World Peace

María Corina Machado

Did she help Trump capture Maduro from the inside?

GoogleAI Mode: “While María Corina Machado was a vocal proponent of military intervention to oust Nicolás Maduro, there is no evidence she provided “inside” help for the January 3, 2026, U.S. raid. In fact, reports indicate she was largely excluded from the planning and execution of the operation.

Key details regarding her role include:

Excluded from Communication: President Trump and Machado had not spoken since October 2025. Trump confirmed hours after the raid that he had not been in contact with her during the operation.

The “Inside” Source: The CIA confirmed that the critical intelligence used to track Maduro’s location came from a government official inside Maduro’s inner circle who had been penetrated as an agent since August. There is no indication this source was Machado or linked to her party.

Lack of Strategic Coordination: Machado had been living in hiding and secretly fled Venezuela in December 2025 to collect her Nobel Prize in Oslo, suggesting she was not in a position to provide tactical ground support for the raid.

Sidelined After the Raid: Despite her “ecstatic” public support for the operation, Trump immediately sidelined her, claiming she lacked the domestic “respect” or “levers of power” to lead the transition. Instead, he chose to work with Delcy Rodríguez, Maduro’s former deputy, who had been in secret negotiations with U.S. envoys like Richard Grenell prior to the raid.

Advocacy vs. Action: While she did not provide “inside” intelligence, she did publicly “beseech” Trump for months to intervene and topple Maduro, framing it as the only way to “liberate” the country. 

Machado later gifted her Nobel medal to Trump specifically to recognize his “principled and decisive action” in a raid she supported from the sidelines but did not direct.”

THE INSIDE SOURCE

Who was the inside source that helped track Maduro?

GoogleAI Mode: “While the specific identity of the CIA’s “inside source” remains a highly guarded state secret as of January 2026, investigative reports and official briefings have provided several key details about this individual and the nature of their cooperation:

Profile of the Inside Source

Access Level: The source was an official operating within the highest levels of the Venezuelan government, specifically within Nicolás Maduro’s inner circle.

Intelligence Provided: The asset monitored Maduro’s location and “pattern of life” in the days and moments leading up to the January 3 raid. This included minute details such as his daily routines, the food he ate, what he wore, and even information about his pets.

Recruitment Timeline: The CIA reportedly had this asset “wired” and providing insight as early as August 2025, months before the capture.

Motivation: Officials suggested the $50 million reward offered by the U.S. government for information on Maduro likely incentivized the disclosures, though it has not been confirmed if the source will receive the payout. 

The “Inner Circle” Context

The existence of such a high-level mole has led to intense speculation and internal paranoia within the remains of the Maduro regime: 

Suspected Figures: While the source is not named, current acting President Delcy Rodríguez and Interior Minister Diosdado Cabello were the two most prominent figures close to Maduro.

Strategic Collaboration: Some analysts note that Delcy Rodríguez had been privately outlining a roadmap for a “post-Maduro Venezuela” with U.S. envoys as early as late 2025. Her subsequent installation as interim president with U.S. backing—and her recent high-level meetings with CIA Director John Ratcliffe—has led to widespread theories regarding her possible awareness or indirect role in the intelligence “mosaic” that enabled the raid. 

The U.S. government maintains that this human intelligence (HUMINT) was combined with signals intelligence and a fleet of stealth drones to ensure the capture was “seamless”.”

Delcy Rodríguez

How did Delcy Rodríguez help with the capture?

GoogleAI Mode: “In January 2026, details emerged suggesting Delcy Rodríguez played a pivotal, though discreet, role in the transition following the January 3 capture of Nicolás Maduro. While she publicly condemned the U.S. raid as a “barbarity,” investigative reports indicate she was a key actor in the “post-Maduro” planning. 

Her involvement in the capture and subsequent transition includes:

Secret Pre-Raid Negotiations: Months before the operation, Rodríguez engaged in discreet meetings in Qatar with U.S. special envoy Richard Grenell. Intelligence reports described her as a “pragmatic” figure willing to negotiate a transition, contrasting with other hardline ideologues in Maduro’s circle.

Intelligence “Mosaic”: While not officially named as the “inside source,” CIA analysts assessed her as the most “capitalistic” and pragmatic member of the regime. Her control over Venezuela’s intelligence services and the oil industry made her a critical link for the U.S. in ensuring a stable environment after Maduro’s removal.

Preventing an Insurgency: A classified CIA assessment concluded that backing Rodríguez, rather than opposition leader María Corina Machado, was the best way to prevent Venezuela from “descending into some chaotic situation” or an Iraq-style insurgency. This assessment was a primary factor in President Trump’s decision to endorse her as interim leader.

Immediate Post-Capture Cooperation: After the raid, Rodríguez shifted from initial condemnation to a “conciliatory tone”. On January 15, 2026, she hosted CIA Director John Ratcliffe in Caracas for a historic two-hour meeting to establish “trust-building measures” and discuss reopening the oil industry to U.S. investment.

Consolidating Power: Trump has praised her as “essentially willing to do what we think is necessary”. She has since begun releasing dozens of political prisoners—a move reportedly made at the behest of the Trump administration to signal a “new political moment”. 

While Maduro remains in U.S. custody pleading “not guilty” to narcoterrorism charges, Rodríguez has consolidated her position as the U.S.-backed interim leader, outmaneuvering Machado by maintaining the support of the Venezuelan military.”

THE OIL

How much is Venezuela’s oil worth?

GoogleAI Mode: “In January 2026, the valuation of Venezuela’s oil is viewed through two lenses: the massive “in-ground” value of its reserves and the immediate revenue generated from its current production. 

Total Reserve Value: $17–$18 Trillion

Venezuela holds the world’s largest proven oil reserves, estimated at approximately 303 billion barrels. 

Gross Value: At early 2026 market prices (roughly $60 per barrel), the gross “in-ground” value of these reserves is estimated at $17 trillion to $18 trillion.

Scale: This reserve value is comparable to the combined market capitalization of the “Magnificent Seven” tech companies or roughly 60% of annual U.S. GDP.

Extraction Challenges: Most of this oil is ultra-heavy crude from the Orinoco Belt, which is expensive to process and requires massive infrastructure investment—estimated at $100 billion—to modernize. 

Current Production and Market Value (January 2026)

Following the January 3 capture of Nicolás Maduro, the U.S. has begun directly managing and selling Venezuelan oil. 

Realized Price: U.S. Energy Secretary Chris Wright reported on January 15 that the U.S. is securing 30% higher prices for Venezuelan crude than the previous regime achieved, as it is no longer being sold at deep discounts to circumvent sanctions.

Recent Sales: The U.S. completed its first official sale of Venezuelan oil in mid-January, valued at $500 million.

Immediate Revenue Deal: A current agreement involves the transfer of 30–50 million barrels of existing sanctioned crude to the U.S., which is expected to be worth approximately $2 billion.

Daily Production: As of early 2026, Venezuela produces roughly 1 million barrels per day (bpd), significantly lower than its 1990s peak of 3.5 million bpd. 

Investment and Economic Outlook

Modernization Costs: Analysts estimate it will take an immediate investment of $10 billion to $20 billion just to raise production to 1.5 million bpd by mid-2027.

Profit Margins: Estimates suggest that with current costs, each barrel yields roughly $29 in profit after extraction and transport, potentially earning the country $11.7 billion annually at current output levels.”

THE TAKING

What other countries is the United States taking resources?

GoogleAI Mode: “As of January 2026, the United States is primarily acquiring resources through standard international trade agreements and by working with allies to secure supply chains.

However, the U.S. has notably shifted its approach regarding Venezuela and has expressed interest in Greenland’s resources: 

Venezuela (Oil and Minerals) 

The U.S. is currently managing and selling Venezuelan oil following the military operation that captured Nicolás Maduro on January 3, 2026. This is a unique situation where the U.S. government is exercising direct administrative control over a foreign nation’s primary resource. 

Oil: The U.S. is marketing the crude and placing proceeds into U.S.-controlled accounts, with plans for major U.S. oil companies to rebuild the industry. The goal is to redirect this supply from adversaries like China and Russia to the U.S. and its allies.

Minerals: U.S. officials are also looking into Venezuela’s significant reserves of critical minerals, including gold, beryl, lead, and titanium, to diversify supply chains currently dominated by China. 

Greenland (Critical Minerals and Rare Earths) 

The U.S. is not currently “taking” resources from Greenland, but President Trump has made repeated, public pushes for the United States to acquire the island from Denmark, citing its strategic location and massive untapped mineral wealth (including lithium and rare earth elements). 

Diplomatic Tensions: This has created a diplomatic spat with Denmark, which has firmly rejected the U.S. proposition, defending Greenland’s sovereignty. Trump has even floated the possibility of imposing tariffs on countries that oppose his acquisition efforts.

Motivation: The U.S. aims to reduce its 100% import dependence on certain critical minerals by accessing Greenland’s deposits. 

Other Countries (Through Trade Partnerships)

Beyond these unusual situations, the U.S. secures resources primarily through legal trade and investment partnerships:

Canada: A major supplier of critical nonfuel mineral commodities.

China: The primary supplier for over 50% of U.S. demand for 21 nonfuel mineral commodities, despite ongoing efforts to reduce this reliance.

Australia, India, Japan: The U.S. is working with these “Quad” partners through the Minerals Security Partnership (MSP) to collaborate on securing and diversifying mineral supply chains.

Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC): The U.S. recently brokered a peace deal with the DRC and Rwanda to open up the prospect of U.S. investment in the DRC’s critical minerals sector.”

THE IMPLICATIONS

What are the implications?

GoogleAI Mode: “The aggressive resource-focused foreign policy of the Trump administration in early 2026, particularly regarding Venezuela and Greenland, has far-reaching geopolitical, economic, and legal implications.

1. Geopolitical and Diplomatic Implications

Strain on Alliances: The U.S. push to acquire Greenland has caused a major rift with Denmark and other NATO allies, who view the move as an “imperialist” threat to sovereignty. Threats to impose tariffs on countries that oppose the acquisition could further fragment transatlantic relations.

The “Donroe Doctrine”: Observers have dubbed the revival and expansion of the Monroe Doctrine into the “Donroe Doctrine,” asserting U.S. dominance over the Western Hemisphere’s resources to exclude Chinese and Russian influence.

Dangerous Precedents: Critics argue that using military force to seize territory or control foreign resources (as seen in Venezuela and threatened in Greenland) undermines international law regarding territorial integrity. 

2. Economic and Market Implications

Global Oil Market Stability: Direct U.S. management of Venezuelan oil is expected to increase global supply, potentially lowering Brent crude prices to the mid-$50s. This could benefit U.S. refiners but harm other major producers like Canada due to increased competition.

Critical Mineral Security: By targeting the rare earth elements and critical minerals in Venezuela and Greenland, the U.S. aims to break China’s dominance over high-tech supply chains. This is intended to secure components for AI, defense systems, and renewable energy.

Investment Hesitancy: Despite U.S. control, major firms like ExxonMobil have labeled Venezuela “uninvestable” in the short term due to past nationalizations and a lack of long-term political continuity. 

3. Legal and Institutional Implications

Withdrawal from Global Norms: On January 7, 2026, President Trump directed the withdrawal of the U.S. from 66 international organizations that he deemed contrary to national interests, further signaling a move away from multilateralism.

Executive Control of Revenue: Executive Order 14373 centralizes control over Venezuelan oil revenue in U.S. Treasury accounts, shielding these funds from commercial creditors and prioritizing U.S. foreign policy over legal judgments.

Enhanced Executive Power: The administration is increasingly using Section 232 and the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) to impose tariffs and regulate international trade under the umbrella of “national security”.”

THE CONSTITUTIONAL VIOLATIONS

What are the likely constitutional violations?

GoogleAI Mode: “In January 2026, legal scholars, members of Congress, and international experts have identified several likely constitutional violations arising from the Trump administration’s “Operation Absolute Resolve” in Venezuela and its aggressive stance toward resources in Greenland.

1. Violation of Article I War Powers

The most prominent constitutional challenge concerns Article I, Section 8, which grants Congress the exclusive power to declare war. 

Lack of Authorization: Critics argue the January 3, 2026, military strike on Caracas was an “unconstitutional offensive attack” conducted without a congressional Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF).

War Powers Resolution Defiance: The administration bypassed the War Powers Resolution of 1973, which requires a president to notify Congress within 48 hours and remove forces within 60 days unless authorized. While the Senate blocked a resolution to curb these powers on January 14, legal experts argue the original act remains a violation.

Shifting Rationale: The administration initially framed the raid as a “counternarcotics operation” to justify using existing executive powers, but later shifted to a rationale of seizing oil reserves, which Senator Rand Paul described as a “bait and switch” that lacks constitutional footing. 

2. Treaty Obligations as “Supreme Law of the Land”

Under Article VI (The Supremacy Clause), ratified treaties are the “supreme Law of the Land.”

UN Charter Violation: Scholars argue that by invading a sovereign nation without UN Security Council authorization, Trump violated the UN Charter, thereby violating his constitutional oath to uphold the supreme law.

Lack of Self-Defense: While the administration invoked Article 51 (self-defense) of the UN Charter, legal analysts note there was no imminent threat to U.S. territory or troops that would justify bypassing congressional or international approval. 

3. Fifth Amendment and “Due Process” for Assets

The administration’s Executive Order 14373 (January 9, 2026) centralizes Venezuelan oil revenue in U.S. Treasury accounts, sparking Fifth Amendment concerns. 

Takings Clause/Due Process: By blocking private judgment creditors from seizing these funds to satisfy legal claims, the EO may violate the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process and Takings Clauses. The order effectively prioritizes “national security” over the established property rights of private entities.

Extraterritorial Authority: Legal experts suggest the “de facto control” over a foreign government’s natural resources may constitute an illegal extraterritorial exercise of authority that lacks any U.S. constitutional or statutory basis. 

4. Seizure of Foreign Territory (Greenland)

The administration’s push to “swallow Greenland” has raised questions about the limits of presidential power. 

Lack of Acquisition Power: Senator Mark Kelly and others have questioned whether a U.S. president has the constitutional authority to unilaterally “seize territory from an ally” or threaten land acquisition by force, which would typically require a treaty approved by two-thirds of the Senate. 

AI responses may include mistakes. For legal advice, consult a professional.”

THE IMPEACHMENT

On a scale of 1 to 5, how impeachable do these likely constitutional violations make Trump (exclude the Republican Trifecta in consideration)?

GoogleAI Mode: “In January 2026, the question of Donald Trump’s “impeachability” for recent actions in Venezuela and threats toward Greenland has become a central legal and political debate. Based on constitutional scholar consensus and the standard of “high Crimes and Misdemeanors,” the likely score is a 4 out of 5.

While the “Republican Trifecta” in 2026 makes removal from office practically impossible, the legal case for impeachment is considered robust by most scholars. 

1. War Powers and Article I Violations: 5/5

Constitutional scholars almost universally agree that launching an offensive military operation to topple a foreign head of state (Maduro) without a Congressional Declaration of War or AUMF is a direct violation of Article I, Section 8. 

Impeachability: This is a “core” constitutional violation. Rep. Jim Himes and others argue that military action without imminent threat or authorization is “clearly illegal” under both domestic and international law.

Defense: The administration claims Article II powers to defend against “drug cartels” as a justification, but scholars note this bypasses the War Powers Resolution. 

2. Treaty Violations (UN Charter): 4/5

Under the Supremacy Clause (Article VI), treaties like the UN Charter are part of the “supreme Law of the Land”. 

Impeachability: Experts argue the invasion of Venezuela violated the UN Charter’s prohibition on the use of force against a sovereign state. While presidents have historically disregarded international law, doing so in a way that risks global stability is cited by critics as a “betrayal of public trust”. 

3. Fifth Amendment and “Due Process” for Assets: 3/5

The seizure of Venezuelan oil revenues into U.S.-controlled accounts via Executive Order 14373 raises Fifth Amendment concerns regarding the deprivation of property without due process. 

Impeachability: While this is a serious legal issue, courts often grant the executive wide latitude in foreign asset control (e.g., IEEPA). However, using this power to prioritize “national security” over private property rights is being framed in 2026 impeachment articles as an “unlawful seizure”. 

4. Seizure of Foreign Territory (Greenland): 5/5

The threat to use military force or unauthorized economic coercion to acquire Greenland is seen by scholars as a potential “High Crime” because it threatens an ally (Denmark) and NATO stability. 

Impeachability: Republican Rep. Don Bacon has stated that a military move on Greenland would be “the end of his presidency,” indicating that even within his party, such a move is a red line for impeachment. 

Summary of the “Trifecta” Context

If the Republican Trifecta were ignored, the cumulative weight of these actions—described as “regime change for resources”—would likely result in a 5/5 score for the House of Representatives to draft articles. However, with the current Senate makeup, even “clearly illegal” actions are being shielded by the defeat of war powers resolutions, making the actual likelihood of conviction near zero.”

THE IHRL & IHL VIOLATIONS

What are the IHRL & IHL violations?

GoogleAI Mode: “In January 2026, international law experts, United Nations (UN) rapporteurs, and humanitarian organizations identified extensive violations of International Human Rights Law (IHRL) and International Humanitarian Law (IHL) arising from the U.S. military strikes in Venezuela and the capture of Nicolás Maduro.

International Human Rights Law (IHRL) Violations

Legal experts assert that IHRL applies to the U.S. military’s extraterritorial actions, particularly regarding the right to life and personal liberty. 

Arbitrary Deprivation of Life: U.S. strikes on suspected drug vessels in the Caribbean—which killed at least 80 people between September and November 2025—are classified by experts as extrajudicial killings. These are considered arbitrary because the individuals killed posed no imminent threat of death or serious injury to others at the time of the strikes.

Violations of Due Process: The abduction of a sovereign head of state from his home to face criminal charges in a foreign court is viewed as a violation of international human rights norms. UN experts emphasized that any transition must be guided by truth, accountability, and the Venezuelan people’s right to self-determination, which is enshrined in the ICCPR and ICESCR.

Undermining Basic Human Rights: UN experts warned that the U.S. blockade and military aggression have severely undermined the human rights of the Venezuelan population, worsening an already complex humanitarian emergency. 

International Humanitarian Law (IHL) Violations

While the Trump administration categorized targeted groups like the Tren de Aragua gang as “unlawful combatants,” experts argue that standard IHL protections still applied to the conflict. 

Prohibition of Murder (Common Article 3): Under the Geneva Conventions, violence to the life and person of those not actively engaged in hostilities is strictly prohibited. Suspected traffickers on unarmed or lightly armed vessels do not qualify as “lawful combatants” or members of an organized armed group, making lethal strikes against them a violation of custom and treaty.

Civilian Protection (Distinction, Necessity, Proportionality): The U.S. operation “Absolute Resolve” involved large-scale bombing of infrastructure to suppress air defenses. Human rights organizations reported that these strikes killed scores of civilians, violating the principles of legality, necessity, proportionality, and precaution.

Treatment of Prisoners of War: Nicolás Maduro has declared himself a prisoner of war. International law requires that all persons deprived of their liberty receive humane treatment and due process, regardless of the legality of their capture. 

The Crime of Aggression

Beyond IHRL and IHL, the operation is widely viewed as a violation of the UN Charter, specifically Article 2(4), which prohibits the use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state. 

Act of Aggression: UN experts and international jurists have described the U.S. military’s unprovoked bombardment and abduction of a sovereign leader as a crime of aggression.

Erosion of International Order: Allies and adversaries alike, including France and China, warned that these violations by a permanent member of the Security Council erode the “very foundation of the international order”. 

The United States has rejected these characterizations, with the Department of Justice issuing a redacted memo arguing that the capture was a domestic “law enforcement operation” supported by the president’s inherent constitutional authority, which they claim is not constrained by international law. 

AI responses may include mistakes. For legal advice, consult a professional.”