by Jacob G. Hornberger

January 20, 2026

Will Venezuelan opposition leader María Corina Machado return to her country, as she has vowed? If so, how exactly would she do that? Does she sneak into the country and remain hidden, as she has done ever since the Chavista regime began arresting and brutalizing protestors after the country’s 2024 presidential election? Or does she get on a plane and fly publicly into the country and live openly without fear of being arrested by the Chavista regime to face pending criminal charges against her?

It seems to me that given the position of servile subserviency into which she has placed herself with respect to her relationship with President Trump, she would almost certainly feel compelled to ask his permission to return to her home country.

At the same time, however, she would have to realize that it would almost certainly be a futile request because there is no reasonable possibility that Trump would say yes. The last thing he, the Pentagon, and the CIA would want is her going down to Venezuela and causing trouble, like in the form of protests. That would obviously interfere with the “stability” that Trump and the national-security establishment want for Venezuela.

After all, “stability” is the main reason that Trump and the U.S. national-security establishment have chosen to keep the Chavista regime in power, even without Nicolás Maduro as president. They feel that that keeping the Chavista regime in power will maintain “stability” in Venezuela, which would facilitate the U.S. takeover of the country’s oil industry.

On the other hand, they feel that using their military power to bring about regime change that would hand the reins of power to Machado and the opposition would mean massive instability, especially given that Venezuela’s national-security establishment (that is, its Pentagon, CIA, and NSA) might well violently resist the opponents’ assumption of power.

The fascinating aspect of this operation is one that I think has not really sunk into the consciousnesses of the American people, especially the American right-wing. As far as I can remember, this is the first time since the conversion of the federal government to a national-security state after World War II that the U.S. government has partnered with and ardently supported the existence of a communist-socialist regime, one that has smashed civil liberties out of existence through kidnappings, arbitrary arrests, indefinite detention, torture, and execution without due process of law and judicial trials.

After all, don’t forget the fierce anti-communist crusade that was used to justify almost 50 years of the old Cold War racket, one that was used to justify the conversion of the federal government to a national-security state and one with omnipotent totalitarian-like powers, such as the powers of assassination, torture, indefinite detention, coups, wars of aggression, occupations, invasions, sanctions, and embargoes.

Don’t forget the sacrifice of tens of thousands of American soldiers, many of whom had been conscripted, in the fight against communism in Korea and Vietnam.

Indeed, don’t forget the decades-old, ongoing, never-ending, perpetual war of aggression against communist Cuba, a nation that has never attacked the United States — a war that has included assassination, terrorism, and a brutal and deadly economic embargo designed to bring death by starvation and illness to the Cuban people.

Yet, we now have the spectacle of the U.S. government actually using its military might to support the continued existence of a communist-socialist regime, one that smashes civil liberties, including freedom of speech, protests, and demonstrations, out of existence with the same brutality that exists in communist countries, like China, Cuba, and North Korea.

It made sense, from a logical standpoint, when U.S. officials, including those in the Pentagon, the CIA, and the NSA, fully supported the Pinochet regime in Chile that they helped bring into existence. Although it’s brutal and tyrannical suppression of civil liberties was the same as that in communist regimes, the fact that it was a right-wing, pro-U.S military regime made all the difference in the world. So what if Pinochet’s national-security state goons were murdering, disappearing, kidnapping, torturing, raping, incarcerating, and brutalizing tens of thousands of people? Those victims, U.S. and Chilean officials maintained, were nothing more than communist-socialist scum who were part of the supposed worldwide communist conspiracy to take over the world.

But here in Venezuela, the support is obviously not of a right-wing, pro-U.S., military regime. The support is for a communist-socialist, anti-U.S. regime, one that, in fact, U.S officials have also long decried as a narco-terrorist regime. Ardently supporting the continued existence of a  communist-socialist, narco-terrorist, anti-U.S. regime is incredible! Equally shocking is to see the director of the CIA, rather than a member of the State Department, actually meeting with the acting president of the country, a woman named Delcy Rodriguez, who Machado herself has pointed out is a communist.

In fact, it’s also incredible that the American conservative movement is on board with this phenomenon. They consider this partnership with an openly communist-socialist, narco-terrorist, anti-U.S. regime to be “prudent” and “wise” because of the “stability” that comes with it. Well, if the stability that comes with totalitarian regimes is so important, why then do conservatives continue calling on Cubans, Chinese, and Iranian citizens to revolt against their totalitarian regimes?

So, what does Machado do now? If she flies into Venezuela in an open and public way (assuming that the U.S. government has ended its no-fly zone over Venezuela), she is facing the very real possibility of being taken into custody to face pending criminal charges at the hands of the Chavista regime that the U.S. government is now supporting. Those charges include a supposed conspiracy to assassinate Maduro, who is now sitting in a prison in New York City facing his own criminal charges at the hands of the U.S. government .

Would Trump step in and demand Machado’s release, as he did with former Brazilian president Jair Bolsonaro? Maybe. But another possibility is that he would simply hold that Machado is on her own, given that she didn’t secure Trump’s permission to travel back to Venezuela. In fact, it seems to me that the last thing Trump would want is to have Machado free in Venezuela to lead massive protests in the streets against a regime that was clearly and overwhelmingly rejected by the electorate in the last presidential election. That would obviously mean lots of “instability.”

What if Machado sneaks into the country and rejoins the resistance? In that case, she would effectively be operating in opposition not only to the communist-socialist, narco-terrorist, anti-U.S. Chavista regime but also to the U.S. government that is ardently supporting its existence. Would she really want to place herself in a position of opposing Trump, the ruler to whom she servilely and submissively delivered her Nobel Prize in the hope that he would pick her over the Chavista communist-socialist regime to rule Venezuela?

Only time will tell. But my hunch is that Machado will end up residing in Miami or even New York City, where she can watch Maduro’s trial and continue convincing herself that it is just the first step toward democracy and freedom in Venezuela.