On January 4, 2026, the political landscape between the United States and Venezuela shifted dramatically, sparking a whirlwind of debate, confusion, and outrage on both sides of the hemisphere. The catalyst? The U.S. military’s capture of Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro and his wife, Cilia Flores, a move described by some American officials as a necessary step for regional stability, and by Venezuelan leaders as an outright act of aggression.
The aftermath of the operation has been nothing short of chaotic, with U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio thrust into the spotlight. Appearing on NBC’s Meet the Press that Sunday, Rubio faced a barrage of pointed questions from host Kristen Welker, who pressed him repeatedly to clarify who, exactly, would be running Venezuela in the wake of Maduro’s removal. It was a tense and at times circular exchange, emblematic of the uncertainty now gripping both nations.
Rubio struggled to give a clear answer. “Yeah, I mean, I keep—people fixating on that. Here’s the bottom line on it... We expect to see changes in Venezuela,” he said, as reported by The Daily Beast. He emphasized that the United States was focused on implementing changes “of all kinds, long-term, short-term,” but that the “most immediate changes are the ones that are in the national interest to the United States.”
When pressed further, Rubio insisted that the U.S. was not “running” Venezuela per se, but rather “running policy” related to the country. “Policy with regards to this. We want Venezuela to move in a certain direction, because not only do we think that it’s good for the people of Venezuela, it’s in our national interest,” Rubio said, according to Mediaite. He went on to describe the situation as a “team effort by the entire national security apparatus of our country,” involving the Department of War and the Department of Justice, among others.
Despite these assurances, Rubio’s answers left many unsatisfied—including Welker, who asked him three times whether he personally would be at the helm during this tumultuous transition. “Obviously I’m very involved in this,” Rubio finally conceded. “Well of course, I think everyone knows I’m pretty involved on politics in this hemisphere. Obviously, as Secretary of State and National Security Advisor, I’m very involved in all these elements.”
Meanwhile, President Donald Trump, at a press conference on January 3, made the administration’s intentions crystal clear: the United States would “run” Venezuela until a “proper transition” could take place and would seize control of the country’s oil. According to The Washington Post, sources within the administration confirmed that Rubio had become Trump’s right-hand man in Venezuela, owing to his Cuban heritage, fluency in Spanish, and hard-line stance on Latin America. “Rubio and the president are working hand in glove on this,” one insider told the paper. “They were really running this thing.”
The U.S. operation that captured Maduro was justified by Rubio and others as part of a broader campaign against drug trafficking organizations, not the Venezuelan state itself. “There’s not a war. I mean, we are at war against drug trafficking organizations. It’s not a war against Venezuela,” Rubio said on Meet the Press. He explained that the U.S. would continue enforcing oil sanctions, seizing boats under court warrants, and applying “crippling leverage” until the changes sought by Washington were realized.
Yet the optics, and the rhetoric from Caracas, told a different story. Venezuelan Vice President Delcy Rodríguez condemned the U.S. for what she called the “illegal and illegitimate kidnapping” of Maduro, vowing that the Venezuelan people would “never again be slaves.” Her words echoed throughout Latin America, fueling protests and statements of solidarity from several regional leaders.
Rubio’s public statements also revealed a complex and, at times, contradictory approach to Venezuela’s future. When asked why the U.S. was working with Maduro’s vice president, Delcy Rodríguez, rather than opposition leader Maria Corina Machado—who, as Welker pointed out, enjoys the support of 70% of Venezuelans and is a Nobel Peace Prize winner—Rubio responded, “Maria Corina Machado is fantastic and she’s someone I’ve known for a very long time and she, the whole movement is. But here’s the– we are dealing with the immediate reality. The immediate reality is that unfortunately, and sadly, but unfortunately the vast majority of the opposition is no longer present inside of Venezuela. We have short term things that have to be addressed right away.”
He added, “We all wish to see a bright future for Venezuela, a transition to democracy. All of these things are great. And we all want to see that. I’ve worked on that for 15 years on a personal level, both in the Senate and now as National Security Advisor and Secretary of State. These are things I still care about. We still care. But we’re talking about is what happens over the next two, three weeks, two, three months and how that ties to the national interest of the United States.”
On the question of elections, Rubio was equally cautious. “Elections? Well, look, and this is a country that’s been governed by this regime now for 14 or 15 years. The election should have happened a long time ago. The elections did happen. They lost them and they didn’t count the votes or they refused to count the votes and everyone knows it. So of the problems that we had with the Maduro. We still have those problems in terms of them needing to be addressed. We’re going to give people an opportunity to address those challenges and those problems until they address it. They will continue to face this oil quarantine. They will continue to faced pressure from the United States,” Rubio said, as quoted by Mediaite.
For now, the administration’s strategy appears to hinge on a combination of economic pressure, legal action, and diplomatic maneuvering. “We want a better future for Venezuela, and we think a better future for the people of Venezuela also is stabilizing for the region and makes the neighborhood we live in a much better and safer place,” Rubio said.
Yet, for many observers, the lack of clarity over who is really calling the shots in Caracas—and what the endgame looks like—remains deeply unsettling. The competing narratives from Washington and Caracas, the ambiguity over elections, and the specter of prolonged U.S. involvement in Venezuela’s affairs have left both nations, and much of the world, holding their breath.
As the dust settles from the dramatic events of early January, one thing is certain: the fate of Venezuela, and the role of the United States in shaping it, will remain at the center of global attention for months to come.
