Henrique Capriles on Venezuela’s Political Landscape and U.S. Involvement

Henrique Capriles has twice contested the Venezuelan presidency, coming close to defeating Chavismo at the polls. Six months into a U.S.-engineered power transition in Caracas, Capriles has developed a nuanced perspective on Washington’s influence.

Interpreting U.S. Actions

While President Trump’s public stance on interim Venezuelan President Delcy Rodríguez shifted from threats to praise, Capriles remains focused on the actions of Trump’s administration rather than his statements. He has learned to differentiate between Trump’s rhetoric and actual policies.

“I’m not one of those who gets carried away by President Trump’s statements,” Capriles noted in a Newsweek interview. “I don’t take them as definitive, because his statements often change rapidly.”

Following the January 3 operation leading to the capture of President Nicolas Maduro, Trump initially critiqued Rodríguez but later praised her efforts, indicating a changing tone. Capriles observes Trump’s unpredictable messaging and highlights that Venezuelans credit Trump for Maduro’s removal.

The operation, named Operation Absolute Resolve, involved U.S. Special Forces detaining Maduro and his wife amid a purported anti-narcotics effort. This resulted in legal proceedings against them in New York on serious charges.

Operation Absolute Resolve

Capriles suggests the raid might not have occurred if Maduro had conceded electoral defeat in 2024. “If Maduro had accepted the results, the January 3 operation might not have happened,” he remarked, reflecting on the international dynamics.

The operation had significant implications, with Maduro facing trial in the U.S., and Delcy Rodríguez temporarily assuming the presidency in Venezuela. This transition was part of a three-phase plan promoted by U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio, moving from stabilization to political transition.

The operation’s nature raised sovereignty concerns in Latin America, with critics labeling the U.S. involvement as an infringement on regional autonomy. Capriles, however, argues that the sovereignty rhetoric often masks internal power interests rather than representing the people’s will.

Economic Aspects and Sovereignty

Capriles acknowledges criticisms about U.S. economic interests in Venezuelan oil, stating that the arrangement is a phase necessary for the country’s progress. The U.S. has generated significant revenue from Venezuelan oil sales, sparking debate over the fairness and purpose of this economic control.

Despite economic gains, Capriles emphasizes the importance of fostering democracy in Venezuela, highlighting the broader political and generational changes needed.

The Political Process

U.S. plans to transition Venezuela have provoked differing views among the opposition. Some factions remain skeptical, while others, like Capriles, stress the importance of including key voices in the negotiations, such as that of María Corina Machado.

“Any transition needs María Corina’s voice,” Capriles stated, underscoring her influence despite disagreements.

Political unity remains fragile, with the need to avoid returning to the instability associated with Maduro’s regime. Capriles reiterates the transitional administration’s temporary nature, describing Rodríguez’s role as provisional.

Challenges persist, including managing internal tensions and healing political divisions. For Capriles, lasting reconciliation hinges on establishing a strong, independent judicial system to prevent repeating past mistakes.

Post-Disaster Response

Recent earthquakes compounded Venezuela’s challenges, disrupting economic recovery efforts and highlighting the unifying aspect of shared adversity. Capriles sees the disaster response as an opportunity to transcend political polarization, fostering unity among Venezuelans.

Recovery requires substantial international support, yet Capriles remains hopeful that Venezuela can emerge stronger by embracing justice and rebuilding institutions without resorting to retribution.