Former U.S. diplomat Brett Bruen in Venezuela explains why the country’s terrain and power structure risk turning regime change into America’s next Iraq.
Excellent discussion- thank you. Interesting that invading Venezuela was listed in the Heritage Foundation’s Project 2025. They seem to be following that roadmap pretty seamlessly, so this shouldn’t be as big of a surprise. Christian Nationalist survivor/writer/decoder @Andra Watkins covers this in her last post- totally worth reading.
Tara: you should retire from journalism, You are so beside the point. to the point doing this interview with the infamous GOP idiot. Actually, you are on par with the worst
Uhhhhh he’s a Democrat though (not sure he’s infamous or an idiot either?). I just hope I’ve pointed this out in time and she doesn’t actually retire from journalism as a result of having read this comment 😉.
Venezuela after Maduro: power preserved, democracy postponed
The capture of Nicolás Maduro through a tightly controlled operation authorised by Donald Trump was widely framed as a turning point for Venezuela. It was not. What followed was neither regime change nor democratic transition, but a reconfiguration of authoritarian power aimed at removing an inconvenient leader while preserving the system that sustains it.
Trump’s priority, shared by Marco Rubio, was not the restoration of democracy or human rights. It was the elimination of a political actor with whom no workable dialogue was possible. Maduro had become an obstacle: unpredictable, ideologically rigid and incapable of negotiating seriously, particularly on issues central to US strategic interests such as oil.
Venezuela’s vast crude reserves remain geopolitically significant. But expectations that Maduro’s removal would quickly open the country to US corporate exploitation are unrealistic. Years of corruption, mismanagement and sanctions have left the oil sector in ruins. Infrastructure is severely degraded and would require tens of billions of dollars and many years to become operational. Trump’s move was therefore political rather than economic: about leverage, not immediate profit.
The decision to back Delcy Rodríguez as Maduro’s successor exposes the real logic of this intervention. Rodríguez is no reformer. She has been a central figure of the regime for years—first as foreign minister, later as vice president—and is widely regarded as complicit in systematic human rights abuses, including arbitrary detentions, torture and the persecution of political opponents.
What distinguishes Rodríguez from Maduro is not her record, but her utility. She is considered pragmatic, disciplined and politically astute. Crucially, she had already begun discreet contacts with the Trump administration, effectively bypassing Maduro. Dialogue with her was possible; with Maduro it was not. Once Maduro was removed, Rodríguez emerged as the preferred guarantor of continuity.
The objective was clear: preserve the existing power structure while improving governability and predictability. Rodríguez represents an authoritarian leadership capable of negotiation and adjustment under US pressure. This approach reflects a long-standing pattern in US foreign policy: prioritising stability and control over democratic transformation.
Little has changed beneath the surface. Key figures of the Chavista power structure remain firmly in place, including Diosdado Cabello, Vladimir Padrino and Jorge Rodríguez, Delcy Rodríguez’s brother. Venezuela’s military apparatus remains vast and fragmented, with roughly 1,000 generals exercising overlapping territorial and economic control. Paramilitary groups known as colectivos continue to operate as instruments of repression and intimidation. There has been no demilitarisation, no institutional reform and no meaningful accountability.
US accommodation with authoritarian regimes in Latin America has deep historical roots, particularly under Republican administrations. There have been exceptions. The presidencies of John F. Kennedy and, most notably, Jimmy Carter placed human rights at the centre of regional policy. More recently, Joe Biden sought—imperfectly—to reintroduce democratic conditionality.
Trump represents the opposite instinct. Leaders who undermine democratic norms at home tend to feel more comfortable dealing with authoritarian counterparts abroad. Dictatorships do not demand accountability, constitutional limits or respect for pluralism—principles Trump himself has repeatedly challenged.
This disinterest in democracy is most evident in Trump’s treatment of María Corina Machado, the central figure of Venezuela’s democratic opposition. Trump publicly dismissed her, claiming—without evidence—that she lacked popular support. In reality, Machado commands close to 70% approval and has maintained strong ties with Venezuelan society despite years in hiding under constant threat.
Machado represents precisely what Trump does not want: an independent leader committed to democratic reconstruction rather than transactional politics. Her rise would mean the re-emergence of institutions, accountability and sovereignty—outcomes incompatible with a strategy based on managed authoritarianism.
Venezuela today remains a totalitarian state. The difference is that it now operates under heightened US influence, approaching the status of a de facto protectorate. This marks a new phase—one that should be analysed not as liberation, but as authoritarian continuity under external supervision.
I have followed Venezuela since the rise of Hugo Chávez. Since his death, the country has experienced an increasingly brutal concentration of power. My perspective is informed not only by long-term observation, but also by close contact with Venezuelan political refugees in Buenos Aires.
In Argentina, around 550,000 Venezuelans have rebuilt their lives, integrating successfully into work, education and cultural life. Their presence is a reminder that Venezuela’s crisis is not abstract. It is lived daily by millions forced to flee a system that survives not through legitimacy, but through force.
Whether Maduro is good or bad is irrelevant. It's illegal and wrong. And there is no more dangerous criminal in charge of any country in the world than Trump. Let Venezuela decide who their leader should be. It's not up to anyone outside Venezuela
It’s not by chance or happenstance. This is by design. The parallel is the point. Since when has this administration been about “The People’s best interest.” This has nothing to do with governing or leadership. This is a villain or Team of Villains working for their own purposes to their own benefit. Whatever problems will be left to Americans to pick up the peaces and if his illnesses don’t end his life before the consequences of these actions hit home, he will seek asylum elsewhere. They are all pariahs.
i would LOVE to know what on Earth Trump imagines he’s done that would in any way have awarded him the NOBEL Peace Prize. An amazing mystery… i've seen NO information that has ever sited Trump as a Peacemaker
Well said. Totally agree.
Thank you Tara.
Great guest. I learned so much.
so happy to hear it
Thanks for this, really insightful and always helpful with people who have actually been in a place and know the realities of a situation
Excellent discussion- thank you. Interesting that invading Venezuela was listed in the Heritage Foundation’s Project 2025. They seem to be following that roadmap pretty seamlessly, so this shouldn’t be as big of a surprise. Christian Nationalist survivor/writer/decoder @Andra Watkins covers this in her last post- totally worth reading.
I didn't know that, fascinating
Brett: Stephen Miller indicating he might run Venuzuela....Tara: OMG Stephen Miller, gives eye roll and look of disgust... 🤣
Tara: you should retire from journalism, You are so beside the point. to the point doing this interview with the infamous GOP idiot. Actually, you are on par with the worst
Uhhhhh he’s a Democrat though (not sure he’s infamous or an idiot either?). I just hope I’ve pointed this out in time and she doesn’t actually retire from journalism as a result of having read this comment 😉.
I am talking about this bizarre interview with Santos
Venezuela after Maduro: power preserved, democracy postponed
The capture of Nicolás Maduro through a tightly controlled operation authorised by Donald Trump was widely framed as a turning point for Venezuela. It was not. What followed was neither regime change nor democratic transition, but a reconfiguration of authoritarian power aimed at removing an inconvenient leader while preserving the system that sustains it.
Trump’s priority, shared by Marco Rubio, was not the restoration of democracy or human rights. It was the elimination of a political actor with whom no workable dialogue was possible. Maduro had become an obstacle: unpredictable, ideologically rigid and incapable of negotiating seriously, particularly on issues central to US strategic interests such as oil.
Venezuela’s vast crude reserves remain geopolitically significant. But expectations that Maduro’s removal would quickly open the country to US corporate exploitation are unrealistic. Years of corruption, mismanagement and sanctions have left the oil sector in ruins. Infrastructure is severely degraded and would require tens of billions of dollars and many years to become operational. Trump’s move was therefore political rather than economic: about leverage, not immediate profit.
The decision to back Delcy Rodríguez as Maduro’s successor exposes the real logic of this intervention. Rodríguez is no reformer. She has been a central figure of the regime for years—first as foreign minister, later as vice president—and is widely regarded as complicit in systematic human rights abuses, including arbitrary detentions, torture and the persecution of political opponents.
What distinguishes Rodríguez from Maduro is not her record, but her utility. She is considered pragmatic, disciplined and politically astute. Crucially, she had already begun discreet contacts with the Trump administration, effectively bypassing Maduro. Dialogue with her was possible; with Maduro it was not. Once Maduro was removed, Rodríguez emerged as the preferred guarantor of continuity.
The objective was clear: preserve the existing power structure while improving governability and predictability. Rodríguez represents an authoritarian leadership capable of negotiation and adjustment under US pressure. This approach reflects a long-standing pattern in US foreign policy: prioritising stability and control over democratic transformation.
Little has changed beneath the surface. Key figures of the Chavista power structure remain firmly in place, including Diosdado Cabello, Vladimir Padrino and Jorge Rodríguez, Delcy Rodríguez’s brother. Venezuela’s military apparatus remains vast and fragmented, with roughly 1,000 generals exercising overlapping territorial and economic control. Paramilitary groups known as colectivos continue to operate as instruments of repression and intimidation. There has been no demilitarisation, no institutional reform and no meaningful accountability.
US accommodation with authoritarian regimes in Latin America has deep historical roots, particularly under Republican administrations. There have been exceptions. The presidencies of John F. Kennedy and, most notably, Jimmy Carter placed human rights at the centre of regional policy. More recently, Joe Biden sought—imperfectly—to reintroduce democratic conditionality.
Trump represents the opposite instinct. Leaders who undermine democratic norms at home tend to feel more comfortable dealing with authoritarian counterparts abroad. Dictatorships do not demand accountability, constitutional limits or respect for pluralism—principles Trump himself has repeatedly challenged.
This disinterest in democracy is most evident in Trump’s treatment of María Corina Machado, the central figure of Venezuela’s democratic opposition. Trump publicly dismissed her, claiming—without evidence—that she lacked popular support. In reality, Machado commands close to 70% approval and has maintained strong ties with Venezuelan society despite years in hiding under constant threat.
Machado represents precisely what Trump does not want: an independent leader committed to democratic reconstruction rather than transactional politics. Her rise would mean the re-emergence of institutions, accountability and sovereignty—outcomes incompatible with a strategy based on managed authoritarianism.
Venezuela today remains a totalitarian state. The difference is that it now operates under heightened US influence, approaching the status of a de facto protectorate. This marks a new phase—one that should be analysed not as liberation, but as authoritarian continuity under external supervision.
I have followed Venezuela since the rise of Hugo Chávez. Since his death, the country has experienced an increasingly brutal concentration of power. My perspective is informed not only by long-term observation, but also by close contact with Venezuelan political refugees in Buenos Aires.
In Argentina, around 550,000 Venezuelans have rebuilt their lives, integrating successfully into work, education and cultural life. Their presence is a reminder that Venezuela’s crisis is not abstract. It is lived daily by millions forced to flee a system that survives not through legitimacy, but through force.
Suspect Russia is a player in this action. Dictatorship rising is a theme. Lives lost and the power over dance continues.
Whether Maduro is good or bad is irrelevant. It's illegal and wrong. And there is no more dangerous criminal in charge of any country in the world than Trump. Let Venezuela decide who their leader should be. It's not up to anyone outside Venezuela
It’s only about oil contracts
It’s not by chance or happenstance. This is by design. The parallel is the point. Since when has this administration been about “The People’s best interest.” This has nothing to do with governing or leadership. This is a villain or Team of Villains working for their own purposes to their own benefit. Whatever problems will be left to Americans to pick up the peaces and if his illnesses don’t end his life before the consequences of these actions hit home, he will seek asylum elsewhere. They are all pariahs.
i would LOVE to know what on Earth Trump imagines he’s done that would in any way have awarded him the NOBEL Peace Prize. An amazing mystery… i've seen NO information that has ever sited Trump as a Peacemaker
💙💙💙
As a Canadian this concerns me deeply Elbows Up how can I help a retired grandma of 2 teens
Great discussion! I learned so much! Too bad highly qualified people like Bret are not in the administration now 😑
Why is ANYONE surprised by this????!!!!!