By Yang Tianzi
The UK’s Guardian revealed on Jan. 24 that before the U.S. military forcibly took away Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro on Jan. 3, then–Vice President Delcy Rodríguez and her powerful brother had promised that, should Maduro step down, they would cooperate with the Trump administration.
Before Maduro was taken, Vice President Rodríguez had promised cooperation with the US
According to four sources who had participated in high-level discussions, the entire process can be traced back to the fall of 2025, when Delcy Rodríguez began establishing communication channels with U.S. officials through intermediaries.
Key moments in this series of events include: Rodríguez initiating contact with the United States in the fall of 2025; negotiations via Qatar reported by The Miami Herald in October; a critical phone call in late November between Trump and Maduro, during which Trump explicitly demanded that Maduro leave Venezuela but was rebuffed; Rodríguez conveying a clear message to the U.S. in December that “Maduro must step down;” and finally, the U.S. military forcibly taking Maduro away on Jan. 3, 2026, followed by Rodríguez being sworn in as interim president on Jan. 5.
According to the same four sources, prior to her swearing-in on Jan. 5, interim president Rodríguez and her brother Jorge Rodríguez, president of the National Assembly, had secretly assured U.S. and Qatari officials through intermediaries that they welcomed Maduro’s removal.
For the best of our weekly content！
You are now signed up for our newsletter
Check your email to complete sign up
Background and full timeline of the Venezuelan events
Several key figures played decisive roles in this political transformation. As vice president, Delcy Rodríguez not only possessed political legitimacy, but—more importantly—had professional expertise in the oil sector and extensive connections within the U.S. oil industry. Her brother Jorge Rodríguez, as president of the National Assembly, controlled legislative power. Their coordinated actions provided an institutional foundation for a relatively smooth transition of power.
Equally important was the role of Interior Minister Diosdado Cabello. Reuters reported that this powerful figure, who controls the police and security forces, had also engaged in discussions with the United States months before Maduro was attacked. This suggests that at least two key power centers within Venezuela—the civilian political system represented by the Rodríguez siblings and the military–police security apparatus represented by Cabello—were preparing for a “post-Maduro era” and seeking reconciliation with the United States.
In October 2025, The Miami Herald reported that Rodríguez attempted to propose the formation of a transitional government under her leadership, under which Maduro would retire to a pre-arranged location believed to be safe. The plan ultimately failed, and Rodríguez strongly denied the report, but U.S. officials began to view her as a leader who was not entirely inflexible.
Sources said that by October 2025, even the most hardline U.S. officials toward Maduro were willing to work with Rodríguez.
The evolution of the secret negotiations
The entire negotiation process illustrates the complexity and multi-layered nature of modern diplomacy. Rodríguez secretly conveyed her willingness to cooperate with U.S. and Qatari officials through intermediaries. This indirect communication both protected political space for all parties and allowed plausible deniability should negotiations fail. Qatar’s role as a mediator is particularly noteworthy, reflecting the growing influence of Middle Eastern countries in Latin American affairs and the importance of multilateral diplomacy in resolving complex international issues.
U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio’s shift in attitude during the negotiations was also significant. From initial skepticism about working with insiders of the Maduro regime to ultimately believing that Rodríguez’s commitments offered the best path to preventing chaos, this shift reflects the importance of pragmatism in foreign policy decision-making and a U.S. preference for a stable transition over outright regime collapse.
Venezuela holds the world’s largest proven oil reserves, and this strategic resource played a central role throughout the political maneuvering. Rodríguez was seen as “the Venezuelan official most willing to cooperate with the U.S. oil industry.” She promised cooperation with American oil companies and was well connected within the U.S. energy sector. This positioned her not merely as a transitional political figure, but as a strategic partner capable of helping U.S. oil capital re-enter Venezuela and counter supplies from Russia and the Middle East.
For the United States, reopening access to Venezuelan oil resources would mean enhanced energy security, greater influence over global energy markets, and a strategic advantage in competition with other major energy powers. This explains why even the most hardline U.S. officials were willing to engage with Rodríguez as early as October 2025.
Multi-party power struggle and international mediation
This political transformation was, in reality, a complex contest involving multiple international actors. The United States wielded military and sanctions leverage; the Rodríguez siblings controlled the government, parliament, and civilian bureaucracy; Cabello controlled the police and security forces; and Qatar provided a diplomatic mediation platform. Each party had its own interests and red lines, and the final outcome allowed all sides to achieve their objectives to some degree.
The United States succeeded in removing Maduro while avoiding a “Syrian-style” collapse of Venezuela. Rodríguez successfully transitioned from vice president to interim president, preserving her political position and gaining U.S. recognition. Cabello and other security elites retained their roles in the new power structure through communication with Washington.
In response to The Guardian’s report, the Venezuelan government quickly accused it online of being “fake news,” but conspicuously avoided addressing specific details or providing counter-evidence. This strategy of blanket denial without substantive rebuttal reflects several considerations: appeasing domestic supporters with strong anti-American sentiment, preserving negotiating space with other international partners, and maintaining internal public opinion stability through message control.