CARACAS, Venezuela — Hours after U.S. forces captured Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro in a large‑scale military operation, President Donald Trump said the United States would “run the country” until a “safe, proper, and judicious transition” can take place. The comments immediately triggered a global debate over who should govern Venezuela during the power vacuum left by Maduro’s removal.
Trump said Venezuelan Vice President Delcy Rodríguez had been sworn in as interim president.The president said that “we’ve spoken to her [Rodriguez] numerous times, and she understands, she understands.” However, Rodríguez, speaking live on television Saturday, condemned the U.S. attack and demanded "the immediate release of President Nicolas Maduro and his wife Cilia Flores. The only president of Venezuela, President Nicolas Maduro."
With Maduro detained and flown to the United States to face federal charges, Venezuela now confronts a constitutional crisis, competing claims to authority, and intense international scrutiny.
Under Article 233 of the Venezuelan Constitution, the vice president assumes power when the presidency is vacated. That makes Rodríguez, Maduro’s longtime deputy, the constitutional successor.
Rodríguez has served as vice president since 2018 and has been central to Maduro’s political apparatus. State media reported she was coordinating emergency communications after the U.S. operation, though independent confirmation remains limited.
Analysts warn that Venezuela’s military high command may assert control during the crisis. Defense Minister Vladimir Padrino López has vowed that Venezuela will “prevail” and “not negotiate” with the United States.
Several opposition leaders—long sidelined under Maduro—are now being discussed as potential successors.
Some analysts view Nobel Peace Prize recipient and prominent opposition figure María Corina Machado as a leading contender. Experts told Fox News she and ally Edmundo González have broad public support.
Recognized by the United States as the legitimate winner of Venezuela’s disputed 2024 election, Edmundo González is also considered a viable transitional leader.
Opposition groups argue that a civilian‑led transition is essential to restoring democratic institutions.
President Trump has said the United States will be “very involved” in determining Venezuela’s next leader, arguing that Washington cannot allow “somebody else” to take over and recreate the conditions that existed under Maduro.
Trump’s assertions that the United States will “run the country,” maintain a “partnership” with Venezuela’s oil industry during the transition, and keep American forces positioned for additional action have intensified concerns about U.S. overreach and the legality of unilateral intervention.
Governments across Latin America have expressed alarm at the prospect of U.S. administration of Venezuela.
“The Colombian government rejects the aggression against the sovereignty of Venezuela and Latin America,” Petro said, urging an immediate meeting of the United Nations Security Council, where Colombia currently holds a seat.
In Chile, outgoing President Gabriel Boric also condemned the attack. But President‑elect José Antonio Kast — who campaigned on promises to crack down on migration and crime — struck a sharply different tone. In a post on X, he called Maduro’s arrest “great news for the region.”
“Now begins a greater task. The governments of Latin America must ensure that the entire apparatus of the regime abandons power and is held accountable,” said Kast, who will be sworn in on March 11.
Venezuelan officials have condemned the U.S. operation as a “grave military aggression” and accused Washington of violating international law.
Venezuela faces a volatile and uncertain period. With Maduro detained abroad, competing factions—constitutional, military, opposition, and foreign—are now vying to shape the country’s future.
What remains clear is that the question of who should run Venezuela is no longer merely a domestic matter. It is now a geopolitical struggle with global implications.
Hugo Balta is the executive editor of the Fulcrum and the publisher of the Latino News Network
A golden tray sits on the Resolute Desk as President Donald Trump speaks during an announcement on American nuclear innovation in the Oval Office at the White House on July 24, 2026, in Washington, D.C. Trump is signing multiple executive orders targeting the nuclear energy sector and easing rules for new reactors and nuclear fuel supply chains.
Trump’s hubris rivals the fallen heroes of ancient Greek mythology
In January, the New York Times asked President Donald Trump if there were any limits on his global powers.
“Yeah,” the president responded, “there is one thing. My own morality. My own mind. It’s the only thing that can stop me.”
That was eight months ago, but fortunately Christopher Nolan’s blockbuster adaptation of “The Odyssey” has made ancient Greek literature newly relevant. Before that window closes, I’d like to talk about hubris.
Today, the term mostly means excessive pride or arrogance. That’s part of what the Greeks meant by it too, but the meaning was a bit richer and more specific. Hubris was an insolent or outrageous act that offended the gods, often because the transgressor was claiming abilities or authorities that solely belonged to supreme beings.
Nolan renamed and slightly modified the concept of xenia for the film, calling it “Zeus’ law.” In the director’s telling, mortals should follow the rules laid out by the gods, specifically the requirement to treat strangers with respect lest they be gods in disguise.
In a sense, hubris is the opposite, or at least the rejection, of xenia. The hubris of the suitors, and at times Odysseus himself, invites punishment by the gods and their mortal instruments.
Which brings me back to Donald Trump. His claim that there are no constraints on his personal power to dictate events on the global stage was one of the greatest expressions of hubris ever uttered by a political leader.
Trump’s claim was obviously false when he made it.
He vowed that he could end the Russia-Ukraine war in 24 hours. He’s proved powerless to make that happen. If he had divine powers to work his will, why would he have balked at implementing his tariffs so often that Wall Street adopted the “TACO trade” term for his deals? “TACO” stands for “Trump always chickens out.”
And why would Trump have made so many embarrassing concessions to China — from rescinding tariffs on Chinese goods to allowing them to buy crucial and incredibly valuable computer chips?
But Trump saw his success at capturing Venezuelan strongman Nicolas Maduro as proof of his ability to launch missiles to the same effect as Zeus’ lightning bolts. Trump believed he was the most powerful man who ever lived.
This is no exaggeration. In March, when the Iran invasion seemed successful, Trump gave a document penned by“Presidential Historian David King” to New York Times reporters Maggie Haberman and Jonathan Swan purporting to prove that Trump was “the most powerful person to have EVER walked this planet.” King was, in fact, a businessman and occasional caddy for legendary golfer Gary Player.
King compared Trump favorably to many of history’s most powerful, and often heinous, figures: Alexander the Great, Attila the Hun, William the Conqueror, Napoleon Bonaparte, Joseph Stalin, Genghis Khan, Mao Tse Tung, Adolf Hitler and Vladimir Lenin. Many of these men thought they were the most powerful person in the world, too. And many were defeated precisely because they believed it.
At least Napoleon and Hitler had a string of truly impressive victories before they learned the folly of hubris. The limits on Trump’s power have been exposed by far less august forces than the combined might of the allies in World War II or the fearsome Russian winter.
Iran is a comparatively middling power. But the regime’s ability to absorb punishment while imposing its will on the Strait of Hormuz has proved to be a greater constraint on Trump’s power than his morality or mind. We should note that, at least rhetorically, his morality has not proved much of a constraint. He has repeatedly promised to destroy Iranian “civilization” if the regime refuses to capitulate.
But they haven’t — and won’t anytime soon — because the regime’s tolerance for pain far outstrips Trump’s. The combined fear of skyrocketing oil prices, outrage of Gulf state potentates, diminishing weapon supplies and domestic unpopularity is doing the work that international law, congressional oversight and the collective opinion of foreign policy experts can’t or won’t do.
If I considered Trump more heroic than reason and facts could allow, I would say his Sisyphean predicament has the whiff of Greek tragedy to it. Trump is vexed by the fact that the Iranians won’t honor deals or ratify his countless premature claims of victory — giving new meaning to his vow that his presidency would make people tired of winning. It’s almost like they’re out-Trumping Trump.
Things might have gone better if he’d heeded that great Greek tragedian Sophocles: “For Zeus utterly abhors the boasts of a proud tongue.”
____
Jonah Goldberg is editor-in-chief of The Dispatch and the host of The Remnant podcast. His Twitter handle is @JonahDispatch.