WASHINGTON – U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio has made clear that Washington’s strategy toward Venezuela is unfolding in stages, with stabilization and economic recovery preceding a full democratic transition. However, a widely circulated Spanish-language summary claiming Rubio told the Senate that Venezuela is “not in democratic transition” and is instead under “strategic administration” does not accurately reproduce his words.
A review by Curaçao Chronicle of Rubio’s statements, U.S. Senate material and recent reporting shows that several elements of the viral summary reflect actual U.S. policy, particularly Washington’s extraordinary control over Venezuelan oil revenues and its working relationship with interim President Delcy Rodríguez. Other claims, however, appear to be interpretations rather than direct statements by Rubio.
Rubio has described the U.S. approach following the January 3 capture of Nicolás Maduro as a three-stage process: stabilization, economic recovery and eventually political transition. He has also recently said that formal talks aimed at advancing Venezuela’s democratic transition were expected to begin in early August.
That distinction is important because the circulating text portrays Washington as having effectively abandoned an immediate democratic transition in favor of administering Venezuela through hard power.
In practice, Washington has indeed prioritized preventing Venezuela from collapsing after Maduro’s removal.
During Senate testimony in January, Rubio said the most immediate objective following the U.S. operation was to stabilize the country. Washington subsequently established a temporary arrangement with the Rodríguez government involving Venezuela’s oil revenues.
Under that mechanism, proceeds from certain Venezuelan oil sales are placed under U.S. supervision. Venezuelan authorities must account for how money is used, with funds intended to support government operations and essential services.
Rubio told senators that money had already been returned to Venezuela to help finance basic government expenses, including policing, sanitation and other necessities.
The arrangement represents an extraordinary degree of U.S. influence over Venezuela's principal source of income.
Washington has simultaneously maintained a working relationship with Rodríguez, Maduro's former vice president, despite her long association with the Chavista government.
That cooperation has become controversial in Washington.
Democratic Senators Jeanne Shaheen and Elizabeth Warren demanded an explanation from Rubio and Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent in May after sanctions against Rodríguez were lifted. They argued that Venezuela's political leadership remained dominated by officials associated with Maduro and questioned whether sanctions relief was advancing democratic change.
The criticism intensified in June.
Shaheen and Representative Gregory Meeks accused the Trump administration of failing to provide a clear timetable for democratic elections. They pointed to hundreds of political prisoners still being held and argued that the government remained largely staffed by figures from the Maduro era.
The debate highlights the central contradiction in Washington's Venezuela policy: the United States says democracy remains the ultimate objective while simultaneously relying on Rodríguez and existing state institutions to maintain stability.
Rubio nevertheless insists that the process is moving toward political change.
In July, he said formal discussions toward a democratic transition would begin in early August. Washington backed talks between representatives of Venezuela's 2015 National Assembly and the interim authorities aimed at establishing a political dialogue and eventually rebuilding democratic institutions.
The process remains highly controversial because María Corina Machado and Edmundo González, central figures in the opposition movement that challenged Maduro in the disputed 2024 presidential election, have not been central participants in the U.S.-backed talks.
Recent reporting indicates that Washington is instead supporting negotiations involving Dinorah Figuera and representatives of the 2015 National Assembly with officials connected to the Rodríguez government.
Political prisoners have also become an important measure of progress. Washington has repeatedly pressured Caracas over releases, while critics in Congress argue that hundreds remain imprisoned and that Venezuela's repressive institutions have not undergone sufficient structural reform.
The result is a Venezuela that is neither operating independently of Washington nor yet functioning as a restored democracy.
U.S. influence extends deeply into oil policy, sanctions, international financing and negotiations over the country's political future. But describing the situation as a U.S. “strategic administration,” as the viral text does, goes beyond Rubio's documented language.
The same applies to several other assertions circulating under Rubio's name, including the claim that he said the Maduro operation demonstrated that “only the United States” can conduct such a precision intervention. Curaçao Chronicle could not find reliable evidence that Rubio made that specific statement.
What is supported by the available record is more nuanced: Washington deliberately chose stabilization before immediate political transformation, established extensive control over important oil revenues, maintained an operational relationship with Rodríguez and is using economic and political leverage to push Venezuela toward a later democratic transition.
Whether that strategy ultimately produces democracy remains disputed even within the United States.
Critics in Congress fear Washington could end up stabilizing a modified version of the old political system rather than dismantling it. The administration argues that attempting to transform Venezuela overnight could instead produce institutional collapse and instability.
Seven months after Maduro's capture, that tension increasingly defines Venezuela's political future: Washington has acquired enormous leverage over the country, but the final destination of the transition — and who will ultimately govern Venezuela — remains unresolved.