Since the capture of Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro by U.S. Special Forces in January, Washington has significantly expanded its influence over Caracas, prompting debate over the nature of Venezuela’s sovereignty and governance. A stream of American officials and oil industry representatives have engaged directly with Venezuela’s acting president, Delcy Rodriguez, effectively shaping government decisions and controlling access to the country’s oil revenues.

According to multiple accounts, Secretary of State Marco Rubio has played a central role, sending instructions to Rodriguez regarding governmental appointments and the removal of Maduro loyalists. Under this U.S. oversight, Rodriguez has opened Venezuela’s energy sector to American companies. The Trump administration has indicated that democratic elections will be postponed until the country’s economy, particularly its oil industry, stabilizes.

Observers have used various terms to describe Venezuela’s unusual status, including “puppet regime,” “colony,” and “American protectorate.” Economist Carlos Mendoza Potellá, formerly an adviser to the Venezuelan central bank, argued that Venezuela has forfeited its sovereignty, characterizing the nation as a territory managed by foreign interests rather than an independent state. “Who decides? Emperor Trump, who has his proconsul Marco Rubio,” Mendoza Potellá said, reflecting concerns over the extent of U.S. control.

Nonetheless, Venezuela technically meets the criteria for statehood outlined in the 1933 Montevideo Convention, maintaining its own government, defined territory, and population, with some capacity to engage internationally. There is no formal U.S. military occupation, apart from about 900 troops assisting with earthquake recovery efforts. Political scientist Javier Corrales described the situation as one in which Venezuela has ceded significant economic autonomy but remains unoccupied territory.

This arrangement exemplifies evolving concepts of sovereignty in international relations. Experts observe a shift away from traditional notions of absolute state control toward a “bundle of rights” model in which parts of governance can be delegated or influenced by external actors. Tom Long, professor of international relations at the University of Warwick, noted that the rising costs and political complications of formal occupations have prompted powerful states to seek indirect control mechanisms.

Examples include international oversight of customs in Angola and Mozambique by foreign companies, United Nations or International Monetary Fund supervision of state functions in fragile nations, and China’s use of economic leverage through its Belt and Road Initiative. Even European Union member states have voluntarily relinquished elements of sovereignty for integration benefits.

While such arrangements can offer governance assistance and economic opportunities, they also pose risks to national independence. Venezuela’s current condition, shaped by U.S. influence without formal occupation, illustrates how new forms of control resemble traditional colonial dynamics in a modern context. The case raises questions about the durability and definition of sovereignty in an era of increasing global interdependence and external intervention.