SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
nicolas maduro
Democrats Ask Trump: Did You Use Elon Musk's Grok AI Chatbot to Help Plan Maduro Kidnapping?
“If the American President is relying on the policy advice of a Musk-designed, Hitler-friendly chatbot with a predilection for child pornography in order to carry out his official duties, Americans have a right to know."
Oct 29, 2026
A pair of top Democrats in the US House of Representatives on Thursday are asking new questions about the influence that artificial intelligence chatbots may have had in the deliberations or planning of President Donald Trump's unlawful military operations against Venezuela earlier this year that resulted in the kidnapping of the country's president, Nicolas Maduro.
In a letter sent directly to Trump, Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-Md.), ranking member of the House Judiciary Committee, and Rep. Robert Garcia (D-Calif.), ranking member of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, called on the president to preserve any and all of his conversations with artificial intelligence chatbots and asked for confirmation on whether or not he had specifically engaged with Elon Musk’s Grok chatbot concerning the US military assault on Venezuela.
The committee Democrats pointed to public reporting about a meeting between Trump and Musk that took place prior to the US military operation in Venezuela that raises serious questions about the role the president's interaction may have played in shaping his understanding of the situation in the country and fallout from such an audacious—and "100% illegal"—plan.
As TechCrunch summarized earlier this month:
In December 2025, about a month before the US invaded Venezuela and captured its president, Nicolás Maduro, President Trump had a secret meeting with Elon Musk, Time magazine reports. This was roughly seven months after Musk left his role in the Trump administration at the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE).
During this meeting, Trump “spent hours” talking to Musk’s Grok chatbot, including asking how Venezuelans would respond to the capture of their president, a source told Time. Just a few months earlier, in September, Trump began ordering U.S. military strikes against Venezuelan boats that Trump alleged were involved in drug trafficking.
People had apparently been turning to Grok asking about the boat strikes and political climate in Venezuela, as The Atlantic reported at the time. So Grok told Trump that Maduro was a “deeply unpopular dictator and that many Venezuelans would likely celebrate his downfall,” Time reported.
If such reporting is accurate, Raskin and Garcia said in their letter to Trump that the "episode is deeply troubling," and offered three key reasons.
"First, you consulted Grok—but not Congress—on your military deployment to Venezuela, circumventing Congress’s constitutional power to declare war and introducing instead into American foreign policy decision making a technology that is highly manipulable and demonstrably error-prone," the pair wrote.
"Second," the letter continues, "the unsecured use of AI chatbots by you and your closest advisors exposes the United States to acute national security risks. Your Administration’s disdain for operational security is well-documented. Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth famously used unsecured channels to relay information about impending U.S. military strikes to his wife, brother, and personal lawyer."
The third reason, they said, is that Trump and his advisors’ "use of AI exposes the country to malign influence from unknown and unaccountable third parties."
The letter details a series of specific controversies with the Grok chatbot model, including its ability to create sexualized images of people—including children—without their permission and creating pro-Nazi content and advocating for a "second Holocaust" based, unsurprisingly, on what the model itself attributed to public comments by Musk.
"These disturbing examples illustrate why the White House’s AI prompts and outputs must be preserved," said Raskin and Garcia in the letter.
"If the American President is relying on the policy advice of a Musk-designed, Hitler-friendly chatbot with a predilection for child pornography in order to carry out his official duties, Americans have a right to know," they wrote. "If the United States military killed dozens of innocent schoolchildren based on the faulty advice of an AI chatbot, we have a right to know that too. And if an unelected oligarch is influencing U.S. policy through his AI-generated alter ego, Americans have a right to know how governmental decisions are being reached."
In service of that message, the lawmakers told Trump that any and all "AI prompts submitted by you and your staff, as well as the outputs you received, plainly fall within the definition of presidential records," and should be properly preserved in accordance with existing statute.
In addition, "to ensure that the American public’s rights to presidential records are being adequately protected," the pair requested a closed-door briefing regarding the use of AI chatbot technologies by the president, his staff, and other relevant personnel. They also asked a series of detailed questions on the subject for which they requested answers, in writing, by November 11.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Unlike Bush or Cheney, US Charges Abducted Nicolás Maduro With Torture
The indictment claims he and others "presided over a system of repression that relied on violence against political opposition, arbitrary detention, and the torture of detainees, including United States citizens."
Oct 08, 2026
Former US President George W. Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney, and officials in their administration were never prosecuted for the torture that was infamously part of their global War on Terror, but the United States on Thursday hit deposed Venezuelan leader Nicolás Maduro and his wife, Cilia Flores, with a conspiracy to commit torture charge.
The couple has spent months in Brooklyn's Metropolitan Detention Center since being abducted from the Venezuelan capital, Caracas, in early January by American forces, at the direction of US President Donald Trump—who is now controlling the South American country's oil industry. They have pleaded not guilty to previous federal charges, including narco-terrorism conspiracy. Their joint trial in the Southern District of New York is scheduled for June.
As CNN previewed late Wednesday, the superseding indictment released Thursday alleges that, "to undermine Venezuelan democracy and entrench themselves in power," the couple and other leaders "presided over a system of repression that relied on violence against political opposition, arbitrary detention, and the torture of detainees, including United States citizens."
"That torture included electric shock, asphyxiation, rape, forced nudity, prolonged isolation, starvation, punishment cells, and psychological torture, such as threats to harm and kill victims' families, including children," the filing says. Maduro, now 63, "presided over this system of repression and torture, commanded the law enforcement and military units and officers responsible for committing torture, ordered that particular individuals be illegally detained and tortured, and received updates on the torture of specific prisoners."
CNN noted that "Maduro's lawyer is challenging the legality of the arrest and argues the former president should have immunity since the alleged conduct occurred while he was in office. The Venezuelan government is not joining in claiming immunity on his behalf, according to the prosecution."
The updated indictment also claims that Flores, a 69-year-old former National Assembly president and attorney general, "helped develop this system of repression and ordered that individuals be tortured to protect her family members' illegal activities."
As Trump carries out a murderous bombing campaign against boats allegedly trafficking drugs that experts have denounced as blatantly unlawful, US Attorney General Todd Blanche wrote on social media Thursday that "these additional charges reflect the dedication of this administration to delivering justice for the victims of torture, narcoterrorism, and organized crime."
According to The Associated Press, "A message seeking comment was sent to Maduro's lawyer; Flores was in court for a previously scheduled hearing, where her attorney said he hadn’t yet had time to review the new allegations."
At that hearing, her attorney sought to move her from the Brooklyn jail to house arrest, citing health issues. However, US District Court Senior Judge Alvin Hellerstein, an appointee of former President Bill Clinton, denied that request, determining that Flores was a flight risk.
Meanwhile, Cheney died last year, at the age of 84, and 80-year-old Bush recently marked the 25th anniversary of the September 11 terrorist attacks with a new series of paintings. Shortly before that, in late August, the US Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit dismissed a historic verdict against military contractor CACI Premier Technology for torture at Abu Ghraib in Iraq.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Venezuela Is Alone Against an Orange Wave
A US-backed reactionary wave of the 1960s-1980s brought the rule of the generals. The current one might be called the reign of the clowns.
Oct 08, 2026
A reactionary wave is sweeping Latin America. Since the elections of Venezuela’s Nicolás Maduro in July 2024 and Uruguay’s Yamandú Orsi in November 2024, all seven of the subsequent direct presidential contests have gone to the right.
The Maduro election is widely assumed by the US-aligned corporate press to have been stolen, although a recently declassified CIA report found no election manipulation. More relevant has been Washington’s role in tipping elections to the right in Colombia, Bolivia, Chile, Ecuador, Peru, and Costa Rica. Most blatant was the Honduran contest in which President Donald Trump pardoned convicted narco-trafficker and former president Juan Orlando Hernández immediately before the election and threatened to cut aid if his candidate lost.
“The Latin American electoral left has reached its limits,” the Peoples Dispatch concludes. If Brazil’s Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva loses the presidential runoff, an orange wave will have inundated the Pink Tide for some time to come.
The New Right
A US-backed reactionary wave of the 1960s-1980s brought the rule of the generals. The current one might be called the reign of the clowns: Colombia’s Abelardo de la Espriella joked about burning cats, Argentina’s Javier Milei communicated with his deceased dog, and El Salvador’s Nayib Bukele proclaimed himself the “world’s coolest dictator.”
While the reactionaries of the past posed as nationalists, today’s neo-fascists flaunt their subservience to the White House in what Foreign Policy calls “caudillo courtship.” “Patriotism,” according to Vijay Prashad, “is cast aside for absolute loyalty to Washington and its corporations.”
The US military buildup in the Caribbean surrounding Venezuela has been accompanied by an aggressive penetration into the entire region.
Venezuela’s Hugo Chávez helped initiate regional alliances for Latin American integration and autonomy that deliberately excluded the US and Canada. ALBA and CELAC have survived, though much reduced; UNASUR and Petrocaribe have largely withered. Capitalizing on their decline, Washington has constructed the Shield of the Americas, a hemispheric bloc designed to reintegrate the region into a US-centered political and security architecture.
The US military buildup in the Caribbean surrounding Venezuela has been accompanied by an aggressive penetration into the entire region. The Joint Task Force Western Hemisphere is integrating military capabilities of 17 partner nations with those of the US in the Americas Counter Cartel Coalition.
Decapitation Strike
For a quarter century, the US tried to overthrow the Bolivarian Revolution. The campaign further escalated with the imposition of an oil blockade last December. And still the Venezuelans resisted. Then on January 3, Washington kidnapped Venezuela’s President Maduro and his wife, National Assembly delegate Cilia Flores, leaving over 100 dead. The attack demonstrated, especially to Venezuelans, that Washington could act with impunity.
With a war on Iran looming, the US needed to reassure international oil markets to keep prices down at the gas pump. Maduro had repeatedly offered to negotiate with Washington and even update the hydrocarbon law. The US had demonized Maduro as a narco-terrorist, providing a pretext for abducting the lawful president while leaving intact much of the Chavista system that emerged from the Bolivarian Revolution led by Hugo Chávez.
Washington possibly reasoned that removing Maduro while compelling the existing state to accommodate intervention was more workable than destroying Chavismo and attempting regime change from scratch.
Vice President Delcy Rodríguez was sworn in as acting president. The Chavista party, legislature, judiciary, military, and grassroots organizations united behind her and continue to do so. Venezuela’s access to oil markets and thus its hope for economic recovery and national development was restored, but at a terrific price.
In the face of overwhelming force, Venezuela has been forced into an unprecedented negotiated sovereignty. Washington determines the boundaries within which Venezuela can bargain, although Caracas retains some agency within those boundaries.
Sentiment on the Street
Venezuelans feel alone, a sentiment communicated to me in a February visit and subsequent correspondence. Even some critical voices recognize “the continuing capacity of US imperialism to impose its will when no countervailing power exists, and without new political breakthroughs internationally to come to Venezuela’s aid.”
Venezuelans, regardless of political affiliation in a highly polarized country, feel under attack. They believe, with good reason, that the US could come back at any time with ever more devastating force. The metaphor of a “gun to the head” is a lived reality. Every week or so, a small boat is capriciously incinerated in the eastern Pacific or the Caribbean.
Some online leftists living in the imperial core call Rodríguez “cowardly”—substituting moralism for political analysis. But the “gun” was pointed not just at the leadership but at the whole country: the threat of an asphyxiating blockade, a large-scale invasion, a far-right government, and a bloodbath for Chavistas.
The key is understanding the problem as regional and the solution as uniting against the same enemy. The common denominator is the enormous leverage exercised by US imperial power.
Venezuelans also want peace. While militant currents exist, particularly in some of the more successful communes, there is no appetite for confrontation with the hegemon. The consensus after 26 years of US siege and 11 years of suffocating sanctions is a desire for reconciliation and economic recovery.
The Caracas Chronicles describes the current fatigue in Venezuela: “The timeline for economic relief is slipping away, while the timeline for public demand is accelerating,” resulting in “an exhausted society that has watched both the revolutionary narrative and promises of a swift transition collapse.”
The Oil Deal
The so-called oil deal became a lightning rod for mounting discontent, all the more so because neither Venezuela nor the US released the details; anyone could read anything into it. The long-hostile international corporate press took false umbrage that the Chavistas weren’t Chavista enough.
Everyone found fault, but practically no one discussed what Venezuela’s development path should be. It is easier to criticize the Chavista leadership than to consider a possible economic solution. Nor were comparisons made to other regional oil development agreements.
Venezuela does not have the capacity or investment to undertake major oil projects by itself.
Closer investigation would have shown that the Rodríguez government required negotiations, resisted company demands, and imposed fiscal and operational conditions. In fact, US oil companies complained that the conditions they were getting in Venezuela were too onerous.
But Venezuela did not negotiate from anything approaching equality with a hegemon that controlled sanctions licenses and much of the oil-sales revenue flow. Yet asymmetric bargaining is still bargaining. To think otherwise is to deny agency to the Venezuelans.
“Venezuelan Exceptionalism”
Most left-leaning folks see through American Exceptionalism. Yet a reverse corollary has lately been circulating: that among Latin American states there is something singularly wrong in Venezuela. The danger of “Venezuelan Exceptionalism” is that it downplays a united struggle against US imperialism and undermines building a common defense.
Some online leftists counterpose Cuba’s heroic resistance to Venezuela’s supposedly shameful capitulation. Whatever truth there may be in such a characterization, it obscures important realities. Washington never offered socialist Cuba—whose former ruling and propertied classes had largely left—the option of a negotiated soft landing. Further, holding Cuba’s resistance up against Venezuela is just half of the equation. The other half is the dire condition of the Cuban people under US blockade. Who wishes that on Venezuela?
The situation in Venezuela highlights what the Venezuelans have been telling us in the imperial core: Their predicament is a result of our failure to curb our own imperialists. The periphery will not free the core.
Cuba and Venezuela are particularly intense expressions of a regional struggle for sovereignty in a hemisphere where the US remains the predominant power. The central regional divide is not between governments that make compromises and those that do not. Virtually every Latin American government makes accommodations to international capital.
The key is understanding the problem as regional and the solution as uniting against the same enemy. The common denominator is the enormous leverage exercised by US imperial power.
Has the Bolivarian Revolution Retreated or Been Betrayed?
The Party for Socialism and Liberation (PSL), among others, concludes that the Chavista leadership has gone from tactical retreat to strategic realignment. PSL points to troubling developments such as the deportation of Alex Saab and the opening of consular relations with Israel.
Whether the retreat over the last 10 months has gone so far that it no longer allows for a reversal remains unresolved. Given incomplete knowledge, however, the greater danger is reaching a premature conclusion rather than erring on the side of Rodríguez’s counsel for “prudence and strategic patience.”
We should not compare the Venezuelan present to a socialist ideal, but to the alternatives actually available under the present balance of forces—including the possibility of a fascist future.
Whether the current forced retreat ultimately proves tactical or strategic remains an important question for Venezuelans and their revolution. But for internationalists, that uncertainty does not change the immediate tasks.
The Tasks Remain the Same
Agreement on the character of the Rodríguez government is not a prerequisite for common action against US imperialism. Debate entails disagreements, sometimes sharp ones. But declaring others outside the movement because they differ over how to assess developments in Venezuela weakens the shared counter-hegemonic struggle.
For internationalists, the focus, as always, is on our own imperialists. Concretely, that means freeing Maduro and Flores, ending sanctions and the military threat, and returning stolen assets. In addition, whatever the future course of the Chavista government, solidarity with the communes and other social advances of the Bolivarian Revolution is still essential.
The situation in Venezuela highlights what the Venezuelans have been telling us in the imperial core: Their predicament is a result of our failure to curb our own imperialists. The periphery will not free the core.
Whatever concessions have been forced upon Venezuela, so long as Venezuelans continue to resist, their struggle calls for international solidarity.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Venezuela: Don’t Blame the Victim
The solidarity movement must unite in the broadest alliance around the defense of national sovereignty and the right to self-determination, strongly opposing the farcical New York trial of Nicolás Maduro and Cilia Flores, demanding the lifting of all sanctions, and calling for the return of stolen assets.
Aug 14, 2026
“Nothing is easier than to be idealistic on behalf of others.”—Karl Marx, 1858
Under cover of night, the US military kidnapped the lawful Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro and his wife and National Assembly deputy Cilia Flores on January 3, 2026. Collateral damage included over 100 fatalities of civilians and Cuban and Venezuelan guards.
This unprovoked surprise attack flagrantly violated international law. The hegemon acted in full expectation that it could operate with impunity. Even the neighboring left-leaning governments of Brazil and Colombia offered only mild rebukes. Then Venezuelan Foreign Minister Yván Gil said, “We found ourselves alone.” That is the context in which subsequent developments need to be understood.
The egregious military action culminated a quarter of a century of US and allied (particularly Canada and the UK) machinations against Venezuela: asphyxiating sanctions, stolen assets, diplomatic isolation, cyberattacks, assassination attempts, mercenary invasions, and establishing an ersatz parallel government. For the two months preceding the invasion, the US navy blockaded oil shipments. Still the empire’s goal of regime change was not achieved.
The Revolution’s Resilience Compelled the US to Escalate
Washington and its allies failed to destroy Chavismo, the movement founded by Hugo Chávez and carried forward by his successor Nicolás Maduro. Venezuela did not collapse or degenerate into chaos after the decapitation. Domestic peace prevailed.
The US-backed and funded far-right opposition did not seize power, but found itself ever more marginalized and in disarray.
The Chavista leadership continued in a seamless constitutional succession with Vice President Delcy Rodríguez sworn in as acting president. The unity of the top command held firm, backed by the National Assembly and supreme court. Likewise, the civic-military union and the communes and grassroots Chavista institutions fully supported the government.
Notably, the core Chavista leadership, the military, Socialist Party, and communal formations have remained united under tremendous pressure—pressure designed to fracture that unifying accord.
Relying on its overwhelming military superiority, Washington made a Mafia-style offer you can’t refuse. US Secretary of State Marco Rubio called Rodríguez on that day of infamy and delivered an ultimatum to collaborate with the US or face the country’s military destruction and the murder of her and other leaders. Variations of this scenario are corroborated by both the corporate press and Chavista sources.
President Donald Trump explicitly threatened, “There is more where that came from.” The alternative was the devastation currently being rained down on Iran, a country with far greater military capacity. With US forces deployed throughout the region and off its coast, a military confrontation would have meant annihilation, including the destruction of the oil industry. Rodríguez did what any responsible leader would do given the existing options; she made a tactical retreat in the face of overwhelming force.
Venezuela did not surrender
All the Chavista state institutions and the powerful universe of grassroots organizations that sustain the revolution remain intact. Yet US imperialism, by having a gun pointed to the government’s head, is in a position to exert substantial coercion leading to unpalatable decisions, such as Alex Saab’s deportation.
These accommodations reflect pressures that those of us on the outside can only imagine. How the solidarity movement should respond is a central question.
Former Chávez official Sergio Rodríguez Gelfenstein describes the current negotiations as an exercise in essential national self-preservation. He observes, “What is at stake is the survival of the State and the republic, which if lost, would make the discussion on any other topic banal.” As former Venezuelan Foreign Minister Jorge Arreaza said, “Everything is now negotiated,” with Washington obliged to be in daily give-and-take with Caracas.
Legislative reform had long been on Maduro’s agenda. However, revisions to laws governing the exploitation of hydrocarbons and hard minerals involved offering generous conditions to international capital in order to attract much-needed foreign investment (which Cuba is also doing).
The new amnesty law, another planned initiative, is a key instrument promoting reconciliation and denying extremist elements arguments to incite violence. The law strictly excludes “anyone who has committed war crimes, human rights violations, homicide, drug trafficking, or treason.”
The government is in negotiations with the moderate opposition. Such successive rounds of dialogue were a recurring feature of the Maduro presidency.
Rodríguez has counseled prudence and strategic patience. Notably, the core Chavista leadership, the military, Socialist Party, and communal formations have remained united under tremendous pressure—pressure designed to fracture that unifying accord.
Long-Sought Gains Achieved
The US has reversed itself and in practice recognizes the Venezuelan government as legitimate. The Bolivarian project has not only persisted but forced its greatest adversary to come to some accommodation.
Not since 2019 had the US allowed transactions with Venezuela’s central bank and major state banks. US restrictions had previously cut Venezuela off from the global financial system, preventing access to dollar-denominated transactions and US financial channels. Oil sales to the US have resumed, with some revenues returning to the domestic economy. The US-dominated International Monetary Fund (IMF) is again engaged with Venezuela. Rodríguez has stated that Venezuela is not seeking IMF loans, but access to its own frozen funds.
As a Venezuelan activist friend said, “You gringos tell us how to make our revolution when our problem is you have failed to make yours.”
Although sanctions largely remain in place, special licenses and a temporary easing of economic restrictions for earthquake relief have provided some breathing room for Venezuela’s besieged economy while also facilitating oil flows to the US. The concessions are limited and reversible, leaving the broader structure of US economic warfare intact. Still, the arrangement is preferable to the total oil blockade imposed immediately before the January 3 assault.
Rodríguez has repeatedly demanded that Venezuela be free of sanctions, while formally seeking the release of Venezuelan assets abroad to address the devastation caused by the earthquakes. She has even appealed to King Charles III for the return of 31 tons of Venezuelan gold held by the Bank of England.
Changed Political Landscape
The balance of forces confronting today’s Venezuelan leadership is substantially less favorable than under Chávez, so judging its compromises by an idealized Chávez-era standard is mistaken.
Some internationals invoke Chávez to discredit the current leadership. Overlooked is that during Chávez’s presidency, Venezuela sold oil almost exclusively to the US, when dependency was significant. Ignoring the changed context, infantile leftist claims are made that Chávez never compromised and that “one does not negotiate with the enemy,” forgetting the famous advice from Fidel Castro during the 2002 coup: “Don't immolate yourself, Hugo.”
Chávez governed during a commodities boom that provided the Bolivarian project with resources for material benefits markedly unavailable today under sanctions. The geopolitical context has shifted significantly since Chávez’s time, especially under the present “Donroe Doctrine.” Not since Maduro’s victory in July 2024 has a left-leaning candidate won in Latin America. The last seven presidential elections have been swept by the right. Until this broader reactionary trajectory is reversed, further retreats are likely.
The purpose and cumulative impact of the illegal unilateral coercive measures have been to erode public support for the government. Years of comprehensive sanctions—despite the 2021-2025 economic recovery following an approximately 75% GDP contraction—have left Venezuela in a vulnerable position. Currently the Venezuelan economy is operating at roughly 30% of its pre-sanctions level.
The Rodríguez government is trying to buy time to recover the economy, although the June 24 earthquakes dealt a terrible blow. According to the United Nations, direct physical damage is estimated at over $37 billion, representing over one-third of Venezuela’s gross domestic product.
Most Venezuelans want domestic peace and a return to prosperity, not a confrontation with the empire.
“Unity Is the Most Important Thing—Without It, Nothing Is Possible; With It, Everything Is Possible.”
Those were the words of Fidel Castro as he was organizing the Cuban Revolution in 1956. Most dangerous for the sister Bolivarian Revolution is the suggestion that the current leadership has betrayed the cause and that a truly leftist “third way” can be fostered to replace them. There have always been competing factions within the Bolivarian movement. But political choices must ultimately be resolved within Venezuela itself, without interference from internationals.
These “third way” analyses, rejecting both Caracas and Washington, typically fail to address what Venezuelans could realistically do at this historical juncture—long on what’s wrong but short on viable alternatives.
Venezuelans will determine their path without foreign interference, either right or left. Solidarity necessitates efforts to accompany and uplift, not dictate.
It was not so long ago that it was the likes of far-right María Corina Machado who highlighted “cracks and fissures within the Chavista ranks” and anticipated “the beginning of a social explosion” against the elected Venezuelan government. Now some solidarity activists are saying the same.
The “tragic essence” of left disunity in Bolivia should be a cautionary lesson of what could happen in Venezuela. The Chavista leadership is painfully aware of this, hence their vigorous effort to establish the broadest united front against US colonization. Rather than being traitors to the cause, the Rodríguezes and Interior Minister Diosdado Cabello represent the most militant Chavistas—fighters from the very inception of the revolution.
What Solidarity Requires
Constructive criticism and solidarity activism need not be counterposed. Dissident opinions are appropriate when contextualized and given as part of a collaborative effort to advance common goals—not as individualistic venting.
Some among the left have appointed themselves as guardians of the faith judging negatively from afar the very difficult and risky tactical retreat undertaken by the Bolivarian leadership, even though it prevented a suicidal military confrontation with US imperialism.
The international left’s angst and disappointment regarding Venezuela’s retreats is understandable. But the Global South is not about to fulfill the revolutionary aspirations of those living in the belly of the beast. That, it should be clear, is the task for people in the imperial core.
As a Venezuelan activist friend said, “You gringos tell us how to make our revolution when our problem is you have failed to make yours.”
Venezuelans will determine their path without foreign interference, either right or left. Solidarity necessitates efforts to accompany and uplift, not dictate. Internationals living in the US, Canada, and the UK need to place the primary focus on our own imperialists. All other contradictions are secondary.
The solidarity movement must unite in the broadest alliance around the defense of national sovereignty and the right to self-determination, strongly opposing the farcical New York trial of Nicolás Maduro and Cilia Flores, demanding the lifting of all sanctions, and calling for the return of stolen assets.
El pueblo unido jamás será vencido.
(A united people will never be defeated.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Venezuela Under Siege: Defending the Bolivarian Revolution Against US Imperialism
What some may regard as unjustifiable compromises by the Venezuelan government pale in comparison with our obligations as international solidarity activists: defending Venezuela and Cuba against the policies of imperialism.
May 31, 2026
In response to recent developments in Venezuela under imperialist siege, international solidarity activists should adopt a stance that does not inadvertently reinforce Washington’s drive for domination. Our central responsibility is not to adjudicate every tactical decision made under siege conditions, but to oppose the imperialist aggression that creates those conditions.
The overwhelming structure of US hybrid warfare against Venezuela remains intact, continuing to suffocate the country’s economic recovery and undermine its sovereignty. Washington continues to exert decisive pressure over the country’s principal source of national revenue, the oil sector. It uses sanctions, financial coercion, and domination of global banking systems, as it has against other targeted states such as Iraq and Syria.
At the same time, the threat of direct military escalation remains ever present, a danger underscored by continuing military deployments, aggressive rhetoric, and repeated threats.
What some may regard as unjustifiable compromises by the Venezuelan government pale in comparison with our obligations as international solidarity activists: defending Venezuela and Cuba against the policies of imperialism. The US continues to intensify blockades, sanctions, destabilization efforts, and military threats against these revolutionary processes while simultaneously waging disinformation campaigns against the Chavista leadership and the Cuban Revolution.
The role of internationalists is to oppose imperialism at home, not to instruct Venezuelans on how to defend their revolution.
Both Fidel Castro and Hugo Chávez identified US imperialism as the principal enemy of humanity. Our primary political focus should therefore remain opposition to imperialist domination, rather than allowing secondary disagreements to obscure the central contradiction.
The Responsibilities of Internationalists
First and foremost, the main blow must be directed against US imperialism. Any discussion of shortcomings, compromises, or concessions should be understood within the context of relentless external aggression, destabilization efforts, and military threats.
That is why internationals vigorously campaign both for the safe return to Venezuela of President Nicolás Maduro and First Lady Cilia Flores and for the immediate and unconditional lifting of all sanctions.
The political choices made by the Venezuelan leadership must ultimately be resolved within Venezuela itself. The role of internationalists is to oppose imperialism at home, not to instruct Venezuelans on how to defend their revolution.
Support for Venezuela against US imperialism does not require agreement with every decision taken under conditions of coercion. Understanding political decisions made under such circumstances is to situate them within the realities imposed by imperialist military power. This includes the extradition of Alex Saab.
A longstanding objective of US policy has been to fracture the unity of the Chavista leadership, military, and popular base. Despite immense pressure, that unity has largely held. Attempts to counterpose solidarity with the popular base against solidarity with the leadership, however well intentioned, objectively strengthen imperialist aims.
The Conditions Facing Venezuela
We do not know the full extent of the pressures exerted on the Venezuelan government, nor the range of alternatives realistically available under present conditions. The Venezuelan leadership operates under severe geopolitical constraints. The US openly threatens Libya- or Iran-style retaliation. Another major military escalation remains entirely possible.
Unlike in earlier periods, Venezuela today lacks strong regional allies, while in the context of the ongoing Gaza genocide, so-called “international law” offers little meaningful restraint on US power.
In conclusion, under conditions of economic warfare, military threat, diplomatic isolation, and perpetual destabilization efforts, Venezuela’s contradictions cannot be analyzed abstractly or outside the realities of imperialist power.
Given the vast military asymmetry between the two countries, the consequences of direct military confrontation would be catastrophic for Venezuela, potentially including the destruction of vital infrastructure and long-term devastation of the oil industry upon which the country depends.
If the US succeeds in placing the extreme right-wing opposition in power, the likely result would be devastating political repression directed against Chavismo and the popular sectors.
Strategic Realities and Political Continuity
While continuing to rely upon the Chavista base, the government also recognizes the necessity of building a broader patriotic bloc capable of resisting imperialist pressure more effectively.
Even amid forced compromises, the central achievements of the Bolivarian process remain significant: preservation of the revolutionary leadership, survival against destabilization efforts, and avoidance of a full-scale invasion.
Years of sanctions and economic warfare severely degraded Venezuela’s oil infrastructure. Restoring productive capacity, reestablishing trade, and attracting investment have therefore become vital imperatives.
The political transitions from Chávez to Maduro to Delcy Rodríguez largely reflect changes in the international geopolitical landscape. Yet there has remained substantial political continuity within Chavismo, evident in continued solidarity with Cuba, the vitality of the communal system, and the endurance of the revolutionary mass movement.
In conclusion, under conditions of economic warfare, military threat, diplomatic isolation, and perpetual destabilization efforts, Venezuela’s contradictions cannot be analyzed abstractly or outside the realities of imperialist power. The primary task of solidarity movements within the imperial centers remains what it has always been: opposing the aggression of our own ruling classes.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Cuban Envoy Draws 'Red Lines' Amid Specter of US Invasion and DOJ Targeting Castro Like Maduro
Cuban Chargé d'Affaires Lianys Torres Rivera said her government is willing to negotiate with the US, but "the only exception is our sovereignty, independence, and right to self-determination."
May 15, 2026
Cuba's top diplomat in the United States on Friday underscored the inviolability of her country's sovereignty amid tenuous negotiations with the Trump administration and mounting fears that the US is planning to criminally indict a former Cuban president and possibly invade the island to abduct him.
Cuban Chargé d'Affaires Lianys Torres Rivera told The Hill that her country's socialist government is open to negotiating with the US, but that "the only exception is our sovereignty, independence, and right to self-determination," adding that "those are the red lines."
Torres Rivera acknowledged that ramped-up US pressure—including President Donald Trump's invasion threats and tightening of the internationally condemned 65-year economic embargo—is inflicting tremendous suffering on the Cuban people.
“It’s difficult. What the Cuban people are enduring these days is difficult," she said. "They are under a collective punishment from the US."
The Cuban government said Thursday that Trump's oil blockade has left the island and its 11 million people without fuel—a situation United Nations experts last week described as illegal "energy starvation."
“We have reorganized the whole country, the healthcare system, the education system, the transportation system, to keep the basic services running," Torres Rivera told The Hill. "But it doesn’t mean that they are running normally. They are running under huge stress.”
Still, "a serious country that respects yourself... won’t put on the table your political system or your internal order that the people of our country decide in a sovereign way," she stressed.
The delicate balancing act Cuba is being forced to perform was on stark display on Thursday as Central Intelligence Agency Director John Ratcliffe traveled to Havana for talks aimed at pressuring Cuban officials into complying with demands that critics say would inrfinge upon the nation's sovereignty. These likely include political and economic reforms, releasing political prisoners, and ending or weakening Cuba's alliances with US adversaries including China, Iran, Russia, and Venezuela.
It was a bitter pill to swallow for Cubans, as the CIA was behind myriad efforts to topple their government, from assassination attempts against revolutionary leader Fidel Castro to the failed Bay of Pigs invasion to supporting Cuban exile terrorists who carried out deadly attacks that Havana says killed thousands of people.
Further stoking fears of aggression from the Trump administration,r unidentified US officials told CBS News that the Department of Justice is preparing to criminally indict 94-year-old former Cuban President Raúl Castro for the 1996 shoot-down of planes belonging to the subversive US-based group Brothers to the Rescue after they violated Cuban airspace.
Some observers noted the 1976 midair bombing by US-based anti-Castro militants of Cubana de Aviacion Flight 455, a commercial airliner carrying 73 passengers and crew. The CIA, under then-Director George H.W. Bush, knew that Cuban exiles were plotting to blow up a Cubana plane, but did not warn Havana. The perpetrators of the bombing eventually made their way back to Florida, where they were welcomed as heroes.
Others surmised that the reported planned indictment is a pretext for a US invasion and arrest of Castro similar to January's abduction of Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro on dubious—and partially retracted—narco-terrorism allegations.Thirty-two Cubans, including military and police officers providing security for Maduro, were killed by US forces during the abduction operation.
"To me, this signals that the Pirate State could be planning another kidnapping operation against Cuba like they did in Venezuela," British journalist Richard Medhurst said in response to the reporting, referring to the US. "This is the lawless behavior they want to normalize around the world."
ACLU head of digital engagement Stefan Smith said on social media: "Remember Maduro and Venezuela? If you’re a foreign leader indicted in American courts, we claim the right to send the military to kidnap you. Indictment is permission to invade."
Following his visit to Cuba, Ratcliffe said that negotiations "will not stay open indefinitely," remarks that followed numerous threats by Trump to "take" Cuba.
"Whether I free it, take it—I think I can do anything I want," the president said in March as his fuel embargo caused blackouts that brought deadly suffering to the most vulnerable Cubans, including sick people and children.
Torres Rivera insisted that protests over the blackouts don't mean Cubans won't rally in defense of their homeland.
“When they are enduring 20 hours of blackouts, they have grievances, and they express it,” she told The Hill, cautioning US officials against a "wrong reading" of the demonstrations.
"We are preparing to defend ourselves," Torres Rivera said, adding that a US invasion "could be a big mistake. It could be a bloodbath."
"We don’t want Cubans dying in Cuba,” she stressed, nor “any American soldier.”
Keep ReadingShow Less
Trump Says He's 'Seriously Considering Making Venezuela the 51st US State' as He Brags of Stealing Its Oil Wealth
"Trump's true priority, ahead of absolutely everything else, is to go down in history in big letters," said one journalist. "Remaking everything, no matter in which direction or with what consequences."
May 11, 2026
President Donald Trump said on Monday that he is considering trying to annex Venezuela and make it a US state in an imperialist effort to seize more of its oil wealth.
It's one of nearly half a dozen nations or territories Trump has threatened to use US military might to illegally conquer and add to the US during his term, including Greenland, Canada, Cuba, and Panama.
According to Fox News correspondent John Roberts, Trump said in a phone call that he was “seriously considering making Venezuela the 51st US state,” citing the Latin American nation's possession of tens of trillions of dollars worth of oil.
“They were miserable. Now they’re happy. It’s being well run,” Trump recently told Full Measure's Sharyl Attkisson. “The oil that’s coming out is enormous, the biggest in many years. And the Big Oil companies are going in with the biggest, most beautiful rigs you’ve ever seen.”
One poll from the Venezuelan firm Meganálisis in March found that while the public was initially happy to be rid of their autocratic president, Nicolás Maduro—who was abducted by US forces in January—the majority now feel that Trump's action had little to do with democracy or the well-being of the Venezuelan people and more to do with handing control of the country's nationalized oil reserves to American companies, which Trump stated as his primary objective after ousting Maduro.
Trump left Maduro's vice president, Delcy Rodríguez, in place as Venezuela's interim leader with the promise that she'd act as a pliant collaborator with the US, whom she allowed to declare control over Venezuela's oil resources "indefinitely" amid market transitions.
The environmental activist group Global Witness has estimated that over the next 10 years, as much as $150 billion in oil revenue that was expected to go to the Venezuelan treasury, which could have funded projects to develop the impoverished country, instead may flow into the coffers of foreign companies.
Trump has spoken about the idea of Venezuela becoming the 51st state before, including after the country defeated Italy in the World Baseball Classic in March, when he posted on Truth Social: “STATEHOOD, #51, ANYONE?”
Last month, during a discussion about his desire to "take" Iran's oil, Trump described his takeover of Venezuela as something akin to the resource-hungry imperial conquests of centuries past.
"I'm a businessman first," he told reporters during a press briefing. "We've taken hundreds of millions of barrels [of oil], hundreds of millions... and paid for that war many, many times over. You know the old days, 'to the winner belong the spoils.' And I said, 'Why don't we use that?' We haven't had that in this country probably in 100 years." He then went on to lament the US-led efforts to "rebuild" Germany after World War II.
While the US has lifted personal sanctions on Rodríguez and some sanctions on the Venezuelan oil and banking sectors, most of the sanctions that have contributed to the country's economic collapse remain in place. "Full unrestricted access to global capital markets has not been restored," explained Roger D. Harris from the Task Force on the Americas and the US Peace Council in Common Dreams last week.
Actually adding Venezuela as a US state would require approval from both Congress and Venezuela itself—and Trump does not appear to have the latter.
Issuing a rare rebuke of the US on Monday, Rodríguez responded that becoming the 51st state "would never have been considered" by Venezuela.
"If there is one thing we Venezuelan men and women have, it is that we love our independence process, we love our heroes and heroines of independence," the interim leader said.
Though wars of conquest are expressly forbidden under international law, it's not clear what leverage Rodríguez would have to resist if Trump attempted to make good on his goal of expanding US territory.
Argemino Barro, a Spanish political journalist and author, said the possibility that he's serious can't be dismissed.
"Yes, of course, we can dismiss it as provocation or delusion, say that it's impracticable for XYZ reasons, etc. But this kind of comment is a window into the mindset of a man who fabricates his own reality, and not only that, but imposes it on others," Barro said. "Trump wants to build the world's largest triumphal arch right in the middle of Washington, overshadowing the Lincoln Memorial; he wants his face on coins and passports; his name appears on institutions, one airport. Annexing Venezuela, in his mind, fits 100%."
"I think Trump's true priority, ahead of absolutely everything else, is to go down in history in big letters. To enter the league of Alexander the Great, Jesus Christ, and Genghis Khan," he added. "Remaking everything, no matter in which direction or with what consequences."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Venezuela Buys Time to Rebuild While Under Siege
The current fraught détente with Washington is a window of opportunity to recover an economy operating at roughly 30% of its pre-sanctions level.
May 03, 2026
Although progressives are rightly concerned about US-coerced compromises and concessions, it is equally important to understand the resilience and continuing successes of Venezuela’s Bolivarian Revolution. Focusing only on the half-empty aspect of the proverbial glass obscures the strength of the resistance and conceals the vulnerabilities of the imperial juggernaut.
On a delegation to Venezuela, the constant refrain from both high-ranking government officials and grassroots Chavistas—supporters of the movement led by former President Hugo Chávez—was that they were urgently “buying time.”
A quarter-century of US hybrid war on Venezuela, especially the unilateral coercive measures (sanctions), has had a corrosive effect. The current fraught détente with Washington is a window of opportunity to recover an economy operating at roughly 30% of its pre-sanctions level.
President Maduro’s kidnapping
The kidnapping of President Nicolás Maduro and First Lady Cilia Flores by US special forces on January 3 was “the one scenario we didn’t expect,” according to former Venezuelan Deputy Foreign minister Carlos Ron.
The kidnapping was a military success for the US. But politically Washington had no viable alternative to the Chavistas retaining power.
Abducting a lawful head of state—an egregious violation of international law—is not, however, unprecedented. In 2004, the US flew Haiti’s Jean-Bertrand Aristide to the Central African Republic in what Washington claimed was a voluntary decision, but which Aristide called a kidnapping. In 1990, following a bloody invasion, the US extradited Panama’s Manuel Noriega.
Leading up to January 3, Washington had incrementally tightened its stranglehold over Venezuela. Initial sanctions imposed in 2015 evolved from targeted measures to broad sectoral restrictions, especially on oil and finance. “Secondary sanctions” followed, penalizing non-US actors engaged with Venezuela. By December an outright military “total and complete blockade” piratically seized oil tankers.
US President Donald Trump also designated the so-called Cartel de los Soles as a terrorist organization, allegedly headed by Maduro. A $25-million bounty on Maduro under former US President Joe Biden was doubled in August. The following month, the US commenced extrajudicial murders of alleged drug runners in small boats in the Caribbean and the eastern Pacific. By October, Trump suspended all communication with the Maduro government.
Resilience and Continuity
Despite post-kidnapping concessions, it is instructive to consider what hasn’t happened. The political leadership did not splinter, and the country did not descend into chaos. The US-directed fate of Libya in 2011 was not to be repeated in Venezuela.
Venezuela maintained constitutional continuity. Shortly after the strike, then Vice President Delcy Rodríguez was sworn in as acting president. Other top leaders—National Assembly President Jorge Rodríguez, Interior Minister Diosdado Cabello, and Defense Minister Vladimir Padrino López—remained in place and unified. The civic-military unity held fast.
Under intense US pressure, high-ranking militants have been replaced. Padrino, who was swapped for Gustavo González López, another committed Chavista, remains influential in his new cabinet position heading the critical agricultural ministry. In this whack-a-mole scenario, the major exception to the government’s strategy of yielding in form to US pressure but maintaining a Chavista essence is the new Vice Foreign Minister for North America and Europe, Oliver Blanco, who is from the opposition.
Another triumph is that a highly divided population did not erupt into civil conflict. Instead, the attack produced a rally-around-the-flag effect, with some moderate opposition figures showing a new openness to the ruling party.
Nor was Noble Prize winner and far-rightist María Corina Machado imposed as president. She had signaled that if she took power there would be a retaliatory bloodbath against Chavistas. Meanwhile, the US effectively abandoned the bogus claim that Maduro headed the Cartel de los Soles.
Diplomatic Thaw and Economic Openings
On March 7, Washington formally recognized the Venezuelan government led by Rodríguez, marking a reversal of its policy since 2019. Trump even informally referred to her as “president-elect,” though the return of Maduro from US imprisonment as the rightful chief remains Venezuela’s national priority. On April 27, the US modified sanctions to allow the Venezuelan government to pay Maduro’s defense lawyers.
Financial easing is proceeding. In the late 1990s-early 2000s, the US bought more than half of Venezuela’s oil exports. Oil sales have again resumed under a highly restructured and controlled system, while the US has also taken steps to shield Venezuelan state assets from creditor seizure. The Rodríguez government is in the process of regaining control of Citgo Petroleum, the “crown jewel” of Venezuela's foreign assets, which the US had seized.
What has been achieved is not a lifting of sanctions, but a controlled reentry into international finance under US licensing and oversight.
Washington has authorized transactions with Venezuela’s central bank and major state banks, reversing the 2019 measures that had effectively cut them off from the global financial system. This policy change allows dollar-denominated transactions and access to US financial channels.
For the first time in years, Venezuela’s core financial institutions can operate in international banking channels. What makes this significant is that it allows oil revenues from US transactions to enter the domestic economy. That in turn helps stabilize liquidity, reducing the need for monetary expansion that had fueled inflation.
On April 16, the International Monetary Fund (IMF) resumed engagement with Venezuela. Previously, the US-dominated IMF had cut Venezuela off from its $5-million “special drawing rights” (SDR). Rodríguez said she will only access its rightful SDR account to be used for social programs and not apply for loans.
Still, the core US sanctions framework remains in place, with most transactions subject to case-by-case authorization. Full unrestricted access to global capital markets has not been restored. What has been achieved is not a lifting of sanctions, but a controlled reentry into international finance under US licensing and oversight.
Prospects
Gross Domestic Product (GDP) continues its consecutive 20-quarter expansion. New and long-considered legislative reforms for hydrocarbons and minerals encourage needed foreign investment vital for economic recovery. Although the changes involved some bitter pills, the rationale is that it is better to compromise than to keep these resources in the ground where they generate no income.
Rodríguez lauded a new amnesty law, creating a “new historical moment… of national reunification.” The long-polarized Venezuelan people yearn for domestic tranquility, according to Jesús Rodríguez-Espinoza, editor of the Caracas-based Orinoco Tribune.
Venezuela has so far escaped the severity of the economic strangulation that Cuba is now suffering or the military pummeling on the scale of Iran. The US-Israeli war in the Middle East may even be creating a temporary opening for Venezuela, as Trump needs the prospect of freely available Venezuelan oil to help calm jittery oil markets.
Trump may have also calculated that engagement with the Chavistas offered greater strategic benefits than assassination or a large-scale invasion, while using the kidnapping to placate domestic hawks pushing for full regime change. Significantly for US imperial objectives, Venezuela’s connections with other counter-hegemonic countries were curtailed.
Washington’s strategy since January 3 has focused on Venezuela’s stabilization and economic recovery. Their deferred third phase, “political transition,” is another word for regime change. Rodríguez has made clear that “free and fair” elections can be held only if the blackmail of US sanctions is removed. Thousands marched in a national “Pilgrimage for a Venezuela Without Sanctions and Peace.”
The kidnapping was a military success for the US. But politically Washington had no viable alternative to the Chavistas retaining power, given their strength, according to former Venezuelan Foreign Minister Jorge Areaza. The only other option for the invader was to face a Vietnam-style guerilla war. The Bolivarian Revolution has persisted and is still fighting. On balance, the glass is decisively more than half full.
Keep ReadingShow Less
After the US Bombing, a Venezuelan Community Under Siege Speaks
A solidarity brigade visited Ciudad Tiuna 50 days after the US bombing to hear the resident’s accounts. Here's what we learned.
Apr 24, 2026
The large-scale US airstrike on Venezuela was unprecedented in modern history. The surprise attack forcibly kidnapped President Nicolás Maduro and his wife, First Combatant Cilia Flores, from Fort Tiuna on the outskirts of Caracas. The US killed over 100 people in the early morning hours of January 3, 2026, including reportedly some civilians in the neighboring Ciudad Tiuna social housing complex.
We visited Ciudad Tiuna 50 days after the US bombing to hear the resident’s accounts. We were the second “solidarity brigade” to visit Venezuela and the first to arrive by air. The delegation consisted primarily of activists from the US, along with Canada, Colombia, Brazil, and Mexico. CodePink, Task Force on the Americas, Veterans for Peace, and World Beyond War were among the solidarity organizations represented.
A sign reads, "Welcome to the socialist city of Tiuna." (Photo by Roger D. Harris)
Ciudad Tiuna is a planned housing complex of some 20,000 units, part of the national Gran Misión Vivienda Venezuela program. Apartments are allocated with priority to families displaced by disasters and to low-income households. As of December 2025, over 5 million units have reportedly been delivered nationwide.
We were enthusiastically greeted by a community-based club affiliated with the Abuelos y Abuelas de la Patria (Grandparents of the Homeland) mission, a government program empowering seniors in communal life. They organized a cultural presentation and introduced us to social and political organizations in their socialist city.
Our hosts also had a frank take-home message for us: “We never invaded; we liberated. Take our passion and love to give you strength to do what you must and rise up.”
A woman sang for Mother Earth accompanied by a shaman drum. A man read poetry by Allen Ginsberg and Walt Whitman, remarking “not all North Americans fornicate with their mothers” (loosely translated from Spanish).
In a tribute to Cuba, residents said they do not speak of solidarity with Cubans because “we are one people.” They praised the Cuban’s courage, including the 32 presidential guards murdered by the US in the January 3 attack. They also highlighted Cuban’s generosity in helping Venezuela achieve “territory free of illiteracy” status by 2005. Programs such as Misión Barrio Adentro brought thousands of Cuban doctors into poor urban and rural communities to provide free primary care.
And most of all, they deeply lamented the current US military blockade of Cuba, which has prevented Venezuela from supplying vital oil to the island. The suffering imposed by Washington on the Cubans pained them deeply.
They do not speak of solidarity with Cubans because “we are one people.” (Photo by Roger D. Harris)
They shared a flyer titled “Never Again–January 3–Diplomacy for Peace,” which read in part:
Neither forgiveness nor forgetting! Memory is not resentment, but the heart of the people’s dignity who have been attacked. A people without justice becomes submissive. Impunity flourishes if we do not sow justice. We will not tire of weaving unity to triumph.
Their immediate demand is the release of their president and first lady. The flyer also calls for defense of popular sovereignty, no intervention by imperialism in Venezuelan affairs, and reparations for the “offended homeland.”
Their immediate demand is the release of their president and first lady. (Photo by Roger D. Harris)
The flier concludes with a quote from Delcy Rodríguez: “The dignity of the Venezuelan people is the first line of defense. We have to preserve our integrity as a people, guarantee our territorial integrity, and preserve our national independence.”
January 3 was not unanticipated but nevertheless a great shock. During a walking tour, they described the terror of the sneak attack. They told us each time the Venezuelan people successfully resisted Washington’s attempts at regime change—attacks dating back from the founding of their Bolivarian Revolution 26 years ago by then-Venezuelan President Hugo Chávez—the siege has been racketed up.
“We were all running because we were being bombed.” (Photo by Roger D. Harris)
Fabricio, age 11, described a sky lit red with explosions and filled with US helicopters. The elders vowed, “Never again will we allow our children to be traumatized.” Government mental health workers have since been regularly visiting Ciudad Tiuna.
“Never again will we allow our children to be traumatized.” (Photo by Roger D. Harris)
They explained how they truly felt the horror that the Palestinians experience. The difference, they added, was that for them it was a single day while in Gaza it is every day.
At the time, many feared the attack could signal a protracted full-scale land invasion. Such an incursion, they warned, could well be launched in the future. (This was also the opinion of government officials that we conferred with.)
They are proud that the Bolivarian leadership remains firm and united. This they attribute to the support of the people such as themselves. The concessions forced upon the government under the threat of an even more devastating attack have been bitter to accept, but better than the alternative of greater destruction.
Dudar es traición—to doubt is to betray. (Photo by Roger D. Harris)
Our hosts described themselves as Chavistas, militants in support of the current government. Some wore shirts bearing the phrase dudar es traición—to doubt is to betray. Their lived experience is of a nation under imperial siege—in a perpetual state of war with the threat of more. Under such circumstances unity is prioritized.
Under conditions of siege, unity is prioritized. (Photo by Roger D. Harris)
They rejected speculation that the kidnapping was aided by traitors within, arguing that such narratives serve the purposes of the enemy of eroding unity by fostering distrust. They emphasized the continuity of revolutionary policy from Chávez to Maduro and now to Delcy, as she is affectionately called.
Conditions have changed, but not the leadership’s dedication. They noted that regional solidarity has weakened, leaving Venezuela ever more isolated.
Before we departed, several children gave us gifts: handmade wristbands in the national colors, decorated pencils, and a book on climate change from a Marxist perspective. Our hosts also had a frank take-home message for us: “We never invaded; we liberated. Take our passion and love to give you strength to do what you must and rise up.” The hardships caused by the US sanctions—including shortages of medicine and essential goods—are linked to the failure of North Americans to restrain our own government.
After being scared away by the US bombing, the wild parrots have returned to the community. (Photo by Roger D. Harris)
Meanwhile, the wild guacamayas (blue-and-yellow macaws), which once came to Ciudad Tiuna to be fed by residents but disappeared after the bombing, have now returned to a community that asks only to be left in peace.
Venezuela is a territory of peace. (Photo by Roger D. Harris)
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Corruption Starts at the Top': US Soldier Arrested for Profiting Off Bets on Maduro Abduction
One House Democrat said the soldier charged with placing successful bets using classified information was "probably just copying what he's seeing elsewhere."
Apr 24, 2026
The US Justice Department announced Thursday that an American special forces soldier has been arrested and charged for pocketing over $400,000 by betting, on the basis of classified information, on the timing of the Trump administration's illegal abduction of Nicolás Maduro earlier this year.
Gannon Ken Van Dyke, an active-duty soldier in the US Army who was involved in planning and executing the operation to kidnap Maduro in early January, was charged with "unlawful use of confidential government information for personal gain, theft of nonpublic government information, commodities fraud, wire fraud, and making an unlawful monetary transaction," the Justice Department said in a statement.
Van Dyke placed a total of 13 bets worth roughly $33,000 on the prediction platform Polymarket. All of his bets took the "yes" position on questions pertaining to whether US forces would invade Venezuela and remove Maduro before the end of January.
The unsealing of the Van Dyke indictment came amid mounting concerns that insiders at the Trump administration—which experts and watchdogs have deemed the most brazenly corrupt administration in US history—are profiting off nonpublic knowledge.
"This soldier was probably just copying what he’s seeing elsewhere," said Rep. Raja Krishnamoorthi (D-Ill.). "The culture of insider trading and corruption starts at the top and is permeating everywhere and everything. This is what people hate about our government now."
One expert gestured at the absurdity of a soldier who placed bets on the Venezuela operation being arrested—but not those in charge of ordering the operation itself, which was a flagrant violation of international law.
"I hear someone was arrested in connection with the patently illegal invasion of Venezuela," wrote Brian Finucane, senior adviser to the US Program at the International Crisis Group. "Can't wait to see who is going to be held accountable for this lawless use of military force..."
President Donald Trump, who has profited massively from his second term in the White House, told reporters on Thursday that he wasn't aware of the charges against Van Dyke. The president then asked, "Was he betting that they would get [Maduro] or they wouldn't get him?"
"That’s like Pete Rose betting on his own team," said Trump, referring to the Major League Baseball player and manager who was banned for gambling on games. "Now, if he bet against his team, that would be no good."
Reporter: There was a special forces soldier involved in the capture of Maduro who was arrested on suspicion of insider trading. Are you concerned that federal employees are betting on these reduction markets and potentially getting rich?
Trump: Well, I don't know about it. Was… pic.twitter.com/zmPNGuVL1s
— Acyn (@Acyn) April 23, 2026
Suspiciously timed bets on both the Maduro abduction and the US military assault on Iran have sparked alarm about potentially widespread, lucrative insider trading at the Trump administration and among those in the president's orbit.
Last month, The Financial Times reported that Pentagon Secretary Pete Hegseth's broker tried to make a multimillion-dollar investment in weapons stocks in the weeks leading up to the US-Israeli attack on Iran.
"The Iran War has become a corruption racket for the people close to President Trump," said Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.), the lead Senate sponsor of legislation that would prohibit "wagering on government actions, terrorism, war, assassination, and events where an individual knows or controls the outcome."
Keep ReadingShow Less
See More
Most Popular
To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good.
News & Opinion
Trending
Common Dreams, Inc. Founded 1997. Registered 501(c3) Non-Profit
Privacy Policy