Since early this year, Senator Marco Rubio has emerged as a key figure in shaping Venezuela’s political and economic direction from Washington, following the reported capture of Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro by U.S. forces. While the notion that Rubio might relocate to Caracas has been described as a joke by White House officials, interviews with multiple sources in both Washington and Caracas depict Rubio as exercising significant influence over Venezuela's governance, finances, and natural resources, despite never having visited the country under current U.S. involvement.

The arrangement appeared to solidify after Maduro’s arrest in January, when Rubio reportedly contacted Delcy Rodríguez—the former vice president and acting leader of Venezuela—offering a stark choice between cooperating with the United States or facing intensified military and infrastructure actions. Rodríguez subsequently agreed to work with U.S. officials, signaling an unusual partnership between Washington and officials who were formerly part of Maduro’s government.

Rubio’s control extends to Venezuela’s financial flows. U.S. Treasury manages much of the country’s export revenues, disbursing funds through private banks subject to conditions set by Rubio and his team. This system aims to reduce corruption and protect Venezuela from creditor pressures, but it also gives Rubio substantial leverage over Rodríguez, who depends on the funds to sustain government operations. Additionally, Rubio oversees the implementation of U.S. sanctions on Venezuela, controlling which businesses can operate there and shaping reforms in the oil sector to increase access for American companies.

The United States has reinforced its involvement with nearly 900 military personnel deployed to Venezuela and commitments of approximately $400 million in aid, especially after two recent earthquakes caused extensive damage. Rubio described the U.S. strategy in three stages: economic recovery, stabilization, and eventually a democratic transition. However, the timeline for free elections remains uncertain, with Rodríguez indicating only that elections might be held “sometime” in the future, and Rubio retaining decisive authority over political developments.

The arrangement has drawn criticism from multiple quarters, including some U.S. diplomats, Venezuelan Americans, and opposition figures who question the wisdom of supporting Rodríguez, a former Maduro ally. Critics argue that U.S. policy risks propping up an authoritarian regime while antagonizing many Venezuelans eager for genuine political change. Opposition leader María Corina Machado, who remains popular among some domestic and foreign observers, has been largely sidelined by Rubio and the administration due to concerns about her confrontational stance toward Venezuela’s security forces.

Despite these challenges, Rubio and his allies assert that their approach is pragmatic, viewing Rodríguez’s compliance with U.S. directives—especially regarding control over finances and extradition of individuals linked to Maduro’s circle—as vital steps toward restoring stability. This includes cooperation on security operations, such as the recent killing of Nidio Guerrero, a criminal with ties to Venezuelan officials, facilitated by intelligence shared between Rodríguez’s government and U.S. forces.

As Venezuela continues to grapple with economic hardship and political uncertainty, the extent and durability of U.S. influence, centered on Rubio’s role in Washington, remain a subject of debate. While President Trump has, at times, suggested an ambitious vision that includes Venezuela’s eventual integration with the United States, the feasibility and implications of this policy direction are unclear amid ongoing volatility in the region.