Almost a month after the capture of Nicolás Maduro, the Trump administration’s motivation for the operation in Venezuela and its plan for the country remain unclear. On Wednesday, Secretary of State Marco Rubio testified in front of the Senate about the operation, but specifics are still scarce.
Since Maduro’s capture, the Trump administration has been working with and praising substitute dictator Delcy Rodriguez, while giving mixed signals at best about Venezuela’s opposition leader, Maria Corina Machado. But Machado deserves the U.S. government’s full moral support and to be seen and heard on this matter.
After Maduro’s capture, many people thought the U.S. government would work closely with Machado to transition out of the dictatorship (I’ve written separately about my grave concerns over the legitimacy of the operation). Instead, the administration began working with Maduro ally Delcy Rodriguez. This might be temporary and for a strategic reason, given the regime’s control of every branch of the government. But the repeated praise of Rodríguez is unnecessary, immoral, and deflating for everyone who cares about freedom. Trump has called Rodriguez “a terrific person” despite being one of the architects of Venezuela’s authoritarian regime, characterized his talks with her as “fascinating,” and said that “she’s very good to deal with” despite her regime causing one of the biggest humanitarian crises in Latin American history.
Machado, an advocate for free markets and the rule of law, has gotten worse treatment than Rodriguez. Trump’s initial remarks about her after the capture of Maduro were that she lacks “support” and that “she doesn’t have the respect” of Venezuelans (a lie—Machado’s candidate won the elections in 2024 by a landslide, but Maduro still claimed power).
Trump only changed his tune on Machado after she gave him her Nobel Peace Prize medal, stating that she’s “a fine woman”—hardly high praise, given his feelings for Rodriguez. Sec. Marco Rubio recently met with Machado, but it’s unclear what support he may have offered, as she later stated that “we are willing to facilitate a genuine transition . . . but not a Russian-style transition where mafias remain in control.”
Machado should get more support from the administration. César Báez, a Venezuelan journalist, expressed in an interview that “the real political change in Venezuela largely depends on stabilization of the country over the next decade or two. . . you just cannot do that with people that are rejected by 80% of the population,” referring to the Rodriguez regime.
It’s not only that Machado has the support of Venezuelans, she’s also an outstanding advocate for freedom and the values that America itself stands for.
She has been fighting authoritarianism for decades—first fighting against Hugo Chávez (who she confronted face-to-face in the General Assembly, calling his expropriations “theft”) and later against Maduro. She understands much of what makes socialism evil, explaining that socialism takes away individual autonomy and sacrifices it in the altar of “equality.” Unlike other political leaders in Venezuela, like Enrique Capriles, she doesn’t offer socialism-lite, but a radical alternative.
Machado stands for mostly free markets, with the individual freedom they require. She advocates the elimination of state control over the economy, calls for the privatization of state-owned enterprises (including oil), and strengthening property rights—the right of people to keep the fruits of their own labor.
Báez explains that Machado has prompted a shift towards freedom in the minds of Venezuelans. He cites the example of Venezuelans’ attitude towards wealth: Chávez, a socialist who was initially elected with the popular vote, regarded wealth as immoral, and condemned those who had it. Machado began talking to people face-to-face and explaining why that view is destructive and why they shouldn’t be ashamed of creating wealth, and Venezuelans began embracing that view. “This is part of the transformation that María Corina is pushing in the political culture of Venezuela, and that partially explains her leadership and her role,” says Báez, adding that Machado is a “classical liberal.”
During the 2024 presidential elections, Machado organized a massive network of election observers who thoroughly documented Maduro’s electoral fraud. The network comprised over one million volunteers, she says, and operating in a dictatorship was extremely challenging and risky. She was able to successfully document the electoral fraud and was one of the efforts that partially led to the international community’s realization of Maduro’s tactics. Machado has proven time and time again she’s an effective leader.
One can disagree with Machado about her treatment of the Trump administration, or some of her concrete policy views, but she has a plan that’s rooted in the rule of law and the protection of rights.. She proposes policies for the short, medium and long term to bring Venezuela back to republicanism (by creating independent branches of government, a more federal structure, a “smaller but more robust” state, and a state “in service of its citizens”), rescuing the Venezuelan economy (by protecting private property, stabilizing inflation, cutting deficits, restoring central bank independence, restructuring debt, and privatizations), among many others.
One should question why the U.S. is involved in Venezuela, but now that it is, it must do justice by Venezuelans and not push for the country to settle into another dictatorship, embolden the dictator in any way, and sideline the country’s most credible democratic leader. If Venezuelans are to reclaim their country from dictatorship, it will be at the hands of someone like Machado.
Agustina Vergara Cid is a columnist for the Southern California News Group. She is a senior contributor for Young Voices, a center-right nonprofit agency. Follow her on X: @agustinavcid