people who aren’t here today and are ready to take your place,” he told the business leaders.
The second set of contradictions has several different facets. One encompasses the unpopularity of the military aggression among the American public. A Washington Post poll indicates that 40 percent supported the military operation, compared to 43 percent who disapproved.
Another point of contention stems from the rejection by a faction of the conservative presidential coalition, Make America Great Again (MAGA), of undertaking new military aggressions in other countries. During his presidential campaign, Trump promised he would not, but he did not keep his word.
And a final point of contention is the dispute over the requirement that any attack on Venezuela must be consulted with Congress and the president’s determination to do as he pleases. In his most recent adventure, the head of state disregarded the opinion of legislators. His audacity had consequences. Five Republican senators defied the president and voted in Congress in favor of an initiative to restrict his ability to undertake further military actions. A poll indicates that 63 percent of those surveyed oppose President Trump ordering the military operation without congressional approval. Simultaneously, the streets of various US cities have been filled with citizens rejecting the military intervention in the Caribbean nation and demanding the release of President Maduro. These protests have been linked to mobilizations against ICE raids on immigrants and in repudiation of the murder of Renee Nicole Good.
These economic and political contradictions are inevitably framed within a context in which Trump’s term is at stake. Midterm elections will be held on November 3rd. 435 seats in the House of Representatives, 35 seats in the Senate, and 35 of the 50 governorships will be up for election. Unfortunately for the president, the polls show the Democrats leading. It cannot be ruled out that the war will serve as a pretext for him to reverse this trend.
Venezuela is now a matter of US domestic politics, so in addition to the capacity of the Venezuelan people and their leadership to resist, the final outcome of the military offensive against them will depend largely on what happens within the heart of the empire. The train pulling the new world order has a mandatory stop on the Washington-Caracas route.
Original article by Luis Hernández Navarro, La Jornada, January 13, 2026.
Translated by Schools for Chiapas.