In one of the most politically charged developments of 2025, Venezuelan opposition leader María Corina Machado — recently awarded the Nobel Peace Prize — has ignited global controversy after openly proposing regime change in Venezuela during a podcast with Donald Trump Jr. Her comments, alongside her subsequent dedication of the Nobel Prize to former U.S. President Donald Trump, have sparked accusations that she is advancing Washington’s geopolitical agenda under the guise of “democracy promotion.”
The Podcast That Unveiled a Power Play
In February 2025, Machado appeared on “Triggered,” hosted by Donald Trump Jr., where she made what critics describe as a sales pitch for Venezuela’s privatization to American interests. During the conversation, she declared:
“Forget Saudi Arabia. We have more oil than them. Endless possibilities. We will privatize our entire industry for you. American companies will profit greatly.”
The timing of the podcast was no coincidence. It coincided with Trump’s announcement revoking oil export licenses previously granted to Venezuela under the Biden administration — signaling a renewed U.S. campaign to isolate President Nicolás Maduro.
Machado’s words were interpreted as an open invitation to American corporations to re-enter Venezuela’s oil industry — provided that Maduro is removed. The podcast was promoted under the headline: “BREAKING NEWS: My Father Revokes Biden-Maduro Oil License,” further tying the opposition leader’s ambitions to Trump’s foreign policy narrative.
A Nobel Prize Wrapped in Geopolitics
When the Nobel Committee awarded Machado the 2025 Nobel Peace Prize for “her tireless struggle to promote democracy in Venezuela,” it triggered as much outrage as celebration.
Maduro’s government immediately denounced the decision, even announcing the closure of Venezuela’s embassy in Norway in protest. For his part, Maduro accused the West of “weaponizing peace prizes to legitimize their puppets.”
Machado’s own words following her win added fuel to the fire. In her acceptance speech, she dedicated the prize to “the brave Venezuelan people — and to President Donald Trump for his decisive support.”
This statement reinforced the belief that Machado was not acting as an independent reformer, but as a political instrument of Washington, handpicked to advance U.S. interests in the oil-rich South American nation. Many Venezuelans began referring to her mockingly as “America Back,” implying she was a proxy for foreign intervention rather than a representative of national will.
The Resource Factor: Oil, Rare Earths, and U.S. Strategic Interests
While U.S. officials continue to frame Venezuela as a “narco-terrorist” state — accusing Maduro and his allies of cocaine trafficking — the reality is that Venezuela does not produce cocaine. Experts and UN data confirm that the country is merely a transit route for Colombian coca shipments.
So why, then, the renewed hostility toward Caracas?
The answer lies in Venezuela’s resource wealth. With over 300 billion barrels of proven oil reserves, Venezuela surpasses Saudi Arabia as the world’s largest holder of crude. In addition, its Orinoco Belt region contains vast quantities of rare earth metals — crucial for electric vehicles, semiconductors, and military technologies.
In short, control over Venezuela equals control over future energy and technology markets.
Machado’s proposal to “fully privatize” Venezuela’s oil and mining industries directly serves these interests. It aligns perfectly with Trump’s “America First” doctrine, ensuring U.S. corporate dominance over Venezuela’s strategic assets while sidelining Chinese and Russian investments.
The “Narco-Terrorism” Pretext and U.S. Escalation
Since early 2025, the Trump administration has revived old accusations against the Maduro government — including charges of narco-terrorism and money laundering. U.S. naval assets were redeployed to the Caribbean under the guise of counter-drug operations, while drone strikes on alleged “drug boats” were widely reported by Western media.
However, analysts argue that these moves are thinly veiled steps toward military escalation. By painting Venezuela as a criminal state, Washington creates the moral and legal justification for intervention — just as it did in Iraq under the pretext of “weapons of mass destruction.”
Critics point to a consistent pattern: whenever Washington seeks control over a nation’s natural resources, it frames that nation as a security threat or human rights violator, paving the way for “democracy restoration” missions.
The Monroe Doctrine Returns
At the heart of U.S. actions lies a revival of the Monroe Doctrine, the 19th-century American policy that opposes external powers’ involvement in the Western Hemisphere. President Trump has explicitly referenced this doctrine in speeches, warning China and Russia to stay out of “America’s backyard.”
This renewed doctrine isn’t symbolic — it’s strategic. Over the last decade, Russia has provided Venezuela with billions in loans and military equipment, while China has invested heavily in oil infrastructure, energy grids, and telecommunications. Beijing is now Venezuela’s largest creditor and a key technological partner.
For Washington, this represents a red line. A Chinese or Russian foothold in Latin America — especially in the resource hub of Venezuela — is seen as an existential challenge to U.S. hegemony. Thus, Machado’s rise fits perfectly within America’s containment policy, offering a friendly regime ready to roll back Moscow and Beijing’s influence.
Machado’s Economic Vision: Democracy or Dependency?
Supporters of María Corina Machado argue that she is Venezuela’s best chance at restoring democracy and economic stability after years of crisis. They highlight her courage, persistence, and international recognition as proof of her legitimacy.
However, critics say her vision of a “free Venezuela” is simply privatization under foreign control.
By promising American companies full access to Venezuela’s industries, Machado risks turning the nation into a corporate colony, repeating the same pattern of dependency Latin America has fought to escape for decades.
Her close coordination with U.S. conservatives and her Nobel dedication to Trump blur the line between democracy advocacy and foreign lobbying. Even some opposition supporters have grown wary, fearing that the promise of freedom may come at the cost of sovereignty.
A Nation at a Crossroads
As 2025 draws to a close, Venezuela stands at a critical juncture.
Maduro’s rule remains authoritarian, but the alternative — a foreign-backed transition under Machado — poses its own dangers.
The Nobel Peace Prize, meant to honor human rights and reconciliation, has become a symbol of division and geopolitics.
To some, it celebrates hope.
To others, it marks the beginning of a new imperial chapter — where democracy becomes a tool of energy dominance and “peace” serves as a façade for power projection.
In the end, Venezuela’s struggle isn’t merely about who governs in Caracas. It’s about who controls the nation’s future — its oil, its minerals, and its independence.
And as Washington reasserts its Monroe Doctrine and the world inches toward multipolar rivalry, one truth becomes clear: Venezuela’s fate will once again be decided not by its people, but by the global powers that covet its wealth.
