Once again, the international agenda is being discussed not so much around specific U.S. decisions as around the style of Donald Trump’s personal diplomacy—and how his sharp remarks are received abroad. In many publications, the emphasis is on irritation, mockery, and outright rejection by foreign leaders, who publicly distance themselves from his statements and thereby intensify the sense that relations between countries are unpredictable. A separate theme in this line of thinking is his comments about Giorgia Meloni, talk about leaders who are “strong” or “convenient” for Washington, as well as his habit of interfering in the political processes of other countries—especially since the reaction, as a rule, comes quickly and is directed at his behavior rather than at the content of individual initiatives. This piece is prepared based on publications from amp.dw.com (Venezuela) and www.facebook.com (Venezuela), as well as amchamcolombia.co (Venezuela).
Venezuela reads Trump’s scandals as a lesson about U.S. pressure
The Venezuelan reading of the latest news about Donald Trump is not focused on individual episodes, but on a broader picture: in Caracas, they see one and the same mechanism—public pressure, the humiliation of allies, the imposition of deadlines, and the transformation of diplomacy into an instrument of political control.
The most telling example was the dispute involving Giorgia Meloni. In a DW report, Italy’s prime minister publicly rejected Trump’s claim that she had allegedly “begged” him for a joint photo at the G7 summit, calling it “fabrication.” That sparked a sharp reaction in Italy: the foreign minister, Antonio Tajani, canceled his trip to the United States and said that Trump’s “insulting words” “insult all of Italy.” Meloni, in turn, said: “neither I nor Italy have ever been humiliated,” and raised the question of why Trump behaves this way toward allies—while, in her view, he treats “the enemies of the West” more gently than partners.
For a Venezuelan audience, this episode is read more broadly than a typical diplomatic dispute. It is seen as further confirmation that Trump’s personal diplomacy is built on conspicuous pressure and a political performance. In a country where the topic of external interference has historically been painful, such behavior by the United States is often interpreted not as the rudeness of a particular politician, but as a reflection of Washington’s broader attitude toward the sovereignty of other states.
Similarly, in Venezuela, the story about an ultimatum—reported with reference to FRANCE 24 Español—is understood as a confirmation of a familiar pattern. There, the emphasis is on messages that, in the Venezuelan context, are read as familiar: American diplomacy through deadlines, pressure, and unilateral decisions. The very mention of a “60-day plan” in a message by U.S. Vice President J.D. Vance in Caracas is easily linked to sanctions, ultimatums, and the long-standing practice of external coercion. From the Venezuelan perspective, it is important not only what is being said, but also the method—decisions are made in Washington, while other countries are expected to fall into line or respond under pressure.
Another episode, viewed in Venezuela through the same lens, is connected with the rapprochement between Colombia and the United States. In a report by AmCham Colombia, the emphasis is on the idea that for Colombia, the United States remains the “best market”—a key ally in trade, investment, security, and diplomacy. But in the Venezuelan perception, this looks less like neutral economic cooperation and more like evidence of deep dependence. Discussions in Caracas about security, “no descertification,” migration, the fight against drug trafficking, commerce, and nearshoring are seen as a typical formula of U.S. influence: economic relations almost always come with political conditions.
In this context, the remarks of María Claudia Lacouture—who defends AmCham Colombia’s role in strengthening ties with the United States—stand out as especially notable, as does the very framing of the panel question: “Dependence or strategy?”. For a Venezuelan reader, this dilemma sounds very familiar. Here, people recall not only Colombia’s experience, but also their own history of pressure, sanctions, and confrontation with Washington, when foreign policy, trade, and access to finance turned out to be closely tied to U.S. interests.
The overall logic of the Venezuelan reading is this: the scandal involving Meloni, the story about J.D. Vance, and the Colombia-U.S. agenda all show the same pattern. The United States sets the tone, while other countries are forced to justify themselves, demonstrate “resilience,” or agree to imposed terms. That is why, in Caracas, such news is perceived not as separate international stories, but as confirmation of the old argument about the need for strategic autonomy and distrust of the pretty words of American diplomacy.
For Venezuela, it is not just a set of foreign news items, but a reminder of how easily U.S. foreign policy turns into a tool of pressure. And the more often such episodes repeat, the more strongly a belief is reinforced in local political culture: that dealing with Washington requires caution, bearing in mind the cost of dependence and the risks to sovereignty.
