Why Did Trump Choose Delcy Over Machado? A Controversial Decision That Could Shape Venezuela’s Future
The dramatic events in Caracas last weekend have left the world with more questions than answers. But one question stands out: Why did the Trump administration back Delcy Rodríguez, a figure deeply tied to Nicolás Maduro’s regime, instead of María Corina Machado, the opposition leader widely believed to have won the 2024 presidential elections? This decision has sparked intense debate, with some calling it a pragmatic move and others labeling it a betrayal of democracy.
But here’s where it gets controversial... While Machado’s movement represents a clear mandate for change, the Trump administration opted for stability over democratic ideals. Former U.S. Ambassador to Venezuela Charles Shapiro bluntly states, “They’ve gone for stability over democracy. They’ve kept the dictatorial regime in place without the dictator. The henchmen are still there.” Shapiro’s words highlight a harsh reality: the U.S. has chosen to work with a system it once vowed to dismantle, raising questions about its long-term strategy.
And this is the part most people miss... The decision wasn’t just about avoiding chaos. Backing Machado could have led to dangerous infighting among opposition factions and alienated the estimated 30% of Venezuelans who still support Maduro. During his press conference, President Trump dismissed Machado as “not respected” inside Venezuela, while praising Rodríguez as “gracious.” This stark contrast left many observers, including former U.S. officials like Kevin Whitaker, baffled. “Her movement was massively elected…and so disqualifying Machado, in effect, disqualified that whole movement,” Whitaker noted.
The swift removal of Maduro and Rodríguez’s seamless rise to power have fueled conspiracy theories. Former CIA officer Lindsay Moran speculates, “It’s obvious that there were high-placed sources. My immediate speculation was that those high-placed sources were in the office of the VP, if not the VP herself.” However, Phil Gunson, a senior analyst with the International Crisis Group, dismisses this theory, pointing out that real power still lies with Maduro loyalists like General Vladimir Padrino Lopez and Diosdado Cabello. “Why would she sell out Maduro, leaving her defenceless against the guys who really control the guns?” Gunson asks.
The Trump administration’s decision was influenced by warnings of potential violence and instability. An October ICG report cautioned, “Washington should beware of regime change. The risks of violence in any post-Maduro scenario should not be downplayed.” Similarly, a classified U.S. intelligence assessment concluded that members of Maduro’s regime, including Rodríguez, were better positioned to lead a temporary government. Henry Ziemer, an associate fellow at the Centre for Strategic and International Studies, describes this as “a bit of hard-nosed realism” on the part of the Trump administration.
But here’s the bigger question: Is this a sustainable strategy? While Rodríguez may be willing to cooperate with U.S. interests—such as opening Venezuela to foreign capital and scaling down ties with Cuba, China, and Russia—her ability to deliver genuine democratic progress remains uncertain. “If the U.S. is asking for genuine progress towards a democratic transition, that becomes much harder,” Ziemer notes. Meanwhile, Secretary of State Marco Rubio’s three-stage plan focuses on stabilization, oil marketing, and reconciliation, with democratic transition seemingly relegated to the back burner.
And this is where it gets even more contentious... Article 233 of Venezuela’s constitution mandates fresh elections within 30 days of a president becoming “permanently unavailable to serve.” Yet, President Trump has ruled out elections, stating, “We have to fix the country first. You can’t have an election.” This stance has drawn criticism, with Gunson arguing, “Trump may be getting something out of this, but Venezuelans aren’t. Ordinary Venezuelans are getting screwed as usual.”
As the Trump administration touts the potential for international oil companies to reinvest in Venezuela, Gunson warns that reality may be far more complex. “Nobody’s going to come in here with the tens of billions of dollars required…if the government is illegitimate and there’s no rule of law,” he says. The parallels to Hugo Chávez’s “dedazo”—his personal anointment of Maduro as successor—are hard to ignore. Ambassador Shapiro sums it up: “This is Trump’s dedazo.”
So, what do you think? Was the Trump administration’s decision a pragmatic move to avoid chaos, or a missed opportunity to support democracy? Is Rodríguez the right leader for Venezuela’s future, or just a continuation of the past? Share your thoughts in the comments—this debate is far from over.
