Transcript of Is the U.S. Trying to Oust the Government in Venezuela?

I'm Wesley Morris. I'm a critic for the New York Times, and I'm the host of a podcast called Canon Ball. We're going to talk about that song, You Can't Get Out of Your Head, that TV show you watched in Can't Stop Thinking About, and the movie that you saw when you were a kid that made you who you are, whether you like it or not. I was so embarrassed the whole time because it's a bad film, and I still love it. You can find Canon Ball on YouTube and wherever you get your podcast. From the New York Times, I'm Natalie Kittrelet. This is The Daily. For months, President Trump has been ratcheting up the pressure on Venezuela with increasingly aggressive military actions that the administration claims are about targeting drug traffickers. But behind the scenes, some US officials are pushing toward a very different goal, regime change. Today, my colleague Anatoly Kermanaev explains the battle being waged within the White House over whether to topple the government of Nicolas Maduro. It's Thursday, October 23rd. Anatoly, welcome back to the Americas. You're in your old stomping ground in Caracas.

That's right. It's strange to be back after eight years of reporting from here.

Just tell me how many times over the course of your career as a foreign correspondent, you've been in Venezuela awaiting the theoretical end of this long-standing regime now led by Maduro.

Oh, God. I arrived in the country just a few weeks after Maduro took power in 2013. I think I've seen at least six times, six moments when it looked like his government might collapse. If I've seen at all, it was mass protests, millions of people on the streets. It was military coups. It was economic chaos, the deepest reception in the world outside of war zone in modern history. There was a national blackout for a week, and then they just looked like the entire country might collapse. There was a stolen election last year, and it's still the same government and power. But what we haven't had before is the specter of military action, and military action from the most powerful country on earth. A lot of people here believe that this time it could be different.

Okay, let's get into this moment that we're in right now. There have been so many boats that have been bombed in the Caribbean Sea at this point by the Trump administration that it's been hard to keep it straight. We've seen more than two dozen people killed. What's the latest on the ground in Venezuela?

So far, the US has destroyed seven boats of Venezuela Venezuelan Coast, killing about 30 people. It has amassed a substantial military force in the Caribbean. Last week, the Trump administration has authorized the CIA to conduct covert operations inside Venezuela. Trump has explicitly said that he's considering launching operations on Venezuelan land.

Basically, the threat of military boots on the ground.

Basically meaning the involvement of US servicemen, US operatives in violent actions inside Venezuela. But it's the sense of siege that it has created in Venezuela, I think, and the expectation that this is just the first phase of a prolonged military campaign against the Maduro government.

You said that the expectation is that this is the first phase of what we're seeing. What's the next phase? What's the sense of what the eventual end game is here?

It's hard to know what is legitimate planning for next military steps and what is part of psychological warfare. We have to keep in mind that part of administration's strategy, I suppose, is to create this atmosphere and fear and tension and paranoia among the government of Nicolas Maduro and create a split in his power structure. But no matter who you speak to here in Venezuela, whether it's a street seller, business people, officials in Maduro government, it's clear to everyone that the final goal is to topple Maduro. This dovetails with what my colleagues in Washington are hearing from the sources that they are talking to, that the end game of this pressure campaign is to bring a different government in power in Venezuela.

Right. Ending a regime that the US has opposed for a very long time. Just explain why that's been the case.

The standoff goes back to the time of Maduro's predecessor and mentor, Hugo Chávez. Patria socialita. He was a left-wing, Nationalist leader who became increasingly undemocratic. Hugo Chávez has packed the Supreme Court and the army with his supporters and introduced a new penal code that criminalizes dissent. This movement became increasingly antagonistic towards the US.

After Venezuela forced the US ambassador out of the country.

. The United States is expelling its ambassador. And used the country's oil wealth to challenge US dominance in the region. George W.

Bush. You are a donkey, Mr Bush.

Chávez struck new alliances with US adversaries. Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is visiting Venezuela. Chávez said that he's searching for a strategic relationship with Russia. With China, with Russia, with Iran, he repressed against pro-American opposition parties. And over time, the US has responded with gradual sanctions, which were aimed at creating conditions for the opposition to win in a democratic way and change the course. But then... A new day is coming in Latin America. It's coming. This all changes during Trump's first term in power. The people of Venezuela are standing for freedom and democracy, and the United States of America is standing right by their side. Trump's starting a so-called maximum pressure campaign to drive Maduro from power. We have many options for Venezuela. This is our neighbor. We're all over the world, and we have troops all over the world in places that are very, very far away. So he recognized the country He's opposition leader as the legitimate President of the country. He bans Venezuelan oil from the US. He makes it extremely difficult for Venezuelan government to make any financial transactions, and precipitating an economic crisis in the country. Which made life very difficult for ordinary people, which led Maduro to dig further in, to rely more on repression, to deepen his alliances with China and Russia, to hold on to power.

Right. The push to ouce Maduro just did not work. The question for a long time now has been, how far is the US willing to go to get rid of Maduro? For the Trump administration now, it seems as though that threshold is changing. They seem much more willing to do something that they weren't back in 2019, which is use military force. That's why you're saying that things seem so much different in this moment.

That's right. What was missing in the past was the threat of US military action.

How did we get here to the point where now the threat of military force is very much on the table?

From a Venezuelan side, last year, was a point of no return for Venezuelan democracy because Maduro went from making it very difficult for the opposition to campaign to outright making up numbers. There was a presidential election last year, huge outswell of support for the opposition led by Maria Corina Machado.

.

Her candidates get 70% of the votes, and her activists are able to provide proof of those numbers, are able to provide evidence of real election results.. This political campaign organized by Maria Corina Machada was the reason she received Nobel Peace Prize. But Magnun Dura ignores them, produces completely different results. Soy Nicolás Maduro Moro, Presidente Rebecto, the República de la Rebecta de Venezuela. And uses repression to stay in power, basically challenging the opposition, the world, to do anything about them.

That's the state of play, basically, when Trump comes into office in January. Maduro has held on to power, even though at this point, the whole world basically believes that he has stolen this election. What does Trump do?

Initially, he tries to negotiate with Maduro. He sends his envoy to Caracas to start working on a deal that would, in effect, deliver all of Venezuela's natural resources to the US and keep Maduro in power, at least for the time being.

Did you say deliver all the natural resources of Venezuela to the US?

That's right, Natalie. The reporting that we have shows that it was arguably the most far-reaching attempt at resource, diplomacy of Trump's time in power. It involved shipping all of Venezuelan oil to the United States. It involved opening up all of Venezuela's oil fields and mines to US companies. And very importantly, it involved Maduro basically breaking off the existing contracts with Chinese, Russian, and Iranian companies, basically sabotaging his existing alliances in order to rebuild his relationship with the United States.

That would essentially be Venezuela doing a complete 180 on its foreign policy and ceding control over its most valuable resources to the US. Can you just explain why Maduro and his government would agree to that?

The biggest reason is survival. In return for his economic riches. Maduro Maduro would stay in power, or at the very least, his movements would be able to stay in power or to be able to contest elections in the future. So it created an off-ramp for Maduro and his top officials.

This does seem like exactly the transactional extractive deal that Trump has favored in the past. Pay me and we'll help you out. I assume that this seems like a pretty good offer.

That's right. Early this year, the momentum was definitely heading towards a deal. Venezuela started accepting deportation flights from United States. It started releasing Americans held in Venezuela. And it seemed like we are cruising It's always normalization of relations. But then, Trump's Secretary of State, Marco Rubio, takes center stage, and everything changes.

We'll be right back.

My name is Carlos Prieto, and I'm one of the people that help make The Daily. As part of our reporting on immigration, we heard from this woman crossing one of the most dangerous stretches of land on the whole planet to get to the United States. I knew that she was from Venezuela, which is where I'm also from. But what I found out is that not only was she from the same city that I grew up in, but she was also from the same neighborhood. She was describing parks and plazas and streets where I spent a lot of my childhood. She was a woman that I might have encountered at some point in my life. It made me feel an extra responsibility to find a way for our listeners to feel like they understood her and her story. What makes the Daily special is that we try to understand every story with that level of closeness so that our listeners can really connect with the humans in the middle of a news event. If this is the journalism that that you like and that you care about, the best way to support it is by subscribing to the New York Times.

Anatoly, you told us this deal seemed like a go, but then Secretary of State, Marco Rubio, took control. How did Rubio get in the middle of these negotiations, exactly?

He starts undermining it behind the scene. First, in late March, he exerts pressure to cancel permits for US companies operating in Venezuela. He straps these licenses, dealing a major blow to Venezuelan economy. Then in June, Rubio uses his connections in the South Florida Republican Party to convince Trump that Cuban-American congressman from South Florida, will not support his big spending bill if a deal with Maduro goes forward.

The BBB, the Big Beautiful Bill.

Correct, the Big Beautiful Bill.

Is It's interesting. While one side of the Trump administration is trying to negotiate this deal with Maduro, here you have Marco Rubio actively undermining the strategy at every turn. Why?

That's right. For Rubio, it's personal. Marco Rubio is a son of Cuban immigrants who became part of this large community of Cuban Americans in South Florida who view Latin America through the prism of Cuban influence in the region. They see getting rid of Maduro as a crucial step towards ending dictatorship in the country that they left, in the country that their parents or grandparents have left. Throughout his political career, Rubio has rejected negotiations with Chávez, with Maduro. For him, the main goal has always been to see Maduro gone. This time, Rubio has a plan that he can present as the moral imperative.

What is the plan that he presents?

He is supporting Maria Corina Machado, the opposition politician who won elections in Venezuela last year. In the view of Marco Rubian, his supporters, they are working to restore democracy in Venezuela and to put legitimate presidents in power. But throughout Trump's terms, it's been very clear that the issues of democracy and human rights do not carry much cash with him. Rubio had to look for another weapon. He needed to present something to Trump that would catch his ear and would outwave the economic benefits of working with Maduro. He found the answer in drugs. Trump has spoke repeatedly about the drug epidemic, the fentanyl crisis in the US. He has threats in Mexican cartels. He has threats in military actions against cartels in Mexico. So Marco Rubio changes tack. Maduro, I call him a dictator because he is and all that. He's not a government official. What he is is the head of a drug trafficking logistics organization, a cartel, the Cartel of the Sun. He starts to frame Venezuelan government as a drug cartel. And I've seen a lot of this reporting, and it's fake reporting, and I'll tell you why. It says that somehow Venezuela is not involved in the drug trade because the UN says they're not involved in the...

I don't care what the UN says. The UN doesn't know what they're talking He flips the Venezuelan issue from being a struggle over democracy and human rights towards it being a struggle against drugs. Nicolaus Maduro is an indicted drug trafficker in the United States, and he's a fugitive of American justice. He makes Maduro government part of America's war against drugs, and this leads to an escalation. Rubio designates basically Maduro's entire regime as a narco-terrorist cartel. He supports sending all this military hardware into the region to threaten Maduro. And ultimately, this leads to the strikes on the boats of alleged drug traffickers off Venezuela's Coast.

We've covered this on this show. It's still the case that the Trump administration has not actually presented any strong evidence that Maduro is a cartel leader. That's not something the intelligence agencies have agreed with. You're saying that Rubio goes forward with this strategy anyway.

That's right, Natalie. It is accepted that some cocaine ships through Venezuela, that Venezuela is a location for drug smuggling. But there has not been any convincing evidence that This is a hierarchical, organized endeavor from the top levels of Venezuelan government. But Rubio knows that this is a compelling political narrative. At the same time, Mario Corina Machado is pitching an economic reconstruction plan, which in spirit is very similar to the deal that Maduro has been negotiating with Trump earlier this year. In effect, Rubio is promising to Trump that he can kill two birds with one stone. He can topple Maduro and proclaim a victory in this fight against drugs, and at the same time, obtain the same economic deals that Maduro is offering him in return for staying in power.

Is that actually true that Maria Karina Machado would give up the same things that Maduro is offering? Like, Trump could just get the economic deal he wants and ouce Maduro at the same time?

Maria Karina has held very consistent views throughout her political career. She is a firm believer in American-style free market economy. She is a firm supporter of American businesses, American economic interest, and she was willing to tailor her message in order to keep Trump on her side. After Trump came to power, she has stopped talking about the plight of Venezuelan migrants, which was major element of her election campaign. She has stayed largely silenced when Trump sent hundreds of Venezuelans to El Salvador in prison without any due process. She has anecdotably supported It's at Trump's campaign against drug smuggling in Venezuela, without mentioning the fact that some of her countrymen are being killed at high seas without any evidence of due process.

Machado, it sounds like, is not being a purist in an effort to not alienate the Trump administration because above all else, what she wants is political change in her country. I'm wondering how regular Venezuelans view her pitch, Rubio's pitch, for US intervention to achieve that goal. They obviously overwhelmingly voted against Maduro, as you said. But do they agree with the argument that getting Maduro out is worth the potential upheaval of US military action in their country?

This is a crucial question, Natalie. Machado has presented her overwhelming victory in last year's election as a mandate for change at any cost. Where the Venezuelans agree, it's been difficult to gage because of the scale of oppression in the country. But the polling that I have seen shows that only a minority of Venezuelans support military intervention in Venezuela. Overwhelmingly, on his own, support political change. They want Maduro gone, and they want international community to help them achieve that change. But a minority believe that a military intervention would be a justified cause to achieve that. Goal.

But despite the fact that intervention doesn't necessarily have broad-based support in Venezuela, we are at what feels like the precipice of something. I'm just wondering if you can lay out what the paths forward are now. Is the diplomatic route that leaves Maduro in power still even an option? Have we moved so far in the other direction that it's just not on the table anymore?

Diplomacy is off the table for now. Trump has told his envoy to basically cut off contacts with Maduro for the time being and appears to have given Rubio green light to achieve results through military pressure. Supporters of negotiation approach, they acknowledge that they lost this battle. They acknowledge that they have been outplayed, outmaneuvered by Rubio at this stage. But they don't believe that this is the end. They point to Trump's behavior towards Ukraine, where he has repeatedly changed his positions since returning to power. So just because negotiations are off the table now, that does not mean that will be off the table forever. And Rubio's opponents, they are biding their time for Rubio to make a mistake, for him to fail to produce clear results in a span of next several months in order for them to then redouble their pitch of economic bounties that could be had in the short term straight away way under the current government in Venezuela.

On the side of those who are advocating intervention, it does seem as though a lot of people in that camp may be hoping for, fantasizing about a painless surgical extraction of Maduro from Venezuela by Marines or whoever. Then the arrival of a new government led by Machado that everybody wants that functions smoothly. But, Anatoly, you know this better than me. The US has a long history of this intervention in Latin America. Has it ever worked that way? Seamless, smooth?

History shows that only rarely do military interventions produce the sustained democracy that Machado is advocating for. There's not much track record for this outcome. Machado believes that the country overwhelmingly supports her and would just welcome her with an open arms for her candidates who assume the presidency and take over armed forces, state bureaucracy, state infrastructure, and just usher this new era of democracy, prosperity. But there's all sorts of outcome that are even more likely to occur. Maduro could lose power but be replaced by someone even more hard-lined within his own coalition, but someone even more oppressive and someone more antagonistic towards the United States. The power vacuum could create all sorts of chaos, may perhaps not necessarily in Caracas, but in the periphery of a country, areas where you have all sorts of armed groups ranging from criminal gangs to Colombian insurgents. We could see the violence that this could create It could unleash a whole new wave of migration towards Colombia, the neighboring country to Venezuela, which could destabilize that country further. The military interventions could have all sorts of unexpected lasting outcomes that go far beyond this clean, elegant transition to democracy under a democratically elected government.

Yeah. One of those outcomes, right, is that you could end up destabilizing this country and potentially spurring a new wave of migration, which is exactly what this administration wants to avoid. I mean, if you end up creating all this instability that could potentially spread to neighboring countries, that's obviously not in the US interest either. It's also, by the way, the opposite of the America first agenda that Trump campaigned on.

No. The way this campaign is unfolding so far gives indications of the risks ahead. The way the strikes against Roast seems to be spreading to countries neighboring Venezuela. Colombian President has accused US of murdering a Colombian fisherman. Trump has responded by cutting off AIDS and threatening Colombian government. So this has already escalated beyond the narrow surgical approach towards removing Maduro. And we are just in the beginning. So I think the risk of plunging the region into uncharded territory are very great. And this is the line that Maduro's government and his allies in Washington have exploited. They present themselves as this bastion of stability and relatives peace against the anarchy and chaos that Machado is about to unleash in the country.

Just to pull back, to take a longer view of all of this, if the Trump administration goes through with this, it wouldn't just be a return to an older, more aggressive approach to the Americas, a more aggressive foreign policy. In many ways, it would be a test of how far the US can push the limits of that policy in 2025. The latest phase of all of this started, as you said, with bombing boats in international waters and treating alleged criminals as if they're enemy combatants in a war, which many experts see is a complete violation of international law. I'm wondering how you are thinking about the larger stakes of what we're seeing play out here.

What worries me the most here, Natalie, is the potential precedent that it sets. To me, this is beyond Venezuela, a country that I know and care deeply about. This is beyond Latin America. This is about what happens when the most powerful country on earth chooses to designate a sovereign government, yes, a repressive, illegitimate, but a government of a sovereign nation, a criminal organization, a terrorist group, and then deal with it in any manner that it sees fit. It becomes a precedent for how the US deals with other nations around the world. To me, there's a risk of this conflict giving rise to something larger. Of course, you could argue that what we see in the news is just a continuation of years, perhaps decades of US interventionism, the drone strikes on presumed terrorists in the Middle East, at least since the time of Barack Obama, there are very little legal oversize because it has sent alleged terrorists to Guantanima Bay. But I think what we see in Venezuela is a massive escalation of the trend. Where you see, perhaps in broad daylight, the killing of people accused of certain crime without the least amount of evidence or due process presents it.

The risk that many legal experts see is that this becomes the new normal, that this will become the way US and perhaps other global powers treat their adversaries by designating sovereign nations as criminals and then treating them as such.

Anatoly, thank you.

Thank you for having me as always.

On Wednesday, Defense Secretary, Pete Hegset, said that the military had attacked a boat in the Eastern Pacific Ocean for the first time, an expansion of the attacks the administration has been carrying out on vessels in the Caribbean. Hegset said in a social media post that the strike killed two people on the boat, which he said was carrying drugs. It was the eighth known boat attack since September, bringing the officially acknowledged death toll of the strikes to 34. We'll be right back. Here's what else you should know today. On Wednesday, President Trump announced that he was imposing new sanctions on Russia for the first time in his second term, underscoring his frustration with President Vladimir Putin after a plan for the two leaders to meet fell apart. Trump made his irritation with Putin clear on Wednesday, saying his conversations with a Russian leader were always good but never went anywhere. The sanctions targeted Russia's two largest oil companies, and they're some of the most significant measures that the US has taken against the Russian energy sector since the beginning of the war in Ukraine. President Trump acknowledged on Wednesday that he was having the entire East Wing demolished to make way for his 90,000 square foot ballroom, an expansion of a project that is remaking the profile of one of the nation's most iconic buildings.

Trump also said the ballroom would cost 300 million, $100 million more than the original cost estimate given less than three months ago. The President has said that he's raising tens of millions of dollars in private donations to fund the construction, sparking concerns from ethics experts who warn that it may just be another way for the wealthy to buy access to the President. Today's episode was produced by Carlos Prieto and Michael Simon Johnson. It was edited by M. J. Davis Lynn and Paige Cawet, contains music by Diane Wong, Alisha Baetup, and Marion Lozano, and was engineered by Chris Wood. That's it for The Daily. I'm Natalie Kittrowaf. See you tomorrow.