Right now there is no clear, settled answer to who will ultimately “run” Venezuela , and the situation is highly fluid and contested.

What “who will run Venezuela” means today

There are several overlapping claims to power and influence:

  • Nicolás Maduro’s government still claims internal constitutional authority after a heavily disputed 2024 election, which pro‑government institutions said he won, while the opposition and many foreign observers say the vote was neither free nor fair.
  • The Venezuelan opposition , grouped around figures like María Corina Machado and Edmundo González, argues that González actually won the 2024 vote and should be recognized as the legitimate president, calling for a transition to democracy.
  • The United States under President Donald Trump has recently launched military strikes in Venezuela, captured Maduro according to U.S. statements, and Trump has publicly said the U.S. will “run” Venezuela temporarily until there is a “safe, proper and judicious transition” to new leadership.

So, “who will run Venezuela” is not a simple succession question; it’s about a tug‑of‑war among Maduro loyalists, the democratic opposition, and now very direct U.S. involvement.

Trump’s “we’re going to run the country” comments

Recent statements from Trump have sharply raised the stakes:

  • In early January 2026, Trump said the U.S. is “going to run” Venezuela after a military operation that reportedly led to the capture of Nicolás Maduro and his wife.
  • He framed this as a temporary trusteeship: Washington would oversee Venezuela, including its oil sector, until a “safe” transition can happen, and large U.S. oil companies would be brought in to repair and restart production.
  • Trump also said U.S. officials are in contact with Venezuelan Vice President Delcy Rodríguez, who, under Venezuelan law, is next in the line of succession; however, even U.S. media note it is unclear whether Washington will actually recognize her as head of state or treat her more as a local partner in a de facto U.S.-run transition.

These remarks are being described by analysts as one of the clearest examples of U.S. “imperialism” language since the Iraq war era, precisely because they imply direct foreign control over another state’s government and resources.

Possible near‑term scenarios

No one can say with certainty “who will run Venezuela” over the next months or years, but analysts tend to discuss a few broad scenarios:

  1. U.S.-managed transition authority
    • The U.S. could effectively act as the top decision‑maker on security and economic policy while promising elections later, perhaps with some role for Delcy Rodríguez as an interim figure.
 * In this scenario, Venezuelan institutions formally remain, but key levers — oil exports, security, sanctions relief — would be controlled from Washington.
  1. Rapid civilian transition with opposition leadership
    • Domestic and international pressure, including from Latin American and European governments, could push for a quick handover to an interim or unity government including the opposition, particularly Edmundo González and allies.
 * This would aim to move swiftly to internationally monitored elections to restore legitimacy.
  1. Fragmented power / de facto partition
    • Even with Maduro removed, armed groups, factions within the security forces, and local political bosses could carve out zones of influence, leaving the central “government” — whether U.S.-backed or opposition‑led — weak outside major cities.
 * Criminal organizations such as Tren de Aragua and networks linked to the Cartel de los Soles, which the U.S. has labeled terrorist or narco structures, complicate any clean transfer of authority.
  1. Maduro network regrouping underground
    • Even if Maduro personally is detained, parts of his political and military network could attempt to regroup, negotiate amnesties, or fuel an insurgency, affecting who actually controls territory on the ground.

How forums and commentators are talking about it

Public discussion, including think‑tank events and news analysis, tends to split into different viewpoints:

  • Realist view : Whoever “runs” Venezuela in practice will be the actor controlling security forces and oil flows, which currently points toward a combination of U.S. power and compliant local elites rather than a purely Venezuelan civilian government in the short term.
  • Democracy‑first view : Civil society groups and opposition leaders argue any foreign role must be strictly temporary, focused on guaranteeing credible elections and handing full control to a Venezuelan government chosen at the ballot box.
  • Skeptical / anti‑intervention view : Critics warn that U.S. “running” Venezuela could entrench a long‑term occupation dynamic, provoke regional backlash, and spark nationalist resistance, even among people who oppose Maduro.

A common theme across expert panels: the real test is not removing Maduro, but building legitimate, functioning institutions that Venezuelans see as their own, not imposed from abroad.

What to watch next

If you are tracking “who will run Venezuela” as a developing story, key indicators include:

  • How quickly and under what terms the U.S. defines a timetable and mechanism for a political transition, including any roadmap for elections.
  • Whether Delcy Rodríguez, Edmundo González, or another opposition or regime figure emerges as a widely recognized civilian face of an interim authority.
  • Reactions from regional organizations like the Organization of American States and key neighbors such as Brazil and Colombia, which could either legitimize or challenge any U.S.-led arrangement.

Right now, then, the honest answer is that Venezuela’s immediate future is being contested among Maduro’s damaged but not vanished power network, an energized opposition, and a highly assertive U.S. administration that openly says it intends to “run” the country during a transition.

Information gathered from public forums or data available on the internet and portrayed here.