David Sanger (2:51)

It is over.

Kara Swisher (2:53)

Luisa, David and Alejandro, thanks for coming on on.

Luisa Palacios (2:57)

Thank you Cara for having us.

Alejandro Velasco (2:58)

Thanks so much.

David Sanger (2:58)

Great to be with you or back with you, Kara.

Kara Swisher (3:01)

Great. Okay, first, we're recording this on Tuesday after the world's had a few days to digest what happened in Venezuela over the weekend. Let's start by getting each of you to give us your top line analysis of what we're seeing in Caracas. David, you go first, then Luisa, then Alejandro.

David Sanger (3:15)

Well, first I think we've seen the real assertion in the real world of the Trump corollary to the Monroe Doctrine. For those of you who skipped that day in 11th grade. The Monroe Doctrine, of course, established a right for the United States to stop colonization in the Western Hemisphere. Teddy Roosevelt updated it to say that the United States could intervene to control the region. And Trump has done his own corollary, which came out in the National Security Strategy in November, to basically argue that not only can the US act to keep other powers out of the region, he was thinking China, whereas Monroe had been worried about Portugal and Spain, but also that it can intervene into the inner workings of other countries to defend its national interests without defining what those were. Now, we've heard four different explanations for what he was doing in Venezuela. The first was retaliating for dumping gang members into the country. The second was stopping the drug trade. That was a little bit dubious. The third argument was briefly, this is about oil. But every time you raise this topic with the president, he would change the topic until after Maduro was gone. And the fourth argument that you heard was reestablishing American primacy in the region. And now what you have heard in the days since Maduro was seized in what Rubio, Marco Rubio, the Secretary of State, calls a law enforcement action, is a discussion that this may not be the end, that the US could assert the same rights about Colombia, even about Greenland, a topic that came up a year ago when I asked the president, before he was inaugurated at a press conference whether he was willing to use military force to take Greenland or the Panama Canal. We weren't discussing Venezuela at that time. And the question now is, has Donald Trump returned the United States to a sort of 1890s use of force, gunboat diplomacy, but also restored a sense of.

Kara Swisher (5:33)

Spheres of influence which would be splitting up.

David Sanger (5:36)

What message would Xi Jinping or Vladimir Putin take from this set of actions?

Kara Swisher (5:42)

Right. Luisa. And then Alejandro.

Luisa Palacios (5:44)

There is, at least for the history of Venezuela, there will be a before and after after these events. I would agree with David that this also redefines US Latin America relations in a way that, as he explained, establishes what does the Monroe Doctrine mean nowadays in Trump? World Right.

Kara Swisher (6:05)

He's calling it the Donroe Doctrine for some reason. Go ahead.

Luisa Palacios (6:08)

Exactly. I do think that this matters. A lot for how specifically China defines its economic interest in Latin America. To me, this also feels like a increase in the risk perception of any future investments of China. So there is a demonstrative impact of whatever is happening in Venezuela that will have repercussions in the region, not only from China's perspective, but also from the other countries in the region. That said, for Venezuela, it has significant implications of which we don't know yet because it is too soon to tell how this is going to evolve. It matters a lot for The History of U.S. latin America relations which have been defined by the Chavismo and then the Madurismo. There was also a before and after. So what remains to be seen is what is that next chapter going to look like? And it is a chapter that has been very really dominated by the oil relations. I would agree with David in this framework of the reasons, the rationale behind the events. Oil seemed to feature much more in the post events than it has had featured before. However, what I would say is that to me, given that the US is the most important producer of oil in the planet, this is not about seizing all resources, but it is about who controls natural resources in general and how they're used. I think given that in my lifetime we have seen economic destruction that really has not been seen in countries that have not undergone a civil war. And so it is quite telling the history specifically of Venezuela. But there are specific issues related to the Venezuela. A case in particular, given the historical destruction that took place and the fact that 25% of the population lives had to flee the country. So there are things related to both domestic issues in Venezuela and the US linked to the immigration that has taken place and the instability that that created not only in Venezuela, but that it was exported to the rest of the region.

Kara Swisher (8:32)

Rest of the region.

Alejandro Velasco (8:32)

Alejandro, first of all, thanks so much for having me on. I appreciate it. For me, there are three top line takeaways of the last three days. The first one is beyond everything that we've seen that seems to be unprecedented and extraordinary over the last few days, or as David was saying, a kind of return to 19th century policies. Yeah. There's also a strange kind of way in which the very idea of regime change is being refashioned. Right. Because as dramatic and explosive, quite literally as the events were on Saturday morning, nothing much has changed. Right. The regime remains pretty much intact. And Rodriguez, the Vice President, is now president. That transition happened really quite seamlessly, very quickly. The Defense Minister, the National assembly was just inaugurated. And so if you speak with people in Venezuela and family and friends there, what they tell you is what happened. We had this sort of specter of intervention, and then it happened. And yet nothing much seems to have changed. And that, of course, has led to tremendous amounts of anxiety, but also fear. Can we express ourselves? Can we not express ourselves?

Kara Swisher (9:50)

There's been a crackdown.

Alejandro Velasco (9:51)

Yeah, yeah, absolutely. And it's mounting. So that's the first thing. We're seeing a kind of regime change operation that doesn't seem to have the changing of the regime. And so what does that mean for. For how we think about that interventions going forward? The second component that I think is a huge takeaway here, of course, is where this leads. A very already tattered notion of the international world order that was in the wake of World War II, but certainly in the wake of the Cold War, really rested on bedrock principles, at least putatively, of sovereignty. There was no pretense to. Of doing away with sovereignty in this moment. And as David and Lisa have said, that really seems to put us in a place in geopolitics where it's really mostly about, in fact, maybe only about who can exert the most degree of power at anywhere, at any time. That seems to be the kind of geopolitical landscape that we have post Saturday.

David Sanger (10:55)

It's almost just to leap on what Alejandro said here, it's almost a virtual occupation. Right. You can't think of this as like the American occupation in Japan, where we had American troops on the ground, or even Iraq. Right. Where we were trying to do so. What we're trying to do is coerce an existing dictatorial government to do our bidding by virtue of the fact that we're keeping an armada just offshore with the threat that the president's made a few times now that we could come in and what he calls a second wave, but he doesn't want to have anybody on the ground because that would look like a forever war to his MAGA base.

Kara Swisher (11:33)

Right.

David Sanger (11:33)

I cannot recall a case where we have tried essentially to do an occupation from afar.

Kara Swisher (11:42)

From afar, A virtual one. That's an excellent point. Can you finish up there, Alejandro?

Alejandro Velasco (11:47)

Certainly. What David is saying I completely agree with, but that also means that there's risk in this new kind of regime change for the Trump administration. It's not just like they have carte blanche if they're not actually willing to commit troops on the ground to affect the full regime change.

Kara Swisher (12:02)

The threat has to be enough.

Alejandro Velasco (12:04)

The threat has to be enacted. But the third point that I was going to make quickly is this also creates a kind of new rift in what is already a deeply polarized Venezuelan society. In Venezuela and outside Venezuela, right, you see expressions of support, of celebration, not just about the removal of Maduro, but the intervention of the United States among Venezuelans abroad. And there's a question among even opponents in Venezuela. Wait a minute. If you're celebrating foreign intervention in that way, what is your sense of nationalism? And where does that leave you in terms of your concern for us and for the country? So all of that is very much top line for me.

Kara Swisher (12:46)

So, David, you've called the American operation medicine a naked grab for oil. And Secretary of State Marco Rubio may have persuaded Trump by focusing on drugs and immigration. Trump may have wanted a distraction from Epstein. There's all kinds of different things. Maduro also reportedly angered the administration by dancing on Venezuelan television. Let's play a bit of his anti war song he danced to just days ago.

Luisa Palacios (13:15)

Cigar?

Kara Swisher (13:16)

No. All right. No crazy war. So, based on your reporting, what are the real reasons for sending the Miller from your perspective?

David Sanger (13:25)

It's a really great question. I mean, I, I think that because there was an active indictment against him, they had an easy pretense for the first part of the operation. And as usual, it's the this, the that showy part of the operation that everybody is sort of focused on, and it was done with remarkable efficiency. I think the president and Secretary Hegseth are probably right in saying no other country could have pulled that off in two and a half hours the way they did. What that doesn't explain and what the indictment doesn't explain is how you then make a claim to run the country, be in charge and have access at your own definition. Right.

Kara Swisher (14:13)

You're just trying to arrest a guy.

David Sanger (14:15)

Right. And that's where the pretense or the legitimate goal of arresting him, similar to the Noriega event in Panama in 1989, runs into the reality of the new Trump corollary to the Monroe Doctrine and the seizure of land. And that's the part the administration hasn't even made a particular effort to defend. One last quick point here. If they had wanted to have the pretense of restoring democracy, then they would have said that Edmondo Gonzalez, the winner of the 2024 election, is now restored as president because the United States recognized him as a legitimate winner of the election in 2024.

Kara Swisher (15:06)

Right.

David Sanger (15:07)

But they made no effort to even try to go do that, to put him there.

Kara Swisher (15:10)

We'll get to who's running the place in a minute. But Luisa, as You've noted one of Trump's main stated rationales is his claim that Venezuela, quote, stole American oil. Briefly walk us through the U.S. s involvement in the Venezuelan oil industry both before and after it was nationalized in 1976.

Luisa Palacios (15:27)

I don't know that he's referring to the 1976 nationalization of oil. I think he's referring more to the 1990s. Expropriation of assets, I think that's really talking about. And yes, there were significant investments that took place in Venezuela, exactly the same companies that were nationalized in the 1970s, they've come back in the 1990s and invested, yes, billions of dollars. The US companies were not the only ones. They were major European countries, regional Latin American companies, and they were all expropriated. There are about 60 international arbitration claims against Venezuela and the Venezuelan regime, but it doesn't end there. Those are the 60 that we know about. But at the. There have been 5,000 companies from also private companies in Venezuela by Venezuelans that have been nationalized, expropriated, or confiscated. So those claims have to do. Or that statement, in my view, is the interpretation is that this is about the unpaid claims of all those expropriations that took place in the 1990s.

Kara Swisher (16:29)

But some of those have been written down by those companies, too. The assets have been already accounted for, some of them.

Luisa Palacios (16:35)

Some of the 60 have been written down. Some of them have been negotiated, some of them have been paid. You still have about $20 billion in unpaid expropriated claims.

Alejandro Velasco (16:48)

But it goes further than that.

Luisa Palacios (16:49)

Right?

Alejandro Velasco (16:49)

I mean, what he's saying is not. Obviously, who knows what he means at the end of the day? But what he's saying is not just about assets and companies. That is our oil. It goes back to the kind of the dark humor jokes of like, you know, how did you. How did American oil end up underneath the sand of Iraq? Or something like that. Right. It goes beyond that and it speaks to what David was describing before, which is much more about a sense of this is our hemisphere and, you know, we therefore can do what we want. The energy stability and independence not of the United States, but of the hemisphere means that our resources of the hemisphere fall under our orbit. That's an entirely. I mean, I don't want to still lose sight of the legal claims Louise is mentioning, but I think this goes beyond that.

Kara Swisher (17:40)

We'll be back in a minute. Support for this show comes from Quince. People love to say new Year, new Me, and honestly, that sounds like a lot. No need to start from scratch, I say why don't we start with a new wardrobe instead from Quince. Quince has all the staples covered from soft Mongolian cashmere sweaters that feel like designer pieces without the markup to 100% silk tops and skirts for easy dressing up to perfectly cut denim for everyday wear. Their wardrobe essentials are crafted to last season after season. And like everything from Quint's, each piece is made with premium material materials in ethical trusted factories, then priced far below what other luxury brands charge. I've gotten lots of items from Quince myself and I'm just bringing out my down cape which I wear for a very short time as it starts to get cold because it's really warm, it's cozy and it looks really good. It looks like I'm wearing a very fashionable blanket. I'm excited to be wearing it in the coming days as the weather gets colder and colder. Refresh your wardrobe Wardrobe with Quince don't wait. Go to Quince.com Kara for free shipping on your order and 365 day returns. Now available in Canada too. That's Q-U-I-N-C-E.com Kara to get free shipping and 365 day returns. Quince.com Kara support for on with Kara Swisher comes from Groons. If you're looking for a health goal that you can actually stick to, you might want to check out Groons. Groons is a simple daily habit that deliver real benefits with minimal effort. Their convenient, comprehensive formula packed into a snack pack of gummies a day. This isn't a multivitamin, a greens gummy or a prebiotic. It's all of those things and then some at a fraction of the price. And bonus, it tastes great. Grun's ingredients are backed by over 35,000 research publications, while generic multivitamins contain only seven to nine vitamins. Green's greens have more than 20 vitamins and minerals and 60 ingredients which include nutrient dense and whole foods. That includes 6 grams of prebiotic fiber, which is three times the amount of dietary fiber compared to the lean greens, powders and more than two cups of broccoli. It's a daily snack pack because you can't fit the amount of nutrients Grunds does into just one gummy. Plus. That makes it a fun treat to look forward to every day. Kick off the new year right and save up to to 52% off with the code Karahroons co. That's code Kara K a r a @groonsgruns co.

Alejandro Velasco (20:24)

Looking to create the bath you've always.

David Sanger (20:26)

Dreamed of without all the hassle, The.

Alejandro Velasco (20:28)

Home Depot makes it easier. Shop fully styled rooms and curated collections.

David Sanger (20:34)

To bring your vision to life.

Alejandro Velasco (20:36)

Use digital tools to preview flooring and finishes in your space. And get everything you need, from tubs to tile, delivered fast and priced right.

David Sanger (20:46)

The Home Depot dream Baths built here.

Kara Swisher (20:54)

Let me ask you also to the history of Chavismo, the left wing anti imperialist populist movement started by Hugo Chavez and the country's descent into this. Why don't you start, Alejandro, Just very briefly explain what Chavezmo is.

Alejandro Velasco (21:08)

So Chavismo was a political project, or who knows where it is now political project that started, whose namesake was Hugo Chavez, who was a military officer in Venezuela, who staged the unsuccessful coup attempt in 1992 at a moment when Venezuela's economy was was not in good shape, when its institutions were deemed as very corrupt by many. Then he spent a couple of years in jail, he was pardoned, was released and then mounted a successful electoral campaign. Basically on the premise of we're going to refound the country along more participatory lines. We're going to have folks who had not been included in the previous political systems or felt like they had not been included in the political system now are going to participate. Now you mentioned of course, that I think the what we think of Chavismo today as an anti imperialist socialist is in fact the case. But it's an evolution into that process. When Chavez first came into office, his primary premises were participatory democracy, creating a more participatory state and rebuilding the oil economy that had been privatized or re privatized as Lisa said in the 1990s. It was only later that we began to see as revenues began to come in after 2003, 2004, the invasion of Iraq, the you tremendous growth of China and the sort of sucking of world resources by China that Chavez is tuned to switch much more vocally to socialism. And especially after an attempted coup against Chavez in 2002 with US support, anti US anti imperialism. And then that became the major hallmark of Chavismo when Chavez died, still very popular, he just won massively elections in 2012. He was sick of cancer at the time. He dies in 2013. He appoints Nicolas Maduro, who wins snap elections with a tiny razor thin margin that also coincided with the collapse of oil prices in 2014. And that was a moment when what remained of Chavismo in terms of distribution of resources to the poor, some semblance of Participatory politics that begins to collapse. And the reality is that that was all set up by the availability of oil. Without oil, the only thing that Maduro really had to go on was concentration of power through repression alone. So this regime became absolutely repressive only on the basis of wanting to stay in power. And of course it created this very tense situation where more repression meant we don't want to leave power.

Kara Swisher (23:43)

Right. So Trump, David, said that US will run Venezuela. Marco Rubio walked that back and said the US will be running policy and it'll use leverage to enforce its will. And then Trump doubled down and said the country had to be, quote, nurse back to health and that he was in charge. Both agree that Delsey Rodriguez, Maduro's former vice president and now the interim president, should run Venezuela as an American client state. Essentially what's happening here and what vision will win out? I guess how should we understand the strategy if the goal is to entrench the Maduro regime just without Maduro?

David Sanger (24:16)

So I think hard to read between the two of them because one thing we've learned about Secretary of State Rubio is that he tries very hard not to show any daylight between himself and the President. And that's been his big struggle because he obviously came to office with some quite different views. He appears to have won out in this case. He was the one pressing for acting against Maduro and so forth. But I think he was trying to give this less of an imperialistic tinge. And the President always wanting to go sort of demonstrate his own power and American power feels like he's got to get out and say we're in charge. Which is exactly what he said on Air Force One coming back from Florida. So the question is, can you be in charge without being on the ground? And for now they're gonna try that experiment.

Luisa Palacios (25:08)

Clearly.

David Sanger (25:08)

Cuz we're not on the ground other than we think a relatively small CIA presence, but we don't have big American troops on the ground. But if things get out of control, if Acting President Rodriguez cannot control these events, if Americans are denied access to the oil fields, if they have access to the oil fields, but somebody has to secure those fields and the Americans. It's hard for me to imagine how you assert control without being on the ground in some form.

Kara Swisher (25:42)

Right. You'll be forced.

David Sanger (25:43)

And that's the mystery of the next few months, maybe few years for what's going to happen.

Kara Swisher (25:47)

So go ahead, Luis.

Luisa Palacios (25:49)

No, I, I think it's too soon to say what is going to happen next to me, we started a transition and this is the first inning. We just, and this is going to be a very long game. I just don't know. We don't know yet where we're going. That said, the most important producer in Venezuela, the most important non state owned producer in Venezuela is chevron. Chevron produces 25% of Venezuela's oil production. So, so the US is present in the ground. So and there are foreign companies like Repsol, ENI and Shell that are present on the ground. So it's not like everyone left, some people decided to stay and some of the companies that remain there, I think this is about also, Venezuela is exporting about 800 to 900,000 bars per day, most of which go to China through black market routes in a highly discounted way, robbing the Venezuelan people of access to the old rents. And so think that there is a scenario whether, and I think David is completely correct in this. This is to me what we need to see next is how that relationship between the US government and Interim President Rodriguez pans out and therefore what happens to sanctions and what happens to the oil blockade. At this moment, Venezuela's oil production is about to decline. Its oil exports have declined by 50% because the US has a blockade right now, Venezuelan coast. And so I do think that the.

Kara Swisher (27:18)

US has one leverage power, a lot.

Luisa Palacios (27:21)

Of leverage here because it is going to become significantly worse for everyone. And so I do think that if they start to play ball in the sense that there is some kind of a working relationship established there, there are some things that could bring alleviation for Venezuela.

Kara Swisher (27:44)

Well, now Trump has said that Venezuela's oil infrastructure can be rebuilt in 18 months or less. But a lot of industry insiders that have spoken up to different reporters are skeptical that oil CEOs will want to risk investing in Venezuela, especially when oil prices are low and America isn't committing those troops on the ground.

Luisa Palacios (28:01)

No, I totally agree, Cara. I mean, Venezuela used to produce 3.5 million barrels per day. It is producing 1 million barrels per day. So you have seen a collapse of the oil industry, but it still produces 1 million barrels per day. If you were to redirect those oil exports of from illicit routes to, for example, the US Gulf coast, you can triple current foreign currency revenues just by doing that. You don't really need to while you wait for an increase in oil production. I would agree that it's going to take a while. It's going to take a lot of investments in order to rebuild the oil industry.

Kara Swisher (28:36)

So, Alejandro, you said that Delsey Rodriguez may have been back channeling with Trump administration in order to sell out Maduro in exchange for the. That could be one reason why the Trump administration has sidelined Nobel Prize winner Maria Corina Machado, although according to one report, it's because she accepted the Nobel Peace Prize even though she dedicated it to him and recently said again that he deserved it. But explain why you think Rodriguez may have sacrificed Maduro to save herself and where are the power centers and how will she navigate them in order to maintain this position?

Alejandro Velasco (29:07)

What we're seeing today in terms of the oil deals that the Trump administration seems to be exacting on this interim government are no different from the reports that Maduro had been giving to the United States if they could stay in power. And so in terms of the reporting before Saturday and the kind of negotiations that were going on behind the scenes, the only sticking point was are you going to give yourself up? Are you going to end up in a golden exile, et cetera, et cetera. And so at some point, if you think about the conditions on the ground and what was on the table, the fact that Maduro was the sticking point must have seemed to those in power that we are not willing to go down with this figurative ship if we can just get rid of him and then do the same thing that we were offering before. Now, to David's point, absolutely. And Lisa as well, it all will depend on whether Jesse Rodriguez and the rest of the power players in Venezuela play ball. But they have a stake in playing ball, Right. If there is a kind of, if they're able to thread this line between doing Trump's bidding, but at the same time maintaining a kind of sense of sovereignty and independence, there could be significant short term and quick improvements in the lives of Venezuelans that then they could reap the benefit of. If eventually there were some snap elections, six months, nine months, 12 months down the road, and they can say, hey, we still have the primary leverage here and that is that we control the institutions, we control the armed forces, we control the police, we control the paramilitaries. Right. Do you want chaos or do you want this continued ramp of upward improvement?

Kara Swisher (30:46)

Because there are a lot of paramilitary.

Alejandro Velasco (30:48)

Absolutely. And so to my mind, yes, of course, the US Is the most powerful army in the world. They have all this counter intelligence operations, both covert and conventional. As I was watching the videos, you have to assume that at least one soldier somewhere might have tried to shoot a little AK47 against one of the helicopters that was low flying.

Kara Swisher (31:10)

None of that, no so it felt like that. Right? It felt rather cooked. So, David, speaking of that, Trump and Rubio might be able to achieve their goals through Rodriguez. Perhaps. Maybe she kicks the Chinese, Iranians and Russians out, stops sending oil to Cuba, stops cocaine traffickers and lets in American oil companies. But it's also not hard to imagine total economic collapse and descent into chaos and violence. What happens then? I mean, what is the, is the American military prepared to occupy a Latin American country?

David Sanger (31:40)

Well, I think one of the things we've learned about President Trump is he does not like the idea of leaving American troops on the ground. Right.

Kara Swisher (31:48)

Though he did mention it. He's like, I have no clock.

David Sanger (31:50)

He's mentioned it. He's willing to use the threat. He said, I'm not scared of it. Right. But the fact of the matter is he got a lot of blowback from the MAGA forces when he was doing the Iran attack. And the Iran attack was the most standoff attack you could imagine. We were aiming at three facilities, hit them from afar, buried the uranium, went home, had dinner.

Kara Swisher (32:12)

Right, right.

David Sanger (32:15)

Doing this to a country though, where you've decapitated it and you have a long term project of the kind we've been discussing here, one that is not going to be a matter of months, but a matter of years. By every description I've heard that's a different thing because when that's going out of your control, the temptation is to say, well, the only way we can control this is by sending in troops or advisors or something like that. And you know, that's how we got down the long slippery road to Vietnam. Right. We had a government that we felt was friendly in place, but they needed advice and then they needed military help and then we needed to launch our own operations. I'm not saying that this is going to turn into the next Vietnam, but there is a slippery slope risk that did not exist when you're taking out nuclear, when you're doing Iran.

Kara Swisher (33:08)

Right. That you're not being specific. So, Luis, at what extent are American oil companies willing to make these long term benefits? I referenced it before. In a risky political environment like this that includes the possibility of violence, I would assume they would want guarantees to move forward.

Luisa Palacios (33:22)

Now, Carol, that's an excellent question because it is not only about assurances of security, it is about rule of law, it is about sanctity of contracts, it is about governance, it is about having visibility. These are 10 year, 20 year types of investments. You don't make investments just because in the next six months it seems that it's going to be stable. You actually need to have visibility all throughout the project. And these are really very large capital investments that need to be made. You also need assurances that your people are going to be safe. You need assurances that, that the corruption that has been linked to this industry is going to be in check. American industries, a lot of these industries or these companies are publicly listed. They have really, really significant commitments on many of these practices. And so simply, they need more than just assurances. And it's going to take a while. And also it depends on markets, it depends on the price of oil and the visibility about all demand and all of these kinds of things. And by the way, they do have other places to. There are many opportunities even in the region. Venezuela is not even the first producer oil producer in Latin America. It is the number five.

Alejandro Velasco (34:40)

Alejandro it's just baffling, right, to think about what would be required not only to jumpstart or re jumpstart the oil industry, but as Lisa was saying, all the assurances in the rule of law in safety personnel. Now, to me it seems, and I'd love to hear Lisa's thoughts on this, that the key player, of course, is the military. And the military is so entrenched in every sector of Venezuela's economy, certainly the oil industry, that the trade off here for them is, are we willing to not take a cut of the entire patrimonial state that we've had before? Are we willing to take a cut from the corruption as long as we're able to stay in power Again, the only leverage it seems to me that the Venezuelan authorities have now is that they can keep control. If they cannot do that, then what is the point of even having this pretense of staying in regime?

Kara Swisher (35:37)

Right? So one of the things that's lost here to me in this whole thing is the people of Venezuela. There's no timeline for elections and Trump seems uninterested in restoring democracy. He never even mentioned it. Usually they do, even if it's as a pretense.

Alejandro Velasco (35:52)

Rodriguez just cause it sounds good, sounds.

Kara Swisher (35:54)

Good and you never believe it. They did it in Iraq, they did it in Iran, they've done it in Afghanistan. Rodriguez launched a crackdown under a state of emergency announced Monday, arresting journalists and repressing any celebrations over Maduro's arrest. She's done a little tough guy stuff, David. First, your assessment of how Venezuelans living inside the country would react to all these scenarios. A prolonged Rodriguez presidency and American occupation, and then, you know, free elections, which would bring back the candidate who did win the election.

David Sanger (36:24)

Well, you have two real Venezuela experts.

Kara Swisher (36:28)

And also Machado is sort of the wild card.

David Sanger (36:30)

You have two real Venezuela experts here. So I will not pretend to be, I'm gonna ask, expert on its inner workings, but there are a lot of people in Venezuela who are perfectly happy to see the back of Maduro, and I'm sure we're delighted to see him walking in cuffs into the hearing and the arraignment. But those same people may also react poorly just a few months from now if they believe that in fact this was all done in order to steal what they consider to be the one great resource of the country in the George H.W. bush presidency and the George W. Bush presidency. Both were accused of going to war in the Middle east in order to get oil, and neither of them actually got any oil. In this particular case, the President has been the one who has actually laid that out as an objective himself. And it seems rather remarkable, but to him it's unremarkable because what's American power for? It's for our commercial benefit.

Kara Swisher (37:41)

Right. Which has been a theme throughout. Go ahead, Luisa and Alejandro.

Luisa Palacios (37:47)

Yeah, no, I appreciate, I appreciate David's comments. I think it will be very important for Venezuelans, as in the days and weeks to come, that they feel that they can return to the country, that they feel that they're the.

Kara Swisher (38:04)

These are expatriates. People who are expatriates.

Luisa Palacios (38:06)

Yes. I mean, 25% of the population. So there are people that be in exile that don't even for one or two months. This is a very influx kind of population. But I would say that the lives of the day to day people, that they can go out to the streets, that they can find food, that they can feel that they don't live in a police state. Venezuela, since last year's elections, the repressive apparatus of the state has gone into steroids. And so it is extremely relevant for both Venezuelans at home and Venezuelans abroad to believe that there are steps taken to dismantle the police apparatus of the state and that we are heading towards, as I said, that this is a transition and we're heading towards a different kind of political system. I do think that Venezuelans are going to give the benefit of the doubt about announcing elections today. But that has a window of opportunity that is not, in my view, not very large.

Kara Swisher (39:21)

Alejandro.

Alejandro Velasco (39:22)

Yeah, I wonder about how large that window of opportunity is. And I do think just from the expressions of support or opposition over the last few days to the events over the weekend. As I was mentioning before, how deep this new fissure might be between Venezuelans abroad. Some Venezuelans abroad, I should say. I mean, as I think Luisa was pointing to, there's a huge variegation of expat Venezuelans. Yes, some exiled, some have to leave by force. Some who left more recently are darker skinned, poorer, and they don't really align very much with the lighter skinned, wealthier, more professional Venezuelans who left 5, 10, 15, 20 years ago. And so there is that to think about. And I do wonder to what extent Rodriguez and Trump in particular, because of their primarily material interest, are thinking, well, that window could be extended. And in fact it may be to our interest to extend that window. We can show some kind of economic recovery to the point that Lisa was making about being able to better access food to better access services, et cetera, et cetera. If there's a sense of material improvement, I do wonder if it may not backfire on Maya, Corina, Machado and others that they haven't, for instance, condemned or even slightly said much about, you know, a US Intervention in Venezuela.

Kara Swisher (40:52)

We'll be back in a minute.

Alejandro Velasco (41:00)

For most of the history of television, if you missed a show, you just missed it. It was over, it was gone. But then this little company called TiVo came along and gave people superpowers. You could pause live television, you could rewind it, you could save it and watch it later. It was incredible. And the people who had it could not stop talking about it. This week on Version History, a new chat show about old technology, we talk about the history of TiVo and how it is that a company whose products actually no one ever really had or used became, became one of the most iconic stories in tech. All that on Version History. Wherever you get podcasts this week on.

Luisa Palacios (41:38)

Net Worth and Chill, I'm giving you.

Alejandro Velasco (41:39)

An exclusive sneak peek at my new book, well endowed, hitting shelves February 3rd.

Kara Swisher (41:44)

I wrote this book because I believe.

Luisa Palacios (41:45)

Everyone deserves to build wealth that actually works for their life, not just follow.

Alejandro Velasco (41:49)

Some cookie cutter financial advice that wasn't made for us.

Luisa Palacios (41:52)

I'm sharing the real strategies for building.

Alejandro Velasco (41:54)

Generational wealth, investing with confidence in and creating the financial future you actually want.

Luisa Palacios (41:59)

This isn't just another personal finance book. It's a roadmap for taking control of.

Alejandro Velasco (42:03)

Your financial destiny and building the kind.

Kara Swisher (42:05)

Of wealth that gives you options, freedom.

Luisa Palacios (42:07)

And peace of mind. Pre order well endowed.

Kara Swisher (42:09)

Now, wherever books are sold and get.

Alejandro Velasco (42:11)

Ready to transform your relationship with money.

Luisa Palacios (42:13)

Listen to this week's episode.

Kara Swisher (42:14)

Wherever you get your podcasts or watch.

Luisa Palacios (42:16)

On YouTube.com YourRichBFF so I want to.

Kara Swisher (42:20)

Wrap up talking about some of the larger implications of the new reality. Trump coined this gunboat diplomacy as the Donru Doctrine, as I mentioned. How is that going to affect the US Ability to constrain China and the Pacific, specifically in Taiwan? This has implications all over the world, presumably of sort of carving up the world, which does seem like a history lesson I had in 11th grade.

David Sanger (42:43)

First, it's true for all second term presidents, but particularly presidents that lose control of one or both houses, that they turn to foreign policy. Right. It's the place where they can set a legacy and it's a place where they feel like they have the least constraints. And if we've learned anything about Donald Trump, he doesn't like constraints.

Kara Swisher (43:02)

Right. And now has none.

David Sanger (43:04)

And for now has none. But if he gets some in Congress and his domestic agenda gets stalled out, he's going to become the all foreign policy president. And it's happened to others before. The second is, I thought that his very specific warning to the President of Colombia sounded Cuba, pretty menacing for Cuba. It was sort of interesting. His answer was, oh, I don't need to do anything there because after we've cut off their funding from Venezuela, they're toast anyway. So we're just going to let them collapse on their own. And he may not be wrong on that one. You guys will have to correct me on that. And Greenland, so Greenland, I spent some time there this summer, this past summer. There's nothing to invade. It is a giant ice cap with, with a series of, of population centers, pretty small along the coast. The president, if he really wanted to take control of Greenland, has a legal easy way to do it that does not require the use of the delta forces. He can actually exercise provisions that are in the Treaty signed in 1951. We had a series of, I think 16 or 17 bases there at the height of the Cold War. We abandoned most of them. I went to see some. It's not pretty. What happens to buildings in a Greenland winter if they are unoccupied. It would take some money to go get these air bases back and running. But the United States has the right under the treaty to go do that. And one of the astounding questions is why haven't we done that? Not during Trump, but earlier.

Kara Swisher (44:51)

Right.

David Sanger (44:53)

And so there's an easy way out. It's interesting that he would rather inflame the NATO allies by describing all the non easy ways out, which is typical.

Kara Swisher (45:04)

Correct?

Luisa Palacios (45:04)

Yeah.

Kara Swisher (45:05)

So Trump has threatened Colombia And Rubio is very clear about using Venezuela to affect regime change in Cuba. They seem keen to remain Latin America in their image. How does that compare to earlier periods of US Intervention? What lessons should we be paying attention to? First Luisa, then Alejandro.

Luisa Palacios (45:22)

What I've seen, and this is more from the financial and economics point of view, is that President Trump has given a lot of benefits to those that he considers his allies. And we saw it with a rescue package to Argentina that that really made a difference for President Milei. I have to say that he also used tariffs indistinctively, so it was not clear to me that he was making too much of a difference. But it is clear that there is much more interest now in Latin America in its natural resources. And it's not about oil and gas. To me, we're seeing now a different kind of natural resource come to bear, which is critical minerals and mining. We have seen how China has used this ample reserves and control over critical minerals and refining of mining, which has a huge monopoly or very big monopoly position or big position even against the US and in that sense, it has become a weak point of US Productive capabilities. And so I do think that we are seeing Latin America not only a place where of US Political influence, but also a place of natural resource opportunities. And that will continue to play out, including how to think about Latin America from an infrastructure and logistical perspective, because we saw it with the Canal of Panama. And so there are things that are now entering into the sphere of national security that were not necessarily there in past. Present.

Kara Swisher (47:14)

Alejandro, briefly.

Alejandro Velasco (47:15)

Yeah, I mean, that's such a good point, because the other major player here, and I think David referenced him before, is Marco Rubio specifically having to do with the Western Hemisphere. In fact, he was asked in the Sunday talk shows, like, what's your interest in Latin America? Well, I've always been interested in the hemisphere. It's my thing. And now, of course, at the broader world, the Secretary of State. I think the issue here is that there are these two visions, right? There's one that's primarily material, and it involves everything that Lisa was saying, not just. Just hydrocarbons, but other types of minerals and resources that are drivers of the 21st century.

Kara Swisher (47:50)

Yeah, Lutnick kept bringing them up, he chirping them.

Alejandro Velasco (47:53)

Exactly. But there's another one that I think is more vestigial, and it's strange that it would be coming from Rubio rather than from Trump, which I do think, and I'm happy to be contradicted, that it has less to do with Materials. And it has much more to do with ideology. I think that if you read really closely the National Security Strategy document that they released a few weeks ago, it is primarily an ideological document. It is about remaking the hemisphere in particular, you know, and then the world more broadly, not just in our image, but basically to say that we assert our dominion, our power, our dominance over this part of the world. Right.

Kara Swisher (48:32)

And so you heard Stephen Miller screaming about it.

Alejandro Velasco (48:35)

Yeah, no, exactly. And so. Precisely. And so, you know, I don't think it's not limited to material interests. I do think that there's this larger ideological project led by people like Miller, specifically me, Rubio, that say, hey, we can get rid of Venezuela's government, we can rid of Cuba's government, any leftist government in the region, that is going to be a clarion call for the rest of the region that the left cannot come to power.

Kara Swisher (49:00)

Right. One of the things that reminded me of when he was screaming was the man spent too much time on Roman podcasts History of Rome podcast. So I'll end with the last each of you asking comment of something historian speaking of history, Timothy Snyder. The act of war is more about regime change in the United States than it was about anything in Venezuela. It only succeeds as fascism if Americans allow it to do so. I'd love to hear from each of you, first David, then Luisa, and finally Alejandro, about what he's saying here. You've sort of referenced this a lot to do with the United States, then Venezuela. David first.

David Sanger (49:35)

Well, this does have a lot to do with the United States. And stepping away for a moment from the authoritarian question and just sort of pointing back to what Alejandro was just saying, focusing on the Western Hemisphere makes sense to that part of the Trump base that worries about whether or not the United States spread its arms too far. But we've shown that we know how to do adventurism within our own neighborhood here as well. But it's also a narrowing of American interests. I mean, the Monroe Doctrine was written in an era when we had a couple of dozen ships and 3,500American sailors. Right. That's a fifth of what we put just in the Caribbean just to do this operation. Right. America's economic future remains in the Indo Pacific. And retreating US to this region, important as a region around us, is just mystifying in a world of global power and doesn't make sense in an era of cyberpower, in an era of AI, in an era of space weapons. I mean, things that do not see regional boundaries.

Kara Swisher (50:45)

Right?

David Sanger (50:46)

Then the second question that you're asking is what does it say about American authoritarianism? Well, it certainly speaks to a president who both at home and abroad, has had a much more expansive view of presidential power. And I think history suggests that once you let that out of the box, it's really hard to stuff back in. But at some point the president's gonna run into some limits. And you're beginning to see it even within the nervousness in his own party and the split in the MAGA world.

Luisa Palacios (51:22)

Right.

Kara Swisher (51:22)

And also, as Scott Gallery always says, biology is undefeated on some level. It's like there's a timeframe here is what you're talking about. All right, Luisa, and then Alejandro.

Luisa Palacios (51:35)

Let me give it a completely different angle. I think globalization and the multi power competition between the us, China and Russia, instead of elevating everyone towards different kinds of values, has just normalized or has led to a different kind of way to interacting the global economy.

Alejandro Velasco (52:00)

Economy.

Luisa Palacios (52:01)

And so that's one. The second thing is to me, as somebody that comes from Latin America, and let's not forget that we're talking about events in Venezuela, one of the most important deceptions, or I think in my view is that the left in Latin America was supposed to be about human rights, rights, it was supposed to be about social development, it was supposed to be about many things. And unfortunately the recent history, and there's no other place that has exemplified this as Venezuela has shown a completely different view of that political, of those original ideals. And so I do think it says a lot about social democracy. And so what kind of political system is stable in Latin America? Why has those experiments of social democracies that were so relevant even in Venezuela in the 1960s and 1970s, why did they derive in authoritarian regimes? Why didn't anything that the Venezuelans tried, election after election after election, why wouldn't sanctions lead to changing in behavior? So there are a lot of things that we, I think are encountering in terms of the limits of the tools of foreign policy or tools of economic statecraft that used to work in the future. And that tells me that there's something about how what this new world order represents and the kinds of political systems that it derives and the kind of economic or statecraft, kinds of tools that are going to be present in the future.

Alejandro Velasco (53:46)

Neutral.

Kara Swisher (53:47)

Great. Alejandro, finish up.

Alejandro Velasco (53:50)

Yeah, that's really powerful. Although I think most of the literature from economists and others would suggest that sanctions have never been a tool of political change. Maybe one or two exceptions. But I think, to Snyder's point, that what this shows more is regime change here than it does elsewhere, and that it's really dependent and incumbent upon the United States public, really. And not just the public, of course, but other public, elected officials, officials, how far they're willing to actually go in allowing this new kind of power play by the Trump administration, what it means for the United States and the world to go on. It's a moment. And the press conference that he gave on Air Force One with Lindsey Graham next to him, it seemed like he was literally groveling in his joy.

Kara Swisher (54:42)

I'm sorry, that was groveling.

Alejandro Velasco (54:44)

It was groveling, right. We have, I think, been saying that the Republican Party is now Trump's party. But this really, I think what Snyder is pointing to is a moment of how far are you willing to go to sacrifice not just control over the White House, but really over the US Position globally? I mean, is the project of the city on the hill dead finally, forever and evermore? That's really what's at stake. Can't. How could China, if Xiao Jianping tomorrow goes and takes out Taiwan, under what position of credibility could the United States say that was wrong? There's none. And Europe, too. Right. I mean, they're kind of wishy washy positions on what happened over the weekend. It really calls into question the viability of everything that liberal order has been standing on. And if it's allowed to go on and continue, then absolutely, it will be consolidated and we're in. In the throes of an entirely new world.

Kara Swisher (55:45)

All right, on that note, this has been really substantive and I truly appreciate all of your thoughts.

Alejandro Velasco (55:49)

Thank you so much.

David Sanger (55:50)

Thanks. Great to see you, Carrie.

Luisa Palacios (55:52)

Thank you for having us, Kara.

Kara Swisher (55:53)

Thanks, everybody. Today's show was produced by Christian Castro Ricel, Michelle Eloi, Megan Burney and Kalen Lynch. Nishat Kurwa is Vox Media's executive producer of podcasts. Special thanks to Kathryn Barner. Aliyah Jackson engineered this episode and our theme music is by Trackademics. Go wherever you listen to podcasts, search for on with Kara Swisher and hit follow. Thanks for listening to on with Kara Swisher from Podium Media, New York Magazine, the Vox Media Podcast Network, and us. We'll be back on Monday with more.