This issue examines the region’s response to the Trump administration’s policies on Venezuela, Cuba, and migration. The materials show how U.S. sanctions, oil policy, and tighter border controls are becoming instruments of political and economic pressure, prompting debate over a possible transfer of power in Venezuela and the future of relations with Havana. Against this backdrop, Latin American leaders are pursuing different strategies, ranging from strong criticism to pragmatic dialogue with Washington. The review is based on materials from Instagram and Facebook (Venezuela).
Venezuelan Social Media: Distrust of Foreign Aid and Confusion Over Oil
In the Venezuelan social media sphere, international relations are often viewed through the lens of dependency, sanctions pressure, and the struggle for control over natural resources. Two posts dealing with foreign policy and the economy demonstrate both deep distrust of support offered from abroad and the problem of information confusion surrounding an especially sensitive subject—Venezuelan oil.
In an Instagram post, the author expresses a widespread attitude in the country toward loans, humanitarian aid, military supplies, and trade agreements with major powers. The main argument is stated in extremely categorical terms: “Nothing in life is free.” In the author’s view, every form of foreign “assistance” comes with strings attached, and the recipient ultimately risks becoming even more dependent.
A central element of this criticism is the commodity-based economic model. Venezuela, which possesses the world’s largest oil reserves along with other natural resources, exports raw materials that then return to the country in the form of processed products and technology, but at a much higher price. This arrangement is perceived as an unequal exchange: most of the added value, technological control, and access to markets remain with the countries engaged in processing and manufacturing.
The author is also outraged by the supply of outdated equipment: “They sell us everything that is already obsolete for them—aircraft, weapons, and so on.” This statement alludes to long-running debates in Venezuela over military procurement, limited access to new technologies, sanctions, and dependence on foreign suppliers. Under this interpretation, the country receives not modern tools for development, but equipment that developed countries no longer consider in demand.
Such sentiments are particularly evident amid U.S. sanctions, restrictions on the oil sector, and Caracas’s search for partners in Russia, China, Iran, and elsewhere. For part of Venezuelan society, foreign support remains contradictory: it may be necessary to sustain the economy while simultaneously being viewed as an instrument of political and economic control. This post is not a fact-check of a specific deal or a neutral news report; rather, it reflects an emotional perception of the international system rooted in historical distrust of foreign powers and a sense of injustice over dependence on raw materials.
Against this backdrop, another post by a Venezuelan news account is also telling, as its stated subject does not match its content. The headline promises a report on Donald Trump’s statement regarding Venezuelan oil—a matter that inevitably draws the country’s audience, since oil remains the foundation of its exports, budget revenues, and international political disputes.
However, the text itself is devoted not to Venezuela, Trump, or the oil sector, but to the alleged intention of Colombia’s president-elect, Abelardo de la Espriella, to withdraw the country from China’s Belt and Road Initiative. The post discusses the possible consequences of such a decision for Colombia’s investment, trade, and foreign-policy ties, but provides no documents, verifiable statements, or specific quotations from Venezuelan politicians or experts. Nor does it explain how the subject is directly connected to Venezuela’s oil policy.
The mere mention of Trump and Venezuelan oil can provoke a strong public reaction. In Venezuela, his first presidential term is associated with sanctions against the state oil company PDVSA, export restrictions, pressure on Caracas’s foreign partners, and a strategy of “maximum pressure.” As a result, many readers may have expected information about a possible tightening of U.S. policy—or, conversely, its adjustment.
The Colombia–China agenda does nevertheless have indirect significance for Venezuela. Colombia remains a key neighbor, trading partner, and one of the main destinations for Venezuelan migrants. Changes in its relations with China, the United States, and international investors could affect cross-border trade, transport routes, migrants’ circumstances, employment, and regional policy. But the original post does not explain these connections, and its attention-grabbing headline combines two different subjects without any confirmed analytical link.
Ultimately, both posts reveal characteristic features of Venezuela’s information environment. On the one hand, there is a strong fear that foreign aid and cooperation conceal unfavorable conditions and deepen dependence. On the other, the audience’s heightened sensitivity to oil, sanctions, and U.S. policy makes it particularly vulnerable to sensational headlines, even when their content does not correspond to the subject announced.
