By John Q. Hosedrinker 
In a press conference, former President Donald Trump stated he did not view Maria Corina Machado as a viable replacement for Nicolás Maduro following the U.S. military’s intervention in Venezuela. Trump cited a lack of domestic support for Machado, despite her having won a 2023 primary and winning the Nobel Peace Prize in 2025. While Machado has called for a democratic transition and asserted the legitimacy of Edmundo González Urrutia’s claim to power, Trump indicated he was working with Venezuelan Vice President Delcy Rodriguez as Maduro’s replacement. Mexico has condemned the US military action, while Argentina has expressed support.
Read the original article here
Trump rules out Venezuela’s opposition leader Machado taking power, and frankly, it’s a statement that’s sparked a whole lot of head-scratching. It’s tough to ignore the context, the tone, and, let’s be honest, the history behind this. The news, as reported, is straightforward: Trump doesn’t believe Machado, the opposition leader and Nobel Peace Prize winner, has the necessary support to lead Venezuela. He even went as far as to say she’s a “very nice woman,” which, let’s be real, often reads as a dismissive gesture.
The immediate reaction seems to be a mix of cynicism and a healthy dose of “here we go again.” The core question on many people’s minds is: what’s the real reason behind this decision? A common suspicion is that it’s about control, plain and simple. Some of the comments suggest that the focus is on Venezuela’s vast oil reserves, implying that any potential leader needs to be willing to play ball with U.S. interests and, more specifically, Trump’s associates. The subtext is that Machado, with her commitment to Venezuelans, isn’t going to be compliant enough for a Trump-led regime’s agenda.
It’s clear that many people see this as a blatant power grab, not as a genuine concern for Venezuelan democracy. The rhetoric used is critical, comparing Trump’s actions to those of dictators and even suggesting echoes of historical colonialism. The argument is that this isn’t about promoting freedom or supporting the Venezuelan people; it’s about shaping a client state, prioritizing U.S. interests, and securing access to resources. The whole situation has been framed as a modern-day coup, a maneuver in a game of geopolitical chess.
The timing adds a layer of irony, given that Machado is a Nobel Peace Prize laureate. The fact that Trump seemingly dismissed her suggests a certain level of spite. Several comments point to the suggestion that he’s still bitter that he didn’t win the Nobel himself. The fact that the US President is deciding who will lead another country makes a mockery of self-determination. The comments express significant dissatisfaction with the US.
There’s a lot of disappointment over how things played out, because of the promise of supporting a democratically elected leader. The criticism extends to the political motivations at play, as many feel the focus on Venezuela’s oil is the real driving force. The comments touch upon the historical precedent of regime change and its often devastating consequences, adding a layer of concern about the future of Venezuela. The overall sentiment is a mix of anger, disillusionment, and a feeling that this is just another instance of a familiar pattern of U.S. interventionism.
The reactions are a reflection of a broader distrust of Trump’s foreign policy and the belief that it’s driven more by self-interest than genuine concern for the welfare of other nations. This whole scenario underscores a sense of frustration with the power dynamics at play. Ultimately, the whole affair is seen as a sign of where the real power lies, and it’s not with the people of Venezuela.