By Benadeta Mwaura - Reporter
Venezuela, 7 January 2026 - Venezuela’s fragile political landscape has entered a new and highly contentious phase following the dramatic U.S. military operation earlier this month that resulted in the capture of President Nicolás Maduro and his transfer to the United States to face federal narcotics charges.
The situation has sparked intense domestic resistance, international debate and a clash of narratives over sovereignty, foreign influence and the future of Venezuelan democracy.
Interim Government Denies Foreign Control
On January 6, 2026, Venezuela’s interim president, Delcy Rodríguez, Maduro’s former vice president, emphatically rejected claims that foreign powers are running the country, underscoring her government’s insistence on national autonomy even amid U.S. assertions of influence.
Rodríguez told reporters that “the government of Venezuela is in charge in our country, and no one else,” as Caracas marked days of official mourning following the U.S. operation.
Her remarks come in stark contrast to public messaging by U.S. President Donald Trump, who said that Venezuela would be cooperating with Washington and noted that millions of barrels of Venezuelan oil, among the world’s largest reserves, would be turned over to the United States for sale and revenue use.
In comments on social media, Trump framed the arrangement as part of a transitional partnership, although details remain murky and contested.
Despite Rodríguez’s denials, political analysts say her government walks a tightrope: seeking to assert legitimacy while also navigating pressure from foreign powers seeking influence over Venezuela’s vast energy resources and political future.
Some analysts note that Rodríguez’s defiance serves both to stave off charges of being a U.S. puppet and to maintain cohesion among security forces and regime loyalists who wield real power inside the country.
Machado: Return and Election Push
Meanwhile, María Corina Machado, Venezuela’s most prominent opposition leader and 2025 Nobel Peace Prize laureate, has vowed to return home rapidly to contest what she calls Venezuela’s democratic restoration.
Speaking in an interview from abroad, Machado said she was “planning to go back … as soon as possible,” praising Trump’s actions against Maduro and declaring that under free and fair elections, her movement could win “over 90% of the votes.”
Machado, a lawyer and mother of three, fled Venezuela in disguise late last year to accept the Nobel Prize and has since advocated for a swift transition to democratic rule.
She said that the opposition “won an election in 2024 by a landslide under fraudulent conditions” and that a legitimate vote would confirm her broad support among Venezuelans.
However, Machado’s return and electoral ambitions face significant hurdles.
Trump himself has dampened expectations for an immediate election, telling U.S. media that elections are unrealistic in the near term and that the nation needs stabilization and institutional rebuilding before polling can be credible.
Related articles
Contrasting Narratives, Competing Legitimacies
The contrast between Rodríguez’s rejection of foreign control and the opposition’s plea for democratic elections highlights the deep political rift in Venezuela:
Rodríguez insists on Venezuelan sovereignty and warns that external narratives of foreign governance are misrepresentation, even as Venezuela’s military and intelligence structures remain deeply entangled in the crisis’ aftermath.
Machado frames foreign intervention, particularly U.S. support, as a catalyst for democratic transition, even as she rejects Rodríguez’s interim leadership and calls for free elections as soon as practicable.
Both leaders are staking claims to legitimate authority at a moment when Venezuela’s constitutional order is in flux.
Venezuelan law requires elections within 30 days if a sitting president is formally declared absent, but whether that timeline will hold under the current extraordinary circumstances remains unclear.
International Context and Debate
The unfolding drama has reverberated well beyond Caracas. Latin American and global powers have reacted strongly to the U.S. operation and subsequent political turbulence:
Brazil’s president condemned the U.S. strikes, calling them an unacceptable violation of regional norms that could undermine peace in Latin America.
China and Russia have castigated the capture of Maduro, with Russia denouncing what it called “neocolonial threats” and reaffirming support for Venezuela’s sovereignty, even as Rodríguez’s interim government seeks to assert its independence from external powers.
At the heart of Venezuela’s predicament is a deeply divided political terrain where competing visions of legitimacy, sovereignty and foreign influence clash.
Machado’s opposition forces are optimistic they can shepherd a democratic transition, while Rodríguez’s government portrays itself as the rightful steward of Venezuela’s national destiny.
In practice, who ultimately leads the country, whether via elections or through continued diplomatic and military maneuvering, may hinge as much on Venezuela’s fragile institutional landscape as on the shifting priorities of global powers jockeying for influence in the region.
This tension between asserting Venezuelan autonomy and navigating international power dynamics encapsulates the nation’s post-Maduro crossroads, one that threatens to redefine Latin America’s political map and global alignments for years to come.
