This week, the United States deployed bombers, warships, and thousands of Marines to the Caribbean, moving closer to Venezuela in an operation the Trump administration justifies as a “counter-narcotics” mission.
Whether Washington’s new military posture aims to topple Maduro or simply pressure him, this sudden hardline shift exposes a contradiction. This is the same administration that, only a few months ago, decided to grant new business licenses to Chevron, following strong appeals from conservative and corporate circles advocating a policy of “cooperation with Caracas,” at a time when neither drug trafficking nor human rights violations seemed to concern Washington.
On July 28, 2024, the world watched as Venezuela held an election without freedom, while in the USA, a quiet lobby grew to treat Nicolás Maduro not as a dictator but as a potential business partner.
The events that unfolded that day were merely the continuation of what had already shocked the international community: the disqualification of opposition leader María Corina Machado, now recently awarded the Nobel Peace Prize.
According to tally sheets collected by the opposition, covering about 80 percent of polling stations, opposition candidate Edmundo González won by a wide margin. Yet, only hours later, the National Electoral Council declared Nicolás Maduro the winner, citing a mysterious “cyberattack” that allegedly delayed the transmission of results. Since then, the tally sheets published by the opposition and analyzed by independent observers reveal discrepancies that strongly suggest the real outcome was reversed.
Opponents of the regime, anonymous activists as well as figures close to Machado and González, were arrested. The case of María Oropeza, a young activist, became emblematic of the country’s grave human rights violations: she was abducted by regime forces without a judicial warrant while livestreaming on social media. Oropeza is reportedly held in El Helicoide, notorious as one of the largest torture centers in Latin America.
Another example is Juan Pablo Guanipa, former governor and long-time opposition leader, who has become a symbol of enforced disappearance in Venezuela. Detained on May 23, 2025 by SEBIN agents and accused of “conspiracy,” he remains incommunicado and unregistered in the judicial system, a situation that organizations such as Foro Penal and Human Rights Watch classify as an enforced disappearance under state custody, one of the gravest human rights violations under international law.
It is undeniable that Maduro heads a repressive regime which systematically violates human rights. What deserves equal attention, however, is the cosmetic campaign that emerged earlier this year among certain corporate and political circles seeking to soften Maduro’s image for their own gain, particularly those linked to the energy sector.
Since April, what appeared to be a coordinated media effort took shape, with several voices connected to economic interests in Venezuela repeating the same narrative, often within days of each other.
Robert O’Brien, former National Security Advisor to Donald Trump, published an op-ed in Fox News calling for “cooperation with Caracas” and the return of American companies to the country. Days later, he repeated the same argument on Steve Bannon’s War Room, presenting it as part of a pragmatic “America First” strategy. O’Brien is the head of American Global Strategies LLC, a consulting firm that advises major multinational corporations with global interests. The overlap between his talking points and the objectives of multinational energy firms suggested a convenient alignment, more economic than ideological.
Mike Wirth, CEO of Chevron, leads one of the few U.S. companies still authorized to operate in Venezuela under special OFAC licenses. Wirth was the most vocal advocate for renewing and expanding those licenses, presenting them as “common-sense economics.”
Joining this effort was Harry Sargeant III, a prominent Republican donor and energy magnate who has reportedly financed media campaigns and conservative influencers to promote the idea that engaging with Maduro was “pragmatic.”
In reality, this was all a carefully orchestrated public-relations operation, an attempt to rehabilitate a dictator under the guise of geopolitical realism.
And for a moment, in July, these pressures appeared to pay off: The Trump administration reversed its earlier decision to restrict Chevron’s operations in Venezuela, granting the company a new OFAC authorization under undisclosed terms.
But only weeks later, Washington’s tone shifted. In September, the administration launched airstrikes on Venezuelan vessels, killing more than two dozen people, and authorized CIA operations inside the country. The same government that reopened the door for business with Caracas is now attacking it militarily. The method has changed but the underlying motive has not. Whether through commerce or conflict, the objective remains the same: securing access to Venezuela’s oil.
Negotiating with regimes that violate human rights is contrary to the values of liberty upon which American society was founded. Some on the American Right now call this “pragmatism,” arguing that dialogue and trade will eventually bring reform. Historically, appeasing tyrannies has only strengthened their power. But the opposite extreme is equally indefensible: using American taxpayers’ money to wage wars and fund covert operations in the name of “freedom,” while pursuing the same material and corporate interests, is a betrayal of those very principles.
True defenders of freedom must not legitimize or whitewash such regimes, whether directly or indirectly, under the guise of economic or geopolitical pragmatism. Regardless of political affiliation, they must recognize that doing business with dictatorships subsidizes repression, fueling a machinery of censorship, fear, and violence against their own citizens.
Cláudia Nunes is a policy analyst with Young Voices, specializing in innovation and economic freedom. Follow her on social media @claudiashandi.
