The January 3, 2026, U.S. “Operation Absolute Resolve” in Venezuela to capture and remove President Nicolás Maduro has raised urgent questions about its repercussions for the U.S.-China competition, Taiwan Strait security, American strategic priorities in the Indo-Pacific region, and U.S. allies and partners.

In two new episodes of the APARC Briefing series, Stanford scholars Larry Diamond, the Mosbacher Senior Fellow in Democracy at the Freeman Spogli Institute for International Studies (FSI) and William L. Clayton Senior Fellow at the Hoover Institution, and APARC faculty affiliate Oriana Skylar Mastro, a center fellow at FSI, join host Kiyoteru Tsutsui, the director of APARC, to unravel what happened in Venezuela and the implications of the U.S. actions in Latin America for Taiwan, security and alliances in the Indo-Pacific, and U.S. relations with stakeholders in the region.

Both scholars agree that the U.S. mission in Venezuela is a precedent that likely emboldens rather than deters China in its Taiwan calculus, warning that the shift it represents in U.S. national security policy might detract from American capabilities in the Indo-Pacific region at a crucial moment. They also provide sobering advice for U.S. allies struggling to adjust to rapidly shifting geopolitical realities under the second Trump administration.

A Shocking Action in World Affairs

There is no dispute that the Maduro government has been deeply authoritarian, deeply corrupt, and deeply illegitimate, says Diamond, author of Ill Winds: Saving Democracy from Russian Rage, Chinese Ambition, and American Complacency. Yet the United States “has probably violated international law to intervene forcibly in the internal affairs of Venezuela and remove its political leader," creating enormous implications for the international community. If it does not pursue a strategy of systemic democratic change in Venezuela, “all of this will have been for naught, and it will have paid a tragic price in terms of international precedent and international legitimacy,” Diamond argues.

Beijing is already using the operation as a "discourse power win," depicting the United States as crushing sovereignty and international law, Mastro notes. Moreover, in addition to Venezuela, President Trump continues to make statements about Greenland, reiterating its importance for U.S. national security and his interest in acquiring the territory, which has alarmed European partners and exacerbated strains with NATO.

“For the first time since WWII, some European countries have declared the United States to be a security threat,” Mastro says. “So I am curious to see if the Chinese try to bring along the Venezuela case as well, to convince U.S. allies and partners to distance themselves from the United States, which would have significant repercussions for the global order and for the United States' role in it.”

A Risky Strategic Reorientation

By unilaterally bypassing international norms to wield power in its own "backyard," the United States may have set a precedent that China can now exploit to justify its own ambitions in Taiwan as a legitimate exercise of regional dominance.

Diamond remarks on this line of thought: “If the United States, as a hegemon, can just do what it wants to arrest and remove a leader, in its kind of declared sphere of influence, what's to stop Xi Jinping from doing the same in his sphere of influence, and with a democratic system in Taiwan, whose sovereignty he does not recognize?” 

On the other hand, many commentators have argued that Operation Absolute Resolve serves as a deterrent to Chinese aggression. Granted, there is no doubt that the operation was a remarkably successful military attack showcasing the capabilities of U.S. special forces, notes Mastro, who, alongside her academic career, also serves in the United States Air Force Reserve, for which she currently works at the Pentagon as deputy director of research for Global China Strategy. Nevertheless, she emphasizes that the United States cannot carry out a similar attack in Asia.

“There is no situation in which we ‘neutralize’ Chinese air defenses and then somehow do some sort of infiltration,” says Mastro, author of Upstart: How China Became a Great Power. The U.S. intervention in Venezuela, therefore, “does not tell us a lot, operationally, about what the United States is capable of in a contingency via China.”

More troubling, Mastro identifies the Venezuela operation as demonstrating a fundamental shift in U.S. strategic priorities, with the raid conducted just weeks after the Trump administration released its 2025 National Security Strategy, which prioritizes restoring “American preeminence in the Western Hemisphere.” Mastro characterizes it as “the one region where U.S. dominance faces no serious challenge.” Thus, Venezuela suggests “the Trump administration means business about the renewed focus on the Western Hemisphere, and, unfortunately, that makes me concerned that there might be strategic neglect of the Indo-Pacific moving forward,” she points out.

Diamond stresses that, virtually throughout the entire presidency of Xi Jinping, dating back to 2012, China has been rapidly building up its military capabilities, prioritizing those specifically suited for coercing, isolating, or potentially seizing Taiwan. Against this backdrop, “I am much more fearful about the future of Taiwan in the week following U.S. military action on January 3 in Venezuela than I was before that action.” 

Mastro agrees with this assessment about the ripple effects of the operation in Venezuela. “I would say that it probably emboldens China.”

Frank Advice for U.S. Allies

For U.S. allies in the Indo-Pacific, including Japan, South Korea, the Philippines, and Australia, as well as allies and partners in Europe, both scholars offer pragmatic counsel for coping with the Trump administration.

Diamond urges U.S. allies to manage Trump diplomatically while staying focused on core interests, namely, prioritizing the preservation of the alliances and strengthening autonomous defense capabilities to demonstrate commitment and hedge against potential U.S. retrenchment.

“It takes constant, energetic, proactive, imaginative, relentless, and in some ways deferential working of the relationship, including the personal relationship between these leaders and Donald Trump [...] The future will be better if the leaders of these countries internalize that fundamental lesson about Trump.”

Mastro is equally direct about the limited alternatives ahead of U.S. allies: "You don't really have an option. That Chinese military – if it gives the United States problems, it definitely gives you problems. There's no hope for a country like Taiwan without the United States. There's no hope for Australia without the United States."

Counterintuitively, U.S. assertiveness may indicate its insecurity about the balance of power with China. “It seems to me that the United States also needs to be reassured that our allies and partners support us [...] And if we had that confidence, maybe the United States would be less aggressive in its use of military force.”

Watch the two APARC Briefing episodes:

🔸 What the U.S. Raid in Venezuela Means for Taiwan and Asia - with Larry Diamond >

🔸 Does Venezuela Provide China a Roadmap for Taiwan? – with Oriana Skylar Mastro >

Authoritarian rebalance 

Maduro served as president of Venezuela for more than 10 years before he was ousted Jan. 3 in a U.S. military operation that brought him to America to face narco-terrorism charges.

Trinkunas, a senior research scholar at FSI’s Center for International Security and Cooperation (CISAC), discussed the possibility of Venezuela transitioning to democracy, especially given the opposition's overwhelming victory in the 2024 presidential elections. But an authoritarian rebalancing looms large, he noted.

“We have to remember that all the institutions of power and all the electoral offices in Venezuela below the president are held by supporters of the regime,” he said.

Trinkunas recalled political scientist Alexander B. Downs’ book, “Catastrophic Success,” which examined the negative consequences of foreign-imposed regime changes and highlighted that such interventions often lead to civil war and violent removals of leaders.

“About one-third to 40% of all regimes installed by a foreign intervention end up in civil conflict within 10 years,” Trinkunas said. And, almost half of leaders installed by foreign powers withdraw from or are pushed from office before their terms are up.

He foresees a divergence between the interests of the intervening power, the U.S., and Venezuela’s power elites and population under the proposed arrangement. “The people with the guns stay employed.” And they may not be eager to cooperate if it involves sharing Venezuela’s mineral wealth with the United States government.

Díaz-Cayeros said, “Nothing has changed in the basic underlying economic conditions of Venezuela that has forced an exodus of 8 million people.” Days after the arrest of Maduro, the government in office is still the same government that came into office through an electoral fraud, he added.

Status quo interests

Curiel, a research scholar at CDDRL, research manager for the Democracy Action Lab, and a native of Venezuela, described the ecosystem of armed actors in Venezuela and outlined how both state and non-state security forces have the incentives and capabilities to preserve the status quo. 

“They’ve had arrangements that have been important for their survival, up until now. And so, there’s a question that these groups face with the loss of Maduro and [his wife Cilia] Flores,” she said.

To the extent they perceive their arrangements are under threat, they might respond with violence or engage in chaos, Curiel added. This is further complicated by the fact that different armed groups are loyal to different members of the governing coalition, creating competing power centers.

Fuentes, a CDDRL visiting scholar and Venezuelan native, noted that the situation in Venezuela remains extremely fluid and that it is still too early to determine whether Maduro’s removal will lead to authoritarian rebalancing or a genuine democratic transition. He argued that policymakers face a real tension between two objectives: stabilizing the country while accounting for the complexity and fragility of the Venezuelan state, and recognizing that stabilization without a clear commitment to democratic transition as the ultimate goal is not sustainable.

“The stability is not going to happen unless you promise and commit to the final goal of a democratic transition,” said Fuentes, a lawyer and policy expert from Venezuela.

He explained that the regime’s basic instinct is to resist and survive any U.S. involvement in the way its key ally, Cuba, has done through the decades.

Zambrano, a Stanford law professor and CDDRL affiliated faculty member who grew up in Venezuela, said he was guardedly optimistic about a democratic transition and supported the military operation that removed Maduro. As for the legal implications of the capture of Maduro, he cited prior examples of the U.S. taking military action in Kosovo, Libya, and Panama, among others, without Congressional approval and in apparent violation of international law.

The international law prohibition on the use of force “has been violated [maybe] 40 times” in the last few decades, he said. “This is one more violation. Is that good? No, that’s not good, but it’s not a drastic change the way the Russian invasion of Ukraine was,” because the latter implicated the international prohibition on the annexation of territory. Moreover, in Venezuela’s case, the Venezuelan people welcomed the U.S. intervention.

Kronick, an associate professor of public policy at UC Berkeley and Stanford alum, observed that U.S. officials at a January 3 press conference didn’t mention democracy and totally dismissed María Corina Machado, whom she described as “Venezuela's most popular politician and the driving force behind the opposition candidate in last year's presidential election.”

The 2024 Venezuelan presidential election was highly controversial, given that both the opposition showed incontrovertible evidence, widely verified by the international community, that the election was stolen by Maduro and that the opposition actually won by a landslide.

Kronick said the acting president of Venezuela, Delcy Rodríguez, is clearly not a democratic activist and has been a key member of the regime for years. “It’s a little bit hard to be optimistic about the prospects for democratization,” given her current role.

On the other hand, Venezuela has very capable election-vote-counting technology and decades of high-turnout elections, all of which could potentially facilitate re-democratization. 

‘Gangster diplomacy’

In the question-and-answer session, Michael McFaul, former FSI director, described the Trump Administration’s current attempt to take more than $2 billion in oil from Venezuela as “gangster diplomacy” and a “travesty.” 

Díaz-Cayeros said, “This kind of U.S. unilateral action strikes a very deep chord in the Latin American psyche. And it doesn’t really matter if someone is on the left or on the right” in Latin and South America.”

Kathryn Stoner, Mosbacher Director of CDDRL, noted that the U.S. arrest of Maduro raises troubling questions about whether Russia would attempt a similar action against Ukraine’s leaders in the future. “What then stops Putin, other than the incompetence of the Russian armed forces, from going in and trying to get (President Volodymyr) Zelensky or any other high leader in Ukraine?”

Kronick suggested audience members read a recent Foreign Affairs essay, “A Grand Bargain With Venezuela,” in which the author argues for a “pacted transition,” a negotiated, power-sharing arrangement, as the most viable path for Venezuela. This would involve an agreement between the current regime and opposition to coexist and gradually democratize, rather than one side seeking total victory.

“Whether you read this and think this is pie in the sky and this is never going to happen, or you think this is what we need to really push for, I think it’s really worth engaging with, so I’ll end with that recommendation,” she said.
 

What intrigued you about academia? 

Conventional conversations on current events were never really satisfying to me — you could always come up with another reason or another argument for why things were or what the solutions should be, and people have their own opinions, biases, and beliefs. But throughout college, I realized there are frameworks for these ways of thinking about the world more structurally that can help us make sense of what's happening. This hooked me in, and I couldn't unsee how useful those tools were — not just to help us understand the world, but to help us get a handle on how humans govern ourselves. I also love students. I love teaching. It's just so gratifying. So, those things together brought me to academia. 

What stands out to you about the space of CDDRL? 

CDDRL is a really special place. I think the downside of academia can be that there are pressures to publish, which, of course, you still have at CDDRL, but sometimes there are pressures or incentives that push people away from wanting to engage with what's happening in the world. And CDDRL is not that at all. It's also not the opposite: just a constant discussion of current events, without any good analytical tools. CDDRL is the perfect blend of making sense of the world and offering effective solutions, while remaining committed to producing cutting-edge research.

What is the most exciting or impactful finding from your research, and why do you think it matters for democracy or development? 

An important line of research in my work has been working with ex-combatants in Colombia, which led to one of the first major findings in my research.  The research was with former combatants — people who, for different reasons, become experts in the use of violence to pursue their political beliefs. Typically, we can think of them as radical ideologically. Upon conducting these interviews with intervention, we found that ex-combatants who received an intervention to help them better understand civics and political structures showed a moderation in their preferences towards less radical political participation. What that says to me is that even though some actors have invested in radical and antidemocratic means of participating in or influencing politics, these same actors can be incorporated into politics in a way that's not violent yet is democratic. I think that's an optimistic story.
 

When recruiting participants for that study and engaging them, how did you get ex-combatants to participate in a study on political science? How did these conversations go, and how did you incentivize them to participate? 

As you may imagine, these are populations of people that are difficult to access and that are very untrustworthy. There is some danger, whether from them or from groups targeting former combatants. When conducting these interviews, several constraints arose. Part of the lesson was that the approach had to go through as many gatekeepers to these populations as possible, such as trusted local leadership and community members. There was a process of gaining trust; this wasn't like knocking on a door and asking, “Would you like to participate in research?” With these kinds of populations, earning trust and being transparent is important — sharing who you are, why you're there, what you're going to do with that information, why it's important for them to participate, and how the participation can be useful to them. 

How do you see your research influencing policy and contributing to real-world change?

This is important to me, as I see my research being helpful to different kinds of policymakers in different ways. The first is the evidence on specific interventions that I've evaluated with some coauthors. These include interventions like this civic inclusion, the interventions we evaluated with ex-combatants, and another project I'm working on — a political efficacy intervention with women in rural communities. Specifically, from these kinds of interventions, there are clear lessons for organizations that are working to scale these kinds of efforts, like the UN's peacekeeping operations and agencies that develop reintegration programming. I have some evidence from my research that I think could be helpful for negotiation processes, related to the role of guarantees of power in negotiations and how that might affect long-term political considerations that can shape the prospects for peace. I also work with the Democracy Action Lab, a new venture here at CDDRL, whose mission is to produce research useful to democracy practitioners as they develop their strategies and to other organizations that support them. 

You were discussing how the world you grew up in very much shaped the direction you went into. With the motion of current events over the past few decades, has your research focus shifted any more? How do you see your work changing in the global era we're in right now? 

I started by telling you how my life in Venezuela shaped my desire to understand politics and governance. But I didn't actually spend the first part of my academic career studying Venezuela. I turned my attention to a process of negotiation and transition from a seemingly intractable conflict in Colombia, and the tensions and dilemmas inherent to these paths out of conflict. This knowledge, I believe, is informative of paths out of civil war, but also out of circumstances like the ones Venezuela faces today. Fast forward to today, amid the broader decline of democracy and the disappearance of the process of democratization, I'm coming back to these problems of responding to emboldened authoritarians, and how that intersects with the problems of violence and the actors who use it. It's becoming increasingly difficult to be a social scientist and not try to respond to the problems of the moment. People have different opinions about what the role of academics and the social sciences should be, but I'm of the opinion that part of our job is to help explain and understand the world we're in now. It's what the moment requires of us.
 

What’s one focus you have in your career at this moment?

Part of what I'm grappling with is making sure the questions I ask in my research are relevant to this moment and also to future moments. What are broader processes, general dilemmas, or general problems, for either policymakers or for the general dynamics that the citizenry faces? Additionally, how do we make sure these topics are in conversation with the broader public? Right now, the value of higher education and academia is being questioned by people in power, and there are significant pressures on academia. I think it's important to elevate our insights, their relevance, and make them legible and accessible to people more generally.

What book do you recommend for students interested in a research career in your field?

It depends on where your interests lie, but here are three:
 

• For those interested in civil conflict and the dynamics of civil war, I recommend Rebelocracy: Social Order in the Colombian Civil War by Ana Arjona for understanding why rebel organizations engage in the strategies they do and how communities respond. 

• For those interested in authoritarian strategies and elections, I would recommend Voting for Autocracy by CDDRL’s own Beatriz Magaloni.

• And for those interested in understanding the general strategies of leaders, The Dictator's Handbook by Alastair Smith and Bruce Bueno de Mesquita is a wonderful and connected overview of autocracy and the incentives of leaders.

Strategies for Release

Lilian Tintori, an internationally recognized human rights advocate and the wife of former political prisoner Leopoldo López (the 2022 Robert G. Wesson Lecturer in International Relations Theory and Practice at the Freeman Spogli Institute for International Studies), spoke candidly about her seven-year struggle to secure her husband’s release. “It is not easy,” she stated, “You become the voice of the political prisoner. You can’t talk, you have to scream in every crevice, every place, every moment you get.” 

Tintori argues that the most important aspect for release is a community of resilience, which is to provide mental health and emotional support to political prisoners’ families, as they cannot act as the voice if they feel broken themselves. At the heart of this strength, she argued, is love. In her efforts, she now distributes the Pathway to Freedom handbook, produced through her organization, the World Liberty Congress, to help families navigate the grueling road to release.

“Torture only occurs because the Maduro regime knows we are the majority,” Tintori clarified. Since the beginning of 2025, five political prisoners in Venezuela have died in custody. Tintori emphasized the importance of protecting the life of the person being detained — the human being behind the titles of activist, mayor, or opposition leader, beyond a simple number. To raise awareness about political prisoners alike, Tintori often employs the strategy of always mentioning “other political prisoners” after their loved ones’ names. This keeps the broader community of victims in public consciousness.

With international and local channels to plead for help closing, such as the EU or historically, the U.S., all three panelists stressed that silence is not an option for all communities — including academic spheres — and the broader public. Tintori testified that after public pressure, the regimes do pay attention and often send proof of life to suppress further outrage, hence helping to protect prisoners until their release.

Ways to Support A Political Prisoner 

Having been a political prisoner himself after co-founding the April 6th Youth Movement in Egypt, Waleed Shawky recounted what he believed carried him through his time behind bars — the cause he fought for. Upholding the values and vision that led to their arrest, he argued, can provide hope and dignity in the most inhumane conditions. “Being a victim is a choice as a prisoner, because you can choose to be a survivor,” Shawky asserted, “It is important to remind them of the bigger picture.” 

Echoing Tintori’s previous statements, Shawky praised the courage of the families, particularly women, who visit and support prisoners, often at great personal risk. He also warned against idolizing or victimizing political prisoners. “They’re human,” he emphasized. “Don’t cry in front of them. Be strong; they need your strength.”

Authoritarian Crackdowns and Resistance

Gulika Reddy highlighted the challenges advocates operating in authoritarian contexts face and how they navigate these challenges. She broke it down into three different categories: movements, organizations, and individuals.

• Movements are often delegitimized and co-opted. Reddy stressed the importance of engaging in grounded movement building, offering counter-narratives to sustain public trust, and fostering solidarity and collective action.

• At the organizational level, regimes may block formal registration, restrict funding, and launch physical or digital attacks — including office raids and data seizures. To survive these assaults, organizations can diversify financial models, invest in digital security, and cultivate collective care to mitigate burnout and trauma. Additionally, there is a need to adopt diverse theories of change in contexts where traditional human rights tactics prove ineffective.

• For individuals, threats include intimidation and retaliation, which can also extend to their loved ones. Reddy recommended conducting risk assessments and creating mitigation and response plans, including access to free legal aid and safe housing.

What we learned from our speakers is clear: authoritarianism thrives on silence, but freedom depends on our voices. For political prisoners around the world, solidarity, resilience, and an unwavering defense of human dignity are not just ideals; they are lifelines that can bring them home.

On behalf of the Center on Democracy, Development and the Rule of Law and the Ford Dorsey Master’s in International Policy program at Stanford University, we call for the immediate and unconditional release of Jesús Armas. We urge the international community, human rights organizations, and democratic governments to raise their voices in support of Jesús and to condemn the escalating pattern of repression and torture against peaceful democratic actors in Venezuela.

Jesús belongs not in a prison cell, but in a classroom, preparing to contribute to a freer, more just, and more democratic future for Venezuela and the world.

Signed,

Kathryn Stoner
Mosbacher Director and Senior Fellow,
Center on Democracy, Development and the Rule of Law, 
Freeman Spogli Institute for International Studies,
Professor of Political Science & Senior Fellow, Hoover Institution (both by courtesy),
Stanford University

Francis Fukuyama
Olivier Nomellini Senior Fellow, Freeman Spogli Institute for International Studies
Director, Ford Dorsey Master's in International Policy
Research Affiliate, The Europe Center
Professor by Courtesy, Department of Political Science
Stanford University

Maduro’s attempts at electoral fraud overshadowed Venezuela's presidential election on July 28, 2024. Afterward, the Venezuelan democratic movement provided evidence showing that their candidate, Edmundo González, had won with about 70% of the vote. Since then, the Maduro regime has stifled the opposition and thwarted democratic reforms as he seeks to regain office in January. Meanwhile, Machado has been forced into hiding to evade arrest by Maduro's regime but remains resolute in her decision to stay in Venezuela, where she continues to lead the movement.

In 2023, Machado won the Venezuelan opposition primaries with 93% of the vote. But the Maduro regime immediately, and illegally, disqualified her from running in the 2024 presidential election. She then took charge of revitalizing the country’s pro-democracy movement, rebuilding it from the ground up and infusing it with renewed purpose.

In introducing Machado, Kathryn Stoner, the Mosbacher Director of CDDRL, said, “Her leadership has been a beacon of hope for millions of Venezuelans as she continues to inspire them in the fight against authoritarianism.”

‘We surprised everyone’

Machado spoke about the election aftermath and a “window of opportunity” to act now to safeguard democracy. “The final outcome of this process is certainly existential for the Venezuelan people. It is critically strategic for the region and of great importance for all Western democracies, especially for the United States, and that's why we've received bipartisan support.”

Today, Venezuela ranks last on the World Justice Project’s Rule of Law index — 142 out of 142 countries. “Every single democratic institution has been devastated,” said Machado, describing the current situation as a “full-fledged tyranny” and adding that 8 million people have been forced to flee her country.

Despite such conditions, she said, in the past two years, Venezuelans have built up a democratic movement — “they told us it was impossible” — that reflects a deeper social response. “We decided to understand, to heal, and to trust each other.”

The regime underestimated the growth of this movement, she said. “We defeated the regime in the streets and in the hearts of Venezuelan people. We defeated them before in the spiritual dimension and then in the electoral process. And we've surprised everyone.”

They created a well-organized network of citizen volunteers who could be deployed in every single polling station and other places, all of whom were profoundly motivated around the cause, Machado said. “We did it without media at all,” since Maduro's government would not allow her to appear in traditional media channels and the campaign couldn't run ads on social media — there was no money.

Machado said, “We united a country around common values — human dignity, solidarity, justice, private property, and freedom. We united Venezuela around a profound desire: We wanted our kids back home; we wanted our families reunited.”

In the election, González won by a landslide, she said, roughly 70 percent to Maduro’s 30 percent. Immediately, the regime struck back, detaining and arresting thousands of pro-democracy advocates and even torturing some people.

“The reaction of the regime was ferocious,” she said. “We are facing a situation where the regime wants to create terror and totally paralyze this movement.”

But the Venezuelan pushback to the Maduro repression has been dramatic, she said. Machado estimates that if the election were held today, the pro-democracy candidate would get 90 percent of the vote.

“We have a united opposition, more than ever before,” she said, noting vows of support from the international community. January 10 is the day when Maduro would be sworn in again as president. “We will never give up, and I'm sure freedom will prevail in our country.”

International action

“The challenge,” Diamond said, “is to get President Maduro, who has lost the election, to acknowledge that he's lost and leave power.” He asked Machado what the international community should do. (On November 19, a day after the CDDRL event, the U.S. formally recognized González as the president-elect.)

She responded, “We have to make these people understand that they will be held accountable. If they keep repressing our people, international justice should act immediately, and that hasn’t happened yet.”

On top of this, she added, Maduro’s ties to criminal activities and black markets need to be examined by international partners. Even the Venezuelan military largely supported the pro-democracy opposition.

“The (global) law enforcement approach can be more comprehensive, involving different agencies and different countries, so these individuals understand this regime is not sustainable from financial, political, and human perspectives,” she said.

Diamond asked if criminal indictments of members of the Maduro regime could be on the table, whether by the United States, European countries, or the International Criminal Court.

Machado acknowledged this point and recommended a few international strategies: Maduro has to be totally isolated, and González has to be recognized as the president-elect; a global law enforcement approach needs to crack down on Maduro’s criminal activities; the International Criminal Court needs to make a decision on the election; and every democratic government in the world needs to advocate for a negotiated transition for Venezuela to peacefully move ahead.

Democracies worldwide

During the Q&A portion of the event, a student audience member asked what the expatriate Venezuelan community should know and do about the situation.

Machado said, “One of our main assets now is this great diaspora that has turned Venezuela into a global cause. People are preparing abroad, learning, and getting ready to come back and build a great society.”

She added that her country’s abundant oil reserves could literally transform Venezuelan society if used wisely, unlike under Maduro’s tenure, and be used as a key element to fund the country's energy transition.

As Stoner noted in her opening remarks, “The struggle for democracy in Venezuela is not just a national issue — it's a global one. The fate of Venezuela speaks to the broader challenges that democracies are facing worldwide, including our own.”

You can read more about this event in The Stanford Daily.