Trump claims Maduro offered everything to ease tensions with the United States
President Donald Trump asserted on Friday that Nicolás Maduro has offered major concessions from Venezuela in an apparent bid to ease mounting tensions with the United States. Speaking to reporters at the White House during a meeting with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, Trump echoed a claim circulating in Washington and international media: Maduro has “offered everything” in exchange for a reduction in U.S. pressure.
Context of the claim
The remarks come as Maduro has tightened his grip on security powers and deployed tens of thousands of troops around the country. The Venezuelan leader has repeatedly accused the U.S. of seeking regime change, a charge Washington has avoided endorsing but has faced from critics who argue that U.S. actions in the region amount to interference.
Recent press reports, including a New York Times article cited by Trump, have described Maduro offering a stake in the country’s oil and other mineral wealth to stave off U.S. pressure. Venezuelan officials have also been floated as proposing a transition plan in which Maduro could eventually leave office, with intermediaries in Qatar allegedly presenting a “more acceptable” alternative to Washington through Vice-President Delcy Rodríguez and her brother Jorge, who chairs the National Assembly.
U.S. strikes and international legal questions
Amid these diplomatic currents, the United States has conducted several strikes on vessels near Venezuela it alleges are transporting drugs, resulting in a number of casualties. A sixth strike near the Caribbean, described as possibly involving a semi-submersible, drew attention to the ongoing covert actions the U.S. and allied forces have used to disrupt drug trafficking networks.
Trump described the submarine attack to reporters, saying, “We attacked a submarine. That was a drug-carrying submarine built specifically for the transportation of massive amounts of drugs.” He insisted that the operation targeted a legitimate military-like response to a serious threat, though legal scholars warn that such measures must adhere to international law and respect state sovereignty.
Diplomacy, legality, and domestic reaction
Secretary of State Antony Blinken was not present in the White House discussion, but a senior official—confirmed by sources—stated that the U.S. is prepared to discuss precise terms of any potential de-escalation with Venezuela. Human rights advocates have criticized the strikes as potentially unlawful extrajudicial actions, arguing that civilian harm risks escalating tensions rather than resolving the underlying security challenges.
Juanita Goebertus Estrada, Americas director at Human Rights Watch, warned that the actions could breach international human rights law and result in extrajudicial killings. “Officials must minimize harm and use lethal force only when unavoidable to protect against imminent threats,” she noted, urging greater transparency and adherence to legal norms.
Political dynamics in Washington
The strikes have drawn mixed reactions in Congress, with some lawmakers expressing concern about information gaps concerning the operations’ scope and oversight. The dynamic illustrates the broader challenge of U.S. policy toward Venezuela, which blends anti-drug trafficking aims with geopolitical rivalry that has persisted for years.
What to watch next
Analysts say the coming weeks will be pivotal in determining whether Maduro’s reported concessions translate into tangible policy shifts and whether Washington will respond with renewed diplomatic channels or continued pressure. The evolving narrative around Maduro’s potential exit, oil wealth concessions, and the scope of U.S. strikes will shape regional stability and the debate over international law and sovereignty in the Americas.
