WASHINGTON (AP) — President Donald Trump has made broad but vague assertions that the United States is going to “run” Venezuela after the ouster of Nicolás Maduro but has offered almost no details about how it will do so, raising questions among some lawmakers and former officials about the administration’s level of planning for the country after Maduro is gone.
The uncertainty has been amplified by statements Trump and Secretary of State Marco Rubio made publicly that appeared to suggest different ideas about what the U.S. role would be. The article said that at once, Trump’s remarks suggested the U.S. controls the levers of Venezuelan power, while Rubio indicated the administration would rely on existing tools rather than assuming day-to-day governance.
Rubio said the U.S. would rely on existing sanctions on Venezuela’s oil sector and criminal gangs to wield leverage with Maduro’s successors. The article said that discrepancy about “how to proceed” has not sat well with some former diplomats.
Dan Fried, a retired career diplomat who served as assistant secretary of state and sanctions coordinator under Democratic and Republican administrations, said, “It strikes me that we have no idea whatsoever as to what’s next.” Fried also said Trump’s remarks about running the country and Rubio’s “uncomfortable walk back” suggest that even within a small group involved, there is disagreement about how to proceed, according to the article.
Supporters of the operation, the article said, see less ambiguity. Rich Goldberg, a sanctions proponent who worked at the National Energy Dominance Council at the White House until last year and is now a senior adviser to the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, said the president “speaks in big headlines and euphemisms.” Goldberg said he does not expect Rubio to become “the superintendent of schools,” adding that “effectively, the U.S. will be calling the shots.”
Goldberg said there are people at the top who can make what the U.S. wants happen or not, and that “we right now control their purse strings and their lives,” according to the article. He said the president and the secretary both think those tools are enough and that, if they are not, “we’ll know very soon and we’ll deal with it.”
The article also reported that if planning for the U.S. “to run” Venezuela existed prior to Maduro’s arrest and extradition on federal drug charges, it was confined to a small group of Trump political allies. Current U.S. officials, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said they were not aware of any preparations for either a military occupation or an interim civilian governing authority, which the article said has been a priority for previous administrations when contemplating war to oust a leader.
The White House and the State Department’s press office did not return messages seeking comment, the article said. It added that past military actions that deposed autocratic leaders—including Panama in 1989 and Iraq in 2003—were preceded by months, if not years, of interagency discussion and debate over how to handle power vacuums.
In Panama, the George H.W. Bush administration had nearly a full year of preparations to launch the invasion that ousted Panama’s leader Manuel Noriega, the article said, noting that Panama is smaller than Venezuela and that the U.S. occupation was not intended to retake territory or natural resources. The article said Venezuela, by contrast, is vastly larger in size and population and has a decadeslong history of animosity toward the United States.
Fried, the article said, argued that earlier outcomes varied. He said, “Panama was not successful because it was supported internationally because it wasn’t,” and added, “It was a success because it led to a quick, smooth transfer to a democratic government.” The article said Fried was referring to Trump’s apparent dismissal of opposition leader Maria Corina Machado, whose party is widely believed to have won elections in 2024 and which Maduro refused to accept.
The article said Trump told supporters that Machado “doesn’t have the support within or the respect within the country” to be a credible leader, and suggested he would be OK with Maduro’s No. 2, Delcy Rodríguez, remaining in power as long as she works with the U.S.
The article contrasted the current situation with previous examples cited by critics. It said that in Iraq and Afghanistan, best-case scenarios predicted by earlier U.S. administrations did not play out as hoped, and that early euphoria after military victories gave way to prolonged outcomes at high expense of money and lives.
Rubio, however, sought to underscore differences, saying this weekend of Venezuela and its neighbors: “Venezuela looks nothing like Libya, it looks nothing like Iraq, it looks nothing like Afghanistan. It looks nothing like the Middle East,” and “These are Western countries with long traditions at a people-to-people and cultural level, and ties to the United States, so it’s nothing like that,” according to the article.
As questions persist over what comes next in Venezuela, the article said Trump campaigned on a platform of extricating the U.S. from foreign wars and entanglements, a position that has left some supporters seeking explanations for what he has in mind.
Republican Rep. Thomas Massie of Kentucky posted on X after the operation, writing, “Wake up MAGA,” and saying, “VENEZUELA is not about drugs; it’s about OIL and REGIME CHANGE. This is not what we voted for.” Sen. Rand Paul, also a Kentucky Republican who often criticizes military interventions, said on social media, “time will tell if regime change in Venezuela is successful without significant monetary or human cost.”
Paul also wrote, according to the article, that arguing such policy is easier when the action is short, swift and effective, but less so when that “unitary power” drains resources and lives—an outcome he cited as occurring in Afghanistan, Iraq and Vietnam.