‘Run The Country’: Maduro’s Dubious Mandate Does Not License American Empire

Photo credits: https://www.newsweek.com/cilia-flores-maduro-venezuela-trump-strikes-11301757 https://www.wsj.com/livecoverage/venezuela-strikes/card/who-is-maduro-s-wife-cilia-flores–zAn6wDhDEtYsnZ2y4hBm

How a contested presidency in Caracas became Washington’s pretext for a doctrine of dominance—and why William Blum’s history warns this “transition” may be an occupation in disguise

By Malik Washington, Destination Freedom Media Group and the Davis Vanguard

America woke up this weekend to a sentence that should not exist in a constitutional republic.

According to multiple independent outlets, including The Guardian and Democracy Now!, President Donald Trump announced that U.S. forces had captured Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro and that the United States would “run the country” until a transition could be installed. That phrase—run the country—landed like a shockwave not only in Caracas, but across American living rooms, veterans’ halls, and communities still haunted by Iraq and Afghanistan.

The shock is visceral because the language is naked. It strips away decades of euphemism and reveals what U.S. power too often prefers to whisper: that sovereignty, for some nations, is conditional.

But if journalism is to retain credibility—especially at a moment this volatile—it must hold two truths at once. Nicolás Maduro is not an innocent bystander swept away by history. His claim to the presidency has been deeply contested, and credible reporting raises serious doubts about the legitimacy of his mandate. Yet even a flawed or illegitimate presidency does not grant the United States the right to bomb a capital, seize a head of state, and announce itself as the country’s temporary ruler.

Empire does not become lawful because the target is compromised.

WHAT IS BEING REPORTED—AND WHY AMERICANS ARE STUNNED

In a January 4, 2026 explainer, The Guardian reports that the U.S. carried out airstrikes across Venezuela, with explosions rocking Caracas before dawn, followed by President Trump’s announcement that U.S. forces had captured Nicolás Maduro and his wife, Cilia Flores, and flown them out of the country to face trial in New York on narco-terrorism charges. A fresh indictment was reportedly issued Saturday. Trump later posted an image on Truth Social showing Maduro aboard the USS Iwo Jima, and the White House released video that appeared to show Maduro handcuffed and escorted at U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration offices. Trump said the United States would “run the country” until a leadership transition could take place and openly stated that U.S. oil companies would move into Venezuela.

(The Guardian, Jan. 4, 2026: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2026/jan/03/why-trump-us-attacked-caracas-captured-venezuela-president-nicolas-maduro)

Democracy Now!’s January 3, 2026 special report similarly states that Trump described the operation as a “large-scale attack,” declared “We are going to run the country,” and told Fox News the U.S. would be “very strongly involved” in Venezuela’s oil industry, explicitly referencing the country’s vast reserves. The broadcast also reported international condemnation, including Mexico’s assertion that the attack violated Article 2 of the UN Charter and Brazil’s warning that the seizure crossed an unacceptable line.

Democracy Now!, Jan. 3, 2026: https://www.democracynow.org/2026/1/3/special_report_on_venezuela_us_kidnaps

People’s World dispensed with diplomatic hedging altogether, calling the removal of Maduro “kidnapping” and “an act of war,” arguing the operation had nothing to do with drug enforcement and everything to do with oil and imperial power.

People’s World, Jan. 3, 2026:

Americans are stunned because this is not how democratic nations claim to behave. This is how empires announce themselves.

MADURO MAY NOT BE A LEGITIMATE PRESIDENT—BUT VENEZUELA IS NOT U.S. PROPERTY

Here is the uncomfortable truth that must be faced head-on: Nicolás Maduro’s presidency may rest on a stolen election.

In August 2024, The Guardian published a detailed investigation describing how Venezuela’s opposition organized a nationwide operation—months in the making—to collect voting tallies from polling stations across the country. Using QR codes printed on official tally receipts, tens of thousands of volunteers scanned and uploaded results, ultimately gathering approximately 83% of the nationwide vote count. Those tallies showed opposition candidate Edmundo González winning by a wide margin, directly contradicting the government-controlled electoral council’s declaration that Maduro had prevailed.

The Guardian, Aug. 10, 2024: https://www.theguardian.com/world/article/2024/aug/10/gonzalez-proof-win-venezuela-election-vote-tally-maduro

The Guardian reported that these tallies were independently verified by multiple credible analyses, including reviews by the Associated Press.

https://apnews.com/article/venezuela-maduro-machado-biden-gonzalez-a625eb01979bc9cf5570d03242f198b1;

The Washington Post

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2024/08/04/maduro-gonzalez-election-actas-analysis

Colombia’s Misión de Observación Electoral

https://www.moe.org.co/revision-de-actas-y-documentos-electoraleseleccion-venezuela-20243-de-agosto-de-2024/;

and election forensics scholar Walter R. Mebane Jr. of the University of Michigan

https://websites.umich.edu/~wmebane/Venezuela2024.pdf.

The opposition published the results on a publicly accessible website:  https://resultadosconvzla.com/

which Venezuelan authorities subsequently blocked inside the country. Hundreds—later more than a thousand—activists were arrested following election day, according to Guardian-linked reporting.

These facts matter. They complicate any narrative that paints Maduro as a purely lawful democratic leader. They also underscore the suffering of Venezuelans whose voices have been suppressed by an entrenched political apparatus.

But they do not convert Venezuela into a U.S. asset.

A contested election—even a stolen one—does not license unilateral military intervention, forced extradition, or foreign “administration” of a sovereign nation’s political and economic future. The remedy for illegitimacy is law, transparency, and multilateral pressure—not bombs followed by oil contracts.

THE IMPERIAL SCRIPT WILLIAM BLUM DOCUMENTED

This is where the work of author and historian William Blum becomes essential.

In Killing Hope and Rogue State, Blum documented a recurring U.S. pattern: identify a foreign leader as illegitimate or criminal, then use that designation to justify actions that would otherwise be recognized as acts of aggression—covert destabilization, economic siege, proxy warfare, and, when convenient, direct military force.

The existence of real abuses inside a target country does not negate the pattern; it often enables it. Blum showed how genuine flaws—authoritarianism, corruption, repression—are routinely transformed into permission slips for imperial intervention, while the deeper objectives remain consistent: strategic dominance, resource control, and geopolitical discipline.

This weekend’s reporting fits that template with chilling precision.

When indictments follow airstrikes, law has already failed. What remains is power laundering itself through legal vocabulary.

OIL IS NOT A SIDE ISSUE—IT IS THE CENTER OF GRAVITY

Both The Guardian and Democracy Now! place oil at the heart of Trump’s stated intent. Trump’s comments about U.S. oil companies entering Venezuela, coupled with the months-long campaign of tanker seizures and military buildup described by The Guardian, strip away any illusion that narcotics enforcement is the primary objective.

Venezuela holds the largest proven oil reserves on Earth. That fact alone explains why the language of “transition” arrives hand-in-hand with the language of extraction.

Blum’s historical record leaves little ambiguity: resource sovereignty has long been a red line for empire. When nations insist on controlling what lies beneath their soil, the pressure intensifies—politically, economically, and, eventually, militarily.

THE PANAMA ECHO AND THE RISK OF ENDLESS CONFLICT

The Guardian calls this the largest and most direct U.S. action in Latin America since the 1989 invasion of Panama. Democracy Now! draws the same comparison, with veteran journalist Juan González warning that Venezuela’s size, political organization, and popular consciousness make a swift “Panama-style” outcome unlikely.

You can seize a man quickly. You cannot “run” a nation cheaply.

Guardian-reported war games predicting prolonged chaos after a leadership “Decapitation” scenario—mass displacement, internal conflict, and no clear exit—should haunt every American who remembers how confidently Iraq was sold as quick and orderly.

HOLDING THE LINE THAT MATTERS

This moment demands clarity, not tribal reflex.

We can acknowledge that Nicolás Maduro’s presidency is credibly disputed and that his government has silenced rivals, eroded institutions, and inflicted real harm.

We can also insist—without hesitation—that the United States has no lawful or moral authority to bomb Venezuela, kidnap its leader, and declare temporary rule, especially while openly discussing control of its oil.

If Washington truly cared about Venezuelan democracy, it would respect international law and support transparent, multilateral processes. If it cared about accountability, it would submit its own actions to the constraints it demands of others.

William Blum warned that empire thrives when people accept that legality is whatever the powerful say it is.

This weekend, according to multiple sources, power did not merely act. It announced its intent.

If Americans do not reject the idea that the United States may “run” oil-rich nations at will—regardless of how flawed their leaders may be—we will wake up in a world where sovereignty

As always, here’s our song/video for this article:

Edwin Starr – War (Original Video – 1969)

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

Malik Washington is an investigative journalist and co-founder of Destination Freedom Media Group, an independent nonprofit newsroom dedicated to accountability reporting at the intersection of civil rights, public integrity, and community survival. He has been a published journalist for over 14 years. 

His work—published in partnership with the Davis Vanguard—focuses on government power, criminal justice, environmental justice, and the human consequences of policy decisions too often insulated from public scrutiny. Washington’s reporting amplifies the voices of impacted communities while insisting on documentary evidence, transparency, and the unvarnished truth—especially when institutions demand silence.

You can reach him via email: mwashington2059@gmail.com or call him at (719) 715-9592.

Suggestions or leads on stories are always welcome.

Please follow us on:

Facebook:  https://www.facebook.com/destfreedom13

Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/destinationfreedom13/

X:  https://x.com/dest_freedom

Follow the Vanguard on Social Media – X, Instagram and Facebook.  Subscribe the Vanguard News letters.  To make a tax-deductible donation, please visit davisvanguard.org/donate or give directly through ActBlue.  Your support will ensure that the vital work of the Vanguard continues.

Categories:

Tags: