After the Trump administration illegally kidnapped the legitimate president of Venezuela, Nicolas Maduro and his wife, Cilia Flores, on January 3, 2026, we saw two distinct and divergent responses from Venezuelans. On the one hand, the Venezuelan diaspora, especially in the United States, celebrated President Maduro’s kidnapping and bombing of their birth country. They congregated in small gatherings the weekend of the abduction, including in Miami. These celebrations, alongside videos online, were widely disseminated in corporate and social media for a U.S.-based (and broader Western) audience, all broadcasting the same message: Venezuelans support President Maduro’s abduction. (It should be noted that these demonstrations were small relative to the scale of the Venezuelan emigration to the U.S., and faded quickly.) On the other hand, inside Venezuela, for weeks after the illegal abduction, citizens engaged almost daily in massive demonstrations to condemn the attack that killed or wounded over a hundred people. These protests have not been shared by U.S. corporate media and have been suppressed in U.S.-aligned social media; thus, a U.S. audience is not privy to the substantial support for Chavismo and President Maduro.
The U.S. propaganda assault plays a large part in generating these two opposing reactions to President Maduro’s abduction among Venezuelans: celebration outside the country, especially among the U.S.-based diaspora, compared to condemnation inside Venezuela itself. The U.S. propaganda assault refers to the United States’ deployment of its vast ideological apparatus—White House communications, corporate media, academia, social media, NGOs, and international organizations—to impose narratives about Venezuela, especially its economic and political conditions, that undermine the Bolivarian Revolution to justify U.S. intervention. The U.S. propaganda assault shapes how Venezuelans both inside and outside the country make sense of their experiences. Nevertheless, the propaganda assault now faces a stronger counteroffensive that is already undermining its effectiveness.
The Venezuelan Diaspora
In general, Venezuelans in the United States are more likely to support the illegal kidnapping of President Maduro because of their adherence and susceptibility to U.S.-deployed narratives about the Bolivarian Revolution, often linked to their socioeconomic background. As a group, Venezuelans in the United States “have higher rates of educational attainment than either native- or overall foreign-born populations” and are, on average, more educated than their compatriots in Venezuela—an indicator of socioeconomic advantage. Moreover, some members of Venezuela’s upper class migrated to the United States after Hugo Chavez came to power in 1999. Thus, middle- and upper-class segments of Venezuelan society are overrepresented in the Venezuelan diaspora in the United States. These individuals led comfortable lives in Venezuela until U.S. economic attacks induced economic deterioration and emigration; they carry all of the disappointment, anger, hurt, and resentment associated with economic difficulties and subsequent displacement.
Venezuelans from middle and upper-classes backgrounds tend to adhere most closely to a U.S.-centric neoliberal and imperial worldview, a pattern visible among more advantaged individuals all over Latin America. Two dimensions of this worldview are imperative. First, the state should be subordinated to capital. Secondly, the United States’ unruly “rules-based order”—with its related economic, political, and cultural dimensions—should have hegemony over the world, especially the Western Hemisphere. According to this worldview, U.S. neoliberal imperial hegemony is morally superior to other arrangements; thus, U.S. intervention in foreign nation-states to maintain its hegemony is justified. More advantaged, usually light-skinned sectors of Latin America, including in Venezuela, see themselves as part of a U.S.-aligned cosmopolitan milieu, whose perspective they enforce, often violently, in their countries of birth.
U.S. Propaganda for a Receptive Venezuelan Diaspora
Even the New York Times, one of the most powerful mouthpieces of U.S. imperialist propaganda, recently acknowledged that U.S. economic and financial attacks “crushed the Venezuelan economy and led to a humanitarian crisis.” In doing so, the United States has launched an ongoing propaganda assault that minimizes or obscures the role that U.S. attacks have played in the economic devastation and political turmoil in Venezuela. The propaganda assault shifts blame from the U.S. government onto the Chavista leadership, suggesting that the economic duress in Venezuela was primarily or even exclusively a result of “mismanagement and corruption” endemic to socialism in general and to Chavismo in particular, headed by Nicolas Maduro. For instance, the claim that Maduro is a narcotrafficker who heads the (nonexistent) Cartel de los Soles was taken as fact in U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio’s most recent hearings on Venezuela, even though the U.S. government itself has dropped this false accusation from the “legal” proceedings against President Maduo. The fact that corporate media knew about the military attacks ahead of time and refused to publish or sound the alarm is perhaps the best evidence that they are complicit in the assault against Venezuela.
The neoliberal imperial worldview is a crucial part of the propaganda assault against the Bolivarian Revolution, as it dictates the parameters, premises, and assumptions that structure debates about Venezuela, including the legitimate role of the United States in its affairs. In the aforementioned Rubio hearings, all but one U.S. senator shared the premise that the United States has the right to intervene in Venezuela’s internal affairs and kidnap its sitting president, a blatant violation of international law. Stunningly, though not surprisingly, some congresspeople reprimanded Rubio for not going further by targeting other high-profile Chavista leaders and installing opposition figure María Corina Machado as president.
Moreover, when the Bolivarian Revolution defends itself against U.S. attacks, including by limiting U.S. influence through opposition proxies, it is labeled “authoritarian.” The U.S. propaganda assault paints U.S.-funded guarimberos as “political prisoners.” These criminals destroyed public and private property, including schools, and killed Venezuelans and targeted Chavistas, including by burning them alive. When the Chavista government jailed these “political prisoners,” the U.S. propaganda assault accused the Bolivarian Revolution of authoritarianism, painting President Maduro (and Chavez before him) as a dictator. In the neoliberal imperial worldview, the United States has a duty to intervene in order to “liberate” an allegedly “oppressed” people, clearing the way for foreign capital and a subservient “democracy.”
In the United States, the more privileged segment of the Venezuelan diaspora is exposed to nothing but anti-Chavismo narratives. Notably, the U.S. propaganda assault politicizes some members of the diaspora to such a degree that they become “MAGAzolanos,” Venezuelans who ardently support Trump, even though Trump is attacking their country, killing their compatriots, and making life unbearable for Venezuelan immigrants through oppressive immigration enforcement. Although MAGAzolanos are often found among more privileged Venezuelans, who tend to be light-skinned descendants of European immigrants who consider themselves white, they are not limited to this group.
By contrast, Chavismo finds most support among working-class Venezuelans, who are, for this reason, the primary target of the U.S. propaganda assault. For instance, when Chavistas appear in corporate media, Chavismo is presented as a failed bogeyman. One corporate media report, which featured a Chavismo-supporting family who lost a son to the U.S. military attack, describes the socialist Bolivarian Revolution as having “faded,” “handicapped by corruption cronyism, and incompetence and”—as if it were an afterthought—“U.S.-led sanctions.” Notably, the story articulates the lofty aims of the Bolivarian revolution that Chavez started, but only to highlight its failures.
Due to the absence of forceful and consistent counternarratives in corporate-owned legacy and social media against U.S. propaganda, arguments against Chavismo have gained ground largely unopposed. The propaganda assault is coupled with incentives to sing an anti-Maduro tune in the United States, especially in co-ethnic communities like Miami, a hotbed of anti-socialist sentiment. In these locales, employment and other opportunities may vanish for those who voice support for the Bolivarian revolution. Legalization incentives likewise discourage support for Maduro, as a pathway to citizenship may be more achievable if one pleads political persecution by the Chavista government. Thus, the U.S. propaganda assault combines with material incentives to undermine support for Chavismo, even among its followers. In the absence of counternarratives, every anti-Chavismo story in the press sows doubt, leading working-class people in the diaspora who support the Bolivarian Revolution to ask: Is it true?
The Limits of the U.S. Propaganda Assault Inside Venezuela
Condemnation of President Maduro’s illegal kidnapping is stronger and more visible inside Venezuela, largely because Chavismo is the strongest political movement inside the country, and because in Venezuela the U.S. propaganda assault faces a stronger narrative counteroffensive.
Chavismo is the strongest social movement in Venezuela. Since Chavez came to power, Chavismo has won most of the more than thirty elections Venezuela has held at different levels of government. Chavistas control all the levers of power and enjoy the most mobilized base of any political movement, including the fractured political right. Notably, Chavismo has empowered communes, which strengthen support for Chavismo on the ground. For instance, in November 2025, a national election took place so that communes could vote to prioritize projects funded by the federal government. The PSUV (Socialist Party) is the largest and most organized political party in the country. The U.S. propaganda assault attempts to obscure or deny all these facts, but it cannot hide them from Venezuelans inside the country, who watch with their own eyes as Chavismo mobilizes on the streets.
Notably, the military attack against Venezuela generated a “rally-behind-the-flag” effect. The U.S. aggression affected all citizens, regardless of political ideology, leading Chavistas and non-Chavistas alike to condemn the intervention. For instance, bombs landed on La Boyera, historically a stronghold of the opposition, destroying homes and causing injuries. The attack also destroyed a medical warehouse that stored supplies for dialysis patients in La Guaira, and damaged a research center in Miranda state. (In a show of solidarity, the Brazilian government donated medical supplies to help these patients.) Venezuelans of all political stripes are dealing with the psychological and emotional toll of Trump’s attack.
Among Venezuelans inside Venezuela, there is no confusion as to who bombed them and who defended them, heightening patriotism in defense of their sovereignty. Because Chavismo is in charge of the government, it has emerged as the unequivocal defender of Venezuela sovereignty, generating sympathy (or quelling animosity) if not support, among some detractors. Machado’s gifting of her Nobel “peace” medal to Trump as a sign of gratitude for bombing Venezuela highlighted a contrast between extreme right-wing opposition who support the U.S. military attacks and Chavistas who reject them. Importantly, the rally-behind-the-flag effect also reveals why propaganda assault was launched first, to undermines patriotic cohesion by concealing the role of the United States as the unequivocal aggressor.
Inside Venezuela, Chavismo supporters also offer counternarratives to the U.S. propaganda assault. Social media, state-sponsored media, and the pulpit of the presidency—among other avenues—are deployed to help people understand the U.S. assault and the Bolivarian Revolution’s response. These outlets point out that the United States attacked to steal their natural resources, not for “democracy” or any other excuse. They also debunk a range of narratives that attempt to divide and weaken Chavismo (see below), and highlight how the right-wing opposition has called for U.S. military intervention and celebrated the bombing of their compatriots. Finally, and importantly, they communicate the necessity of socialist principles to understand and resist this attack, and why a deepening of socialism is the only answer to U.S. pressure.
The U.S. Propaganda Assault Doubles Down
Since the military aggression, the U.S. propaganda assault against the Bolivarian Revolution has gone into hyperdrive. The assault continues to try to break Chavismo, targeting acting president Delcy Rodríguez; Jorge Rodríguez, the head of the assembly (and Delcy’s brother); and, most importantly, Diosdado Cabello, the interior minister. These narratives include: Chavistas did not fight back against the U.S. attack; they are weak. The “capture” was exacting, clean, and without resistance. The abduction is legal. Traitors collaborated with the U.S.; Chavismo is ready to collapse from within. Delcy and her brother betrayed Maduro; Chavismo is fractured. Delcy is an opportunist ready to give up her Chavista roots for power. Delcy has expensive taste; she is a hypocrite and not committed to the Bolivarian revolution. Diosdado Cabello is the real motor behind Chavismo; Delcy must be weary of him. Diosdado Cabello betrayed Maduro. Diosdado is a narcoterrorist. Chavista leadership has abandoned the Bolivarian Revolution. Trump runs the United States. Delcy is subservient to Trump and CIA. Chavista leaders have millions in offshore banks; they are not real socialists.
One of these narratives—Delcy is a narcotrafficker—is a rehashing of U.S. accusations against Maduro. The Bolivarian Revolution’s resistance to these nefarious narratives is also working overtime, providing almost instantaneous rebuttals. Many of these U.S. propaganda narratives have been thoroughly debunked—but new ones emerge and old ones are recycled almost daily. As Vijay Prashad notes: “Every single Western corporate newspaper has run a story on how the Venezuelan leadership made a deal with U.S. to hand over Maduro.” The evidence? “Anonymous sources,” who almost always turn out to be part of U.S. intelligence campaigns to feed corporate media the narrative the United States wants to impose. The corporate media, for their part, does little to investigate or corroborate the anonymous sources’ claims; they just print them without proof or verification, acting as a propaganda arm of the U.S. government. Even as the Chavismo leadership negotiates with the United States, the latter is engaged in a ferocious propaganda assault to undermine the Bolivarian government.
Finally, Venezuelans abroad try to silence support for Maduro by arguing that those who did not experience the economic hardships that they did do not have a right to speak. As a rebuttal, those inside the country argue that Venezuelans who left during the most difficult times as a result of the U.S. financial attacks did not experience the subsequent economic upward swing that Chavismo engineered, despite U.S.-imposed crippling sanctions. Venezuela has experienced continued economic growth from 2020 to 2025, which is one of the primary reasons the United States used the military to encircle and attack it; the Bolivarian Revolution was outmaneuvering U.S. economic sanctions. Those who stayed in Venezuela experienced economic recovery, however slow, firsthand—a reality that cannot be denied.
A Note on the Imperial Left
The U.S. propaganda assault faces few counternarratives in the United States, even among self-professed “progressives,” “leftists,” or “democratic socialists.” One of the most despicable arguments that emerges out of this group, which I refer to as the “imperial left,” is the ever self-serving “both sides” claim. It states that both of the following are true: that Maduro and Chavismo are “corrupt” and “authoritarian,” and have “mismanaged” the economy; and that the United States carried out an illegal attack and abduction against Venezuela and its leader. These imperial leftists reject both Chavismo and U.S. intervention, thereby projecting a seemingly “neutral” perspective.
Nevertheless, “both sides”-ism is actually in alignment with U.S. aggression against the Bolivarian Revolution. This narrative creates a moral equivalence between the victim (Venezuela and its Bolivarian Revolution) and its aggressor (the United States) that render both objectionable. This false equivalence undermines support for Chavismo and, consequently, demobilizes anti-imperial resistance inside the United States. For this “equivalence” to work, imperial leftists must accept narratives deployed by the U.S. government, including the claim that Chavismo’s mismanagement, corruption, and authoritarianism are primarily responsible for Venezuela’s economic duress, ignoring the actual evidence. For the imperial left, self-defense under imperial aggression is dictatorship; concessions forced under imperial attacks exemplify lack of revolutionary commitment, and neutralization of U.S. proxies reveal authoritarianism. For anything less than a perfect socialist utopia, the imperial left is more than happy to join right-wing forces against revolutionary governments working toward socialism, including in Latin America. All they accomplish is undermining solidarity and resistance against imperial aggression.
Will the Real Venezuelan Please Stand Up!
By highlighting Venezuelans abroad who celebrated the January 3 military attack against their birth country, the U.S. propaganda assault seeks to impose the narrative that all Venezuelans support the illegal kidnapping of President Maduro. To do so, it obscures Venezuelans inside and outside the country who disagree. Even outside of Venezuela, however, opposition to the illegal kidnapping of President Maduro is alive and well—and ignored by U.S. corporate media. For instance, at a demonstration in Paris, a Venezuelan migrant raised her voice :
I lived in Venezuela until 2017 and had to leave—not because I wanted to, but because of the economic sanctions the U.S. imposes against my country for the fact that Venezuela dared to nationalize its resources, including oil. But corporate media will not tell you this; its propaganda—along with the far-right extremist elements of the Venezuelan opposition—want you to believe that Venezuela is a failure. But this is not true. Venezuela is a country that, despite imperialist sanctions, endures. When are we going to believe Yanquí propaganda? It’s time to stop legitimizing narratives that justify invasions. History is on our side.
Voices like these ring out all over the world, despite struggling to find a public platform. Inside Venezuela, however, these voices are loud, making them hard to ignore or obscure.
U.S. violence against Venezuelans is intentionally obscured by the U.S. propaganda assault, but it inevitably becomes apparent, often in the midst of dire circumstances. At the end of one of Maduro kidnapping celebrations, ICE agents showed up and detained some Venezuelans. One of the captured individuals articulated the reality that the propaganda assault conceals: “We were only celebrating Maduro’s capture. And they brought us here [to an ICE detention center]. It’s unjust. Now that I am in this condition, I don’t know who the bad guy is. I thought Maduro was the dictator, but it is Donald Trump who has jailed us.”
Chavismo Is Alive and Continues Fighting
The analyst Diego Sequera describes the successful U.S. military aggression that led to the kidnapping of President Maduro as a “sugar-high victory,” suggesting it is shallow and fleeting. Right now, the Trump administration and the extreme right-wing opposition are overcome with glee, expecting the abduction to signal the beginning of the end of Chavismo. However, events since the abduction call for a different interpretation. Chavismo endures. In the aftermath of the attacks, Venezuelan institutions held their ground, with Chavismo controlling all levers of power. Organizational capacity is strong. Buildings destroyed by the attack were rapidly renovated, highlighting the Bolivarian Revolution’s commitment to serving all Venezuelans. Moreover, due to the limited sanctions relief, economic growth under the leadership of Delcy Rodríguez may generate more sympathy for Chavismo among skeptics and deepen commitment for the Bolivarian Revolution among its supporters. As it stands, approval for Rodríguez is high.
The U.S. propaganda assault will continue to try splinter Venezuelan society, including by sowing divisions between those who live inside and outside the country. Chavismo is absorbing the attack as a singular moment of vulnerability; it is regrouping, reorganizing, and now reenergized, as it has been time and again after each illegal, immoral, unjust U.S. attack throughout its history. The fact that the Bolivarian Revolution did not crumble after the kidnapping of its president, as many other societies have done after a U.S. strike, reveals the Revolution’s strength. The time ahead is full of uncertainty, sometimes necessitating temporary changes, strategic deceleration, or concessions—as Chavez once said in a previous moment of political vulnerability—“por ahora” (for now). But the process continues. As the movement’s chant reminds us, “Chavez Vive! La Lucha Sigue!” For Chavistas, the Bolivarian Revolution está en marcha (marches on). There is never a final defeat, nor a final victory—only temporary battles won or lost on the path towards a different world. Chavismo is now a structural feature of Venezuelan society, part of its DNA. Whatever happens in the days, something is assured: Chavismo is here to stay—working, building, organizing to unite Venezuelans, which the U.S. propaganda assault has divided, and building, slowly, towards its next leap forward.