The first signs of where the post-Maduro transition may be headed are deeply troubling. According to some recent reports, the Trump administration appears to have quietly settled on Delcy Rodríguez, Nicolás Maduro’s right hand, as the figure it prefers to lead Venezuela after Maduro’s fall. This was not an improvised choice. Reportedly, it is the result of prolonged negotiations in which she presented herself as the natural successor to Maduro.
If any of this is true, the Trump administration could be in the middle of making a regrettable mistake.
The fall of Maduro could still become one of the most consequential turning points in the modern history of the Western Hemisphere. Under Chavismo, Venezuela was transformed into a failed state and, over time, into a platform for the global projection of authoritarian power. China, Russia and Iran have all made ample use of it to pursue their goals in the region.
But Cuba is the authoritarian standout. Though Fidel Castro was the ideological father of Chavismo, his murderous regime would likely have faced collapse long ago without the steady flow of Venezuelan oil and money. Ending both Chavismo and the regime in Havana would redraw the political map of Latin America. The Cuban revolution has been poisoning the region for decades.
Sadly, Rodríguez is not the person to help leave that legacy behind. She is neither a neutral administrator nor a transitional outsider. She is part of the very power structure that destroyed Venezuela. Her entire career is inseparable from the consolidation of Chavismo: repression, corruption and the hollowing out of democratic institutions. Indeed, in recent years she was responsible for “overseeing” the country’s intelligence services (which are known to be largely run out of Havana). One must wonder whether this leopard is even capable of changing her spots should she genuinely want to.
Still, public signals suggest that President Donald Trump views her as pliant and loyal to Washington’s immediate priorities and appears keen to see her consolidate power.
Trump has been unusually explicit about his other priorities. Access to Venezuelan oil has been framed not as a collateral boon of removing Maduro, but almost as its justification. At the same time, Trump has dismissed the opposition leader María Corina Machado, saying she lacks the necessary “support” and “respect” within the country. Secretary of State Marco Rubio has further cooled calls for the immediate swearing in of Edmundo González, the man who defeated Maduro in the last vote, leaving the electoral calendar conspicuously undefined.
Yes, dismantling Chavismo will be a complex endeavor. Maduro did not rule alone. He presided over a system sustained by criminal networks and a deeply compromised military. His deep patronage networks have bred legions of reflexive supporters. Expecting an overnight transition is naive. But complexity cannot become a pretext for delaying democracy. To sideline Machado is to deny reality. No figure in Venezuela today can boast of greater respect and popular support.
Latin America knows the cost of shortsighted U.S. interventions that prioritize stability over democracy. While Panama eventually recovered after its dictator Manuel Antonio Noriega was ousted, Chile endured 17 years of Augusto Pinochet’s brutality, and Guatemala was plunged into terror after a CIA-orchestrated coup. In Mexico, U.S. interference helped destroy Francisco I. Madero’s democratic experiment in 1913, pushing the country toward nearly a century of authoritarian rule. Installing Rodríguez as a long-term client would continue this ugly legacy.
If Rodríguez ceases to be a transitional figure and instead becomes a permanent, obedient lapdog president, only exercising her powers as allowed to do so by Washington, this moment will be remembered as a return to a past some of us had hoped was behind us. The United States will forfeit what little moral authority it still retains in the hemisphere, and Latin America will once again learn its bitterest lesson: that when Washington speaks of democracy, it too often means something else.
The United States still has a narrow window to choose a different path. It should clearly signal that the Venezuelan opposition will play a central role in the transition, not as a decorative presence but as a legitimate political force. It should demand the immediate release of all political prisoners. It should commit, in public and without ambiguity, to a concrete timeline for an internationally supervised election. And it should unequivocally pledge to respect and guarantee Venezuelan sovereignty over its natural resources. Oil contracts can follow democracy, not replace it.
If the worst scenarios come to pass, Venezuela would not be the only country to lose a historic opportunity. The United States would too. This is a rare chance for Washington to switch out an antagonistic authoritarian regime for a potentially friendly democratic one. Betting on Venezuelan democracy is neither charity nor idealism. It is a smart investment. Having stable, successful democracies in America’s backyard serves U.S. power, security and long-term interests far better than propping up convenient strongmen.
The post Trump’s favorite to replace Maduro would be a big mistake appeared first on Washington Post.
