Saturday, February 21, 2026

 THE EPSTEIN CLASS


The Epstein Class: They Are the Elites They 

Pretend to Hate


 February 20, 2026

Photo by Donald Teel

Attorney General Pam Bondi’s contentious House hearing about the Justice Department’s handling of the Epstein files offered a clear message to the nation: sex trafficking of women and minors is perfectly acceptable as long as wealthy white men do it.

Jeffrey Epstein, the disgraced late sex trafficker, fixer, and political networker, was found to have ties to huge number of the world’s elites on both sides of the political aisle — including Elon Musk, Peter Thiel, Ehud Barak, Bill Gates, Steve Bannon, Larry Summers, Bill Clinton, and of course, Donald Trump.

For years, Trump’s conservative backers have attacked LGBTQ+ peopledrag queens, immigrants, and others, claiming a desire to protect women and children from rapists and groomers. Trump even boasted that “whether the women liked it or not,” he would “protect” them from migrants, whom he slandered as “monsters” who “kidnap and kill our children.”

But when given the opportunity to seek justice for countless women and children who were trafficked, abused, and exploited by the world’s wealthiest, most powerful people, the MAGA movement and its leaders have shown a startling disinterest in accountability. During her hearing Bondi tried desperately to deflect attention, claiming that the stock market was more deserving of public attention than Epstein’s victims.

Even the Republican rank and file is now mysteriously detached from the Epstein files.

Polls show that in summer 2025, 40 percent of GOP voters disapproved of the federal government’s handling of the Epstein files. But by January 2026, only about half that percentage disapproved — even after the Trump administration missed its deadline to release millions of files and then released them in a way that exposed the victims while protecting the perpetrators.

While some European leaders are facing harsh consequences for associating with Epstein, no Americans outside of Epstein and his closest associate Ghislaine Maxwell have faced any consequences, legal or otherwise.

That’s despite very concrete ties between the Trump administration and the sex trafficker. Not only did Trump’s Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick admit to visiting Epstein island after lying about it (and has so far faced no consequences), but Trump himself is named more than a million times in the files, according to lawmakers with access to the unredacted documents. Several victims identify Trump by name, alleging he raped and assaulted them.

And it’s not just Trump. Epstein was an equal opportunity fixer. He was just as friendly with liberals as he was with conservatives, including Summers, Clinton, and, disconcertingly for the American left, Noam Chomsky. For elites like Epstein, ideological differences were superficial. The real distinction was money, power, and connections.

Epstein was a glorified drug dealer and his drugs of choice were the vulnerable bodies of women and children, offered up to his friends and allies as the forbidden currency he traded in. A useful moniker has emerged to describe the global network of elites whose power and privilege continues to protect them from accountability: the Epstein Class.

Georgia Senator John Ossoff, who faces reelection in 2026, is deploying this label, understanding that voters — at least those who haven’t bought into the MAGA cult — are increasingly aware of the double standards that wealthy power players are held to.

“This is the Epstein class, ruling our country,” said Ossoff in reference to those who make up the Trump administration. “They are the elites they pretend to hate.”

He’s right. And if the Trump administration won’t hold them to account, Americans should demand leaders who will.

Sonali Kolhatkar is the founder, host and executive producer of “Rising Up With Sonali,” a television and radio show that airs on Free Speech TV (Dish Network, DirecTV, Roku) and Pacifica stations KPFK, KPFA, and affiliates. 


It’s the Epstein Files, Stupid: Using Empire to 


Distract from Vice

 February 20, 2026

One might be forgiven for assuming that the man in the White House is a lunatic and Donald J. Trump certainly couldn’t be confused with the picture of mental health by anyone with half of a functioning brain in their skull. The man’s pathological ego appears to make him capable of literally believing his own lies with the truth standing naked in front of him, he has been credibly accused of more sex crimes than Albert Fish, and he seems to use the Executive Office as a giant hammer to throw homicidal temper tantrums with.

The last several months alone of Orange Man Mad’s second reign of terror feel a bit like an amphetamine blur of seemingly random war crimes and increasingly dictatorial outbursts. But as tempting as it might be to write all this mayhem off as pure and unadulterated lunacy, I do believe that there is a method to the madness, in fact, there is probably more than one.

Everything that Trump has been pushing at a manic pace this winter holds a place on the deep state’s to-do-list. With the American Empire’s finances and international reputation in tatters from decades of post-Cold War imperial overreach, the mandarins-at-be have been left with little option other than to refocus their war mongering endeavors on our own long neglected hemisphere with a new Monroe Doctrine while using their phalanx of nebulous forever wars on drugs and terror to consolidate their position domestically and keep an increasingly restless population in line.

All of this makes perfectly rational sense when you read the tea leaves carefully. What feels positively mad however is the pace and downright slap-dash delivery in which the Trump junta is carrying out such edicts. It feels as if Billy Burroughs took a deep hit off the opium pipe and then cut up the master plan with a big pair of scissors before haphazardly tossing the pieces together in random order. The only way to truly make sense of such harrowing disaster porn is to remember that nothing is ever truly random and attempt to read between the headlines in search of a recurring theme. Thus, amidst the madness, I myself have taken a long glance at Donald Trump’s Washington Interzone and this is the narrative that I’ve detected.

After months of empty promises to the toxic online manosphere largely responsible for the Donald’s post-January 6 rehabilitation, the fact finally became inescapable even for the most heavily deluded of MAGAloids that their hero was indeed the dog who didn’t bark and he wasn’t about to release the Epstein Files that prove it. Trump, misdiagnosing this flip flop as just another in a long line of broken campaign promises, essentially told his personality cult to chill the fuck out and get over it. This is when Trump’s approval ratings cratered and the people he had storm the Capitol began to call for his combover.

And then Donald Trump began bombing dinghies in the Caribbean before pounding his chest over the footage of these war crimes on live television while barking “I am not a pedophile!” And then he kidnapped some other broken democracy’s greaseball strongman in a highly choreographed reenactment of Apocalypse Now before declaring that nation’s oil to be American property and barking “I am not a pedophile!” And then he launched a military style invasion of the most annoyingly polite city in America with his orange guard of poorly trained federal goons tipping over small business’ in search of mythical Somalian kidney thieves while declaring the government’s inalienable right to shoot lesbian soccer moms in the face and once again barking “I am not a pedophile!”

Are we detecting a theme here? Is our cut-rate Ceasar’s unconscious perhaps coming in a little more consciously? Donald Trump spent 15 years palling around Manhattan and Palm Beach with the world’s most notorious child sex trafficker. What the fuck did you think they were doing between rails of blow? Collecting stamps? The Orange Bastard is already a well-recorded sexual predator in his own right. All the young bros cheered when he bragged about grabbing em by the pussy. He didn’t take the time to get their consent, why would he check their IDs?

I know a thing or two about sexual predators. I learned the hard way by getting preyed on by them as a parochial concubine in the Pennsylvania Catholic school system at a time when that institution had essentially been converted into an open-air marketplace for any fiend with a white collar and a skip in his step. These motherfuckers don’t care about sex; they care about power. That’s their kink. Most of them aren’t even into kids; they just like the thrill of obliterating something so helpless, and when they work in teams, and they often do, they take turns upping the ante; challenging each other to greater depths of depravity, and pretty soon the 17-year-olds become 14-year-olds and the rape becomes pedophilia.

But even pedophiles hate being called pedophiles because it is a word synonymous even in the underworld with ‘bottom feeder.’ So, Trump is doing everything in his frightening power to change the conversation to quite literally anything else while his cronies in the Department of Justice play games with the files he finally agreed to release upon threat of mutiny.

Only half of the six million relevant files in the DOJ’s possession have been released and they were released weeks past the congressionally obligated deadline with hundreds of thousands of pages still redacted, much of which was scrubbed clean by the FBI back in March of 2025.

However, even censored, these pages contain damming information about the wealthiest and most powerful men on earth canoodling with a Mossad connected convicted sex offender. We have Trump’s biggest financier, Elon Musk, begging this cockroach for an invite to his notorious island lair. We have Donald Trump’s Commerce Secretary, Howard Lutnick, making dinner plans in the Caribbean with the pervert in 2012 with his underage children in tow. We have Qatari sultans trolling for literal torture porn. And we have an unknown Epstein victim telling the FBI about being given a guided tour of Mar-a-Lago by the dog who didn’t bark and his master.

People are going to tell you that all of this shit is just a distraction from bigger issues, but the moral rot of our sainted elites has historically gone hand in hand with the rapid decline of their gilded empires as their crimes against humanity in the Third World are increasingly dragged back home to their boudoirs. People are also going to tell you that the disproportionate right-wing fury over the Epstein Files is just more proof that MAGA doesn’t give a fuck about brown people and they won’t be wrong.

But even the Aryan Brotherhood draws the line on pedophiles, and if we are going to bring our perverted Duce down, we are going to have to destroy the cult of personality he uses to manipulate rural poor people in my red neck of the woods.

We as a country also need to face the fact that rape culture is a menace infecting western society and that its source is not pornography or gangsta rap or even sexism. The source of this systemic wave of elite extracurricular violence is institutional power itself, in all of its forms, from the Nuclear Family to the White House.

We can take aim at both of these targets at once if we simply release all of the files unredacted directly to the public and use them for kinder in a bonfire that begins at the White House and ends on Wall Street.

No more excuses. No more half measures. No more victims. Only survivors with torches. That’s how we make America fucking great again. That’s how we make America fucking break again.

Nicky Reid is an agoraphobic anarcho-genderqueer gonzo blogger from Central Pennsylvania and assistant editor for Attack the System. You can find her online at Exile in Happy Valley.



The Carefully Contrived Spontaneity of the


“Shocking” Epstein Files Release



Whenever a “scandal” like the Epstein files dominates the news, we can be certain that it is meant as a distraction from something more sinister on the horizon.

The Epstein files have been in the hands of the F.B.I. for eight years or more. Then why have redacted files been released just recently? Cui bono?

And who is behind the release that did not occur over the course of the first Trump and the Biden administrations? Cui bono?

Does the genocide in Gaza and the U.S. proxy war against Russia, both supported by Biden and Trump, fit into the timing and redactions since we can assume that the Mossad, CIA, NSA, and MI6 have also long had access to the files?  A U.S./Israel attack on Iran?  For, like movies, all propaganda and coverups have carefully chosen release dates.

Last question: Why would anyone be shocked by the contents of the Epstein files, although many people seem to be? Yes, more names have been added to the list of degenerate elites who were happily part of Epstein’s criminal enterprise, but the revelation of more names only confirms how extensive it was.

We have long known of the criminal activities of the degenerate Epstein, the financiers, celebrities, politicians, and public figures who joined him. Sexual blackmail, cooperation between intelligence agencies and the underworld, secret financial deals, war planning in the name of peace, etc. are how capitalism has long operated. While those who research such things have long known this (see, e.g., Whitney Webb’s One Nation Under Blackmail, two volumes), the ordinary person may be finally grasping it; but shocking it is not. And the “may” should be emphasized. All of us have long been living in a culture of increasing “shock” rot where the most grotesque news and entertainment are staples of the mass media from Washington D.C. to Hollywood and all around the internet the monkey chased the weasel. The monkeys thought it was all in fun, and then Pop! goes the weasel.

Being shocked seems to be very popular; it spices up lives, induces that frisson that only sex, death, and the weather can bring to daily conversations. “Can you believe it?” and “Unbelievable!” echo across the land and spring from lips, screens, and websites everywhere as they invite you to come hither to be flabbergasted and have your head spun vertiginously. Ordinary people have become Regan MacNeil, the young girl possessed by a demon in The Exorcist.

If the corporate media ever went very deep, they would have to expose themselves as agents of the same forces behind Epstein’s rise to power. How often do these media connect Epstein to Israel, the Mossad, the CIA, etc.? It is not only evil individuals who rule but a structure of evil, a system, if you like, a social system deeply ingrained, publicly run currently by the evil moron Trump who, in a recent interview with the New York Times, when asked if he felt there were any limits on his global power, said, “Yeah, there is one thing. My own morality. My own mind. It’s the only thing that can stop me.” This statement let the cat out of the bag. It is the nihilist’s credo, basic to today’s ethos. No honor, no traditional ethical standards, no God, no love for humanity, just fake and deceptive news meant to shock and a “do your own thing,” U.S. president talking punk kid talk. Yeah. Unbelievable!. “I know words. I have the best words. I have the – but there’s no better word than stupid.” (Cue the soundtrack.)

The French New Wave filmmaker Jean-Luc Godard famously said, “To make a film all you need is a girl and a gun.” Well, we have the Epstein movie, and in it he and his venal and sordid friends had the girls, but who holds the guns and not the penises behind  their criminal enterprises, is left unaddressed.

When caught in flagrante, the media loves to expose certain individuals who take their pants down for sexual abuse purposes, but they find it impossible to take down those depraved villains who commit atrocities on ordinary people day in and day out throughout the world. Let’s call them the producers. They shape and pay for the news.

The Reality-TV President Donald Trump – the face of explicit imperialism and dictatorial domestic rule, a gross brutish thug whose core maxim is “might makes right” and whose name appears manifold times in the Epstein files – knows well how the game is played. After his televised fight with Zelensky last year (or was it before the fight?), he said “This is going to make great television.” So too the Epstein movie. Maybe a series.

And as in the past, none engaged in this wretched and criminal activity – except for Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell – will probably ever serve prison time. No shock there either.

As for shocks, it is better to watch the Winter Olympics and be “shocked” by favored athletes falling on ice and snow. Those falls are at least real.

There is a painting in a villa still visible at the entrance to the House of the Vettii in ruined Pompeii that tells us much about the Epstein files and power and wealth. It perfectly symbolizes one aspect of the gap between the international ruling classes – i.e. the dirty details in the Epstein documents minus the answer to who has been running the blackmail operation and why – and the rest of us.  It pictures the God Priapus weighing his penis on a scale of gold coins, as if to say, gold, God, wealth, and power – we rule. Fuck you! It’s an old story told by nihilistic men desperate to prove their potency by dominating vulnerable girls and women and the entire world.

Many have been asking how is it possible for Epstein and all those named and unnamed to have done such evil and criminal things? Evil seems to greatly perplex modern intellectuals. Do they think El Diablo is a salsa brand?

Hannah Arendt’s explanation of Adolf Eichmann’s behavior – the banality of evil – is one such explanation being coughed up now for Epstein’s behavior. Others say that he had no conscience or couldn’t reason like an adult; that he wasn’t very smart but was an excellent con man. That he was a narcissist. These are superficial explanations. None get to the heart of the matter. As usual, and completely erroneously, some blame it on Nietzsche and the obermensch idea (the overman or superman). Nietzsche (like Russia) is often blamed for every modern evil by those who have internalized false notions about his work. In fact, Nietzsche warned that since men had killed God “something extraordinarily nasty and evil is about to make its debut.” He was not happy about it.

The brilliant, underrated late writer Edward Dahlberg, in an essay about Nietzsche – “The True Nietzsche” – has this to say about him: “He denounced race politics, another word for Jew-baiting, calling himself a “good European,” an “anti-anti-Semite …. Nothing helped; the anti-Jewish Parteigenossen presented him to the public as a Teuton Politiker.” And so he is presented to the present day, distorted for ideological purposes. One wonders who actually reads anymore.

Apropos of language usage and the degradation of understanding, Dahlberg adds, “We have made language so common that we have ceased to be symbolic readers. Unless we examine the total intellect of the poet as his text we shall misinterpret Blake or Shakespeare just as foolishly as Nietzsche has been distorted.”

To grasp words symbolically is to understand how good writers use them in their many meanings, not just literally, like spalls fallen from a scree littering a road to nowhere; but how they make them vibrate and sparkle and dip deep and fly high like luminescent birds so others may contemplate deeply and think once, twice, and maybe more.

Think of Trump’s crude use of language; think of Epstein’s; think of the culture at large. We have descended into a time of gross ignorance and our cultural decadence is reflected in the decadence of our language. Trump and Epstein reflect the larger culture in this respect. Clearly one reason for this is the internet and digital media, particularly the cell phone with its camera and text messaging. It is also an important reason for the vast and constant communication between Epstein and his “friends,” as well as the ease with which blackmail could be effected. This is no accident.

Some of us have been  lucky to have experienced at a young age the rot at the heart of the system. I think of the recently deceased great journalist Michael Parenti who because of his anti-war views was blackballed out of a career in academia, but who used that experience to become a free teacher to the world.

In my early naïve twenties, I was working nights in the 42nd Police Precinct in the Bronx, interviewing arrestees in holding cells. There I learned that many were framed by the undercover cops who planted drugs on them; that the precinct had a hoard of illegal drugs for that purpose. Thinking I was his ally, one cop told me this, and that “we have to get these dirty fucking bastards off the streets (by which he meant black and Puerto Rican men). This was 4-5 years before the honest, courageous NYPD undercover cop Frank Serpico (who in later life became a friend) was set up by other cops to be shot in the face. A few years later, the movie Serpico, starring Al Pacino, was made about him.

There is always a movie.

At a school where I was teaching, a man who held a high position and whom I respected, knowing I was involved in anti-war activities, tried – to my great shock – to recruit me into Army Intelligence. These, and numerous other examples, set me on the early path of skepticism about the faces of authority.  I am grateful for these early lessons.

Like all stories, the Epstein movie takes place within a larger cultural symbol system that is mythic in its dimensions. How else to explain the near ineradicable hatred for anything Russian among Americans? In the U.S. the big myth is called the American Dream, which the late George Carlin has said you have to be asleep to believe in, but which nevertheless exists, although it may be crumbling. Every society has such a symbol system. Through its stories and symbols, meanings and values are conveyed. And people live by stories, stories within stories. Myth means story.

For many decades, we have been undergoing a massive symbolic transformation in which the controlling symbolic (from Greek: to throw together) order is being replaced by its opposite, a diabolic (from Greek: to throw apart, the devil, el diablo) order with new stories to scramble people’s brains, dissociate their personalities, set them against each other, and create a general sense of uncertainty. God vs. the devil.

All power is fundamentally power to deny mortality.  This is true whether it is the power of the state or church, or secret groups like Epstein’s.  And it is always sacred power. Holy or perverted.  Many often ask why do the super-rich and  powerful always want more.  It’s simple. They wish to transcend their human mortality and become gods – immortals. They stupidly believe that if they can lord it over others, kill, dominate, rape, achieve status, become billionaires, presidents, magnates, celebrities, etc., they will somehow live in some weird forever. Thus Epstein and his circle.

In a process that has spanned at least a hundred and fifty years or so, our traditional cultural/religious symbol systems have been radically undermined, most momentously by the Faustian creation of Lord Nuke. All forms of symbolic immortality (theological, biological, creative, natural, and experiential) that formerly provided a sense of continuity have been severely threatened. This is the haunting specter lurking in the background of life today.

What is death?  How to defeat or transcend it? What’s God’s cell phone number? Quick. Improvise.

Little men like Epstein, and those voluntarily captured in his web, all those desperadoes with their hands in their pants, lying through their teeth as they went with Pinocchio and the Coachman to Pleasure Island . . . .

Cut!

Forget the script.

We ain’t seen nothing yet.

Edward Curtin: Sociologist, researcher, poet, essayist, journalist, novelist....writer - beyond a cage of categories. His new book is At the Lost and Found: Personal & Political Dispatches of Resistance and Hope (Clarity Press). Read other articles by Edward, or visit Edward's website.



Not Forgetting the Victims: Club Epstein and 


Crimes Against Humanity


With a sex trafficking, flesh peddling empire of favours, logistics and the good time to be had by the powerful, the gigantic scale of Jeffrey Epstein’s criminal network continues to disturb. The least savoury digital library on the planet, available through the offices of the US Justice Department as the Epstein Library, is being combed through with its 3.5 million items comprising 180,000 images, 2000 videos, email and text correspondence, not to mention an assortment of miscellaneous material.

The combing process has come to displace the sheer gravity of Epstein’s dehumanising enterprise. Like a gold mine of ill-repute, slime and crime, researchers, journalists, political hacks and the purely voyeuristic are fossicking for material about the next public figure to be tainted. Agendas abound. The central agenda – ruined lives and the despoiled innocence of young women and girls, and their retraumatising with shoddily redacted files – has been eclipsed.

On February 17, a panel of United Nations experts appointed by the Human Rights Council issued a sharp statement on the Epstein files urging a return to a focus on the victims. The members include, among others, Reem Absalem, Special Rapporteur on violence against women and girls, its causes and consequences, George Katrougalos, independent expert on the promotion of a democratic and equitable international order, and Ana Brian Nougrères, Special Rapporteur on the right to privacy.

The documents revealed, according to the statement, “disturbing and credible evidence of systematic and large-scale sexual abuse, trafficking and exploitation of women and girls”. The panel members took note of crimes “committed against the backdrop of supremacist beliefs, racism, corruption, extreme misogyny, and the commodification and dehumanisation of women and girls from different parts of the world.” A “global criminal enterprise” had “raised terrifying implications of the level of impunity in such crimes.”

The panel further proposed that the severe nature of the crimes required stern reclassification. “So grave is the scale, nature, systematic character, and transnational reach of these atrocities against women and girls, that a number of them may reasonably meet the legal threshold of crimes against humanity.” Acts such as sexual slavery, rape, enforced prostitution, trafficking, persecution, torture or murder can fall within such a determination, and if so, would deserve prosecution in international and domestic courts.

Unfortunately, the Department of Justice shows little interest in pursuing any of those named in the files, let alone conducting genuinely impartial investigations. (Impartiality is not a strong suit of the Trump administration.) Deputy US Attorney General Todd Blanche, in dismissive remarks made early this month, observed that, “There’s a lot of correspondence. There’s a lot of emails. There’s a lot of photographs. But that doesn’t allow us necessarily to prosecute somebody.” Just because the victims wanted “to be made whole” did not “mean we can just create evidence or that we can just kind of come up with a case that isn’t there”.

The bountiful nature of the Epstein files would suggest no evidence of any sort needs to be created, with the late financier and convicted paedophile most prolific in communicating with various associates on meetings, rendezvous and logistical matters. And there is that troubling failure to disclose the remaining 3 million files or so that remain sealed.

The panel experts relevantly insist that the allegations were so “egregious in nature” as to require “independent, thorough, and impartial investigation, as well as inquiries to determine how such crimes could have taken place for so long.” States were under an obligation to prevent, investigate and punish instances of violence against women and girls, including inflicted by private perpetrators.

Strong words were also reserved for the slipshod process of disclosure that left unredacted the identities and details of a multitude of victims while sparing the powerful, participating members of Club Epstein. “The grave errors in the release process underscore the urgent need for victim-centered standard operating procedures for disclosure and redaction, so that no victim suffers further harm.” That ship had sailed well before, given the utter lack of interest shown by the DOJ in involving victims in the process. Six survivors in a September 2025 interview confirmed that fact.

In the view of the panel, failing “to safeguard [the victims’] privacy puts them at risk of retaliation and stigma. The reluctance to fully disclose information or broaden investigations, has left many survivors feeling retraumatised and subjected to what they describe as ‘institutional gaslighting’.”

To date, promised investigations, such as those into former UK ambassador to Washington Lord Peter Mandelson, focus less on the victims than commercially and politically sensitive information he allegedly disclosed to Epstein when occupying public office. The standard formula used by those trapped in the web has been the fool’s defence, the implausible bliss of ignorance. There have been resignations aplenty, and cataracts of apology.

The UN panel had harsh words for such woeful responses, insisting on a few courses of action. Lift the statute of limitations preventing the prosecution for grave crimes linked to the Epstein enterprise. Provide full remedies and reparations for the victims. Government failures to “effectively investigate, and prosecute those responsible for these crimes, including by complicity or acquiescence, where jurisdiction exists, risks undermining legal frameworks aimed at preventing and responding to violence against women and girls.”

The Trump era of crude, vulgar might as the sole indicator of worth does not augur well for human rights advocates demanding investigations and prosecutions into the victims of Epstein’s predation. Even before President Donald Trump got the keys to the White House, there was impunity, complicity and permissiveness in the depravities of Club Epstein, a state of affairs tolerated, even encouraged by a ruling class bankrupted and soiled. If you were not in it, as the reprehensible socialite Lady Victoria Hervey scorned, you were a “loser”.

Binoy Kampmark was a Commonwealth Scholar at Selwyn College, Cambridge. He lectures at RMIT University, Melbourne. Email: bkampmark@gmail.comRead other articles by Binoy.

A New Perspective and Blueprint: A Demilitarised Arctic for the Common Good — and Why It Is Rational

 

A visionary peace proposal

 

This is not another geopolitical commentary on the Arctic. It is a visionary peace proposal that save the region from militarised rivalry and ecological ruin. A blueprint for shared security, sustainable development, and human dignity — benefitting Greenland, the Arctic, and the rest of us.

I. Four Principles for a New Arctic Vision

The Arctic is often framed as a cold arena of rivalry — a place where great powers test each other’s resolve. But this worldview is outdated, unimaginative, and ultimately self‑defeating. The Arctic is not a vacuum waiting to be militarised; it is a living region, a climate stabiliser, and a cultural homeland whose future will shape the future of humanity. If we begin from that understanding, a far more rational Arctic order becomes possible — one that is peaceful, cooperative, and centred on the people who actually live there.

This vision rests on four practical principles. None of them is utopian. All of them are grounded in common sense, human dignity, and long‑term strategic thinking.

1. The Greenlanders Must Stand at the Centre of Any Arctic Vision

Greenland is not a strategic prize; it is a society with its own civilisation, its own knowledge systems, and its own right to shape the region’s future. Any Arctic governance model that sidelines the Greenlanders is doomed to fail. Their ecological knowledge, cultural continuity, and lived experience of the ice make them indispensable partners in any sustainable future. This is not naïve — it is the only realistic foundation for legitimate Arctic governance.

Empowerment becomes the most effective form of legitimacy.

2. Cooperation Reduces the Need for Militarisation — and Saves Enormous Resources

Militarisation in the Arctic is not a sign of strength; it is a symptom of distrust. Russia, with by far the longest Arctic coastline, is an indispensable actor. China, though not an Arctic state, is a global scientific and economic presence whose engagement in the region is inevitable. The United States, the Nordic countries, Canada, and others all have legitimate interests. But legitimacy can’t be based on rivalry. Interests do not mean intimidation. And influence isn’t about militarisation. There are more intelligent approaches.

Ice‑capable destroyers, nuclear submarines, hardened bases, and satellite surveillance systems are among the most expensive military assets on Earth. Every krone, dollar, ruble, or yuan spent on Arctic militarisation is money not spent on climate adaptation, education, health, renewable energy, or the wellbeing of Arctic communities. When states share data, coordinate policies, and build joint institutions, the perceived need for military posturing naturally declines — and so do the costs. This is not naïve — it is an intelligent, sustainable strategy.

Cooperation becomes the most effective — and the most economical — form of disarmament.

3. Sustainable Use of Arctic Resources Should Benefit Humanity, Not Only the Armed and Powerful

The Arctic’s minerals, fisheries, shipping routes, and scientific knowledge are globally significant. To treat them as spoils for those with the largest fleets is not only unjust; it is irrational. A civilised international order uses resources wisely, protects fragile ecosystems, and distributes benefits fairly. Sustainable development is a planetary necessity – that militarist power politics makes impossible. And when done cooperatively, it can serve all of humanity, not just those who can project force. Those who now think “oh, how naive” have no idea about how to otherwise prevent ecological collapse and geopolitical conflict.

Sustainability becomes the most effective form of prosperity.

4. The United Nations Should Serve as Custodian of Peace and Shared Stewardship

The Arctic is too important — ecologically, climatically, culturally — to be governed by big but not ‘great’ powers’ fragmented national interests. The United Nations provides the legitimacy, continuity, and normative framework needed to anchor a peaceful Arctic order. A UN‑recognised Arctic Peace and Sustainability Zone would embed demilitarisation, indigenous rights, scientific cooperation, and sustainable development in a global framework that transcends short‑term tensions. Shared stewardship becomes the most effective form of security.

If these four principles are accepted — and they are neither unrealistic nor naive — then a new question emerges: What would an Arctic governance system look like if it were built on legitimacy, cooperation, sustainability, and shared stewardship? The answer is a blueprint for a demilitarised Arctic, jointly governed, scientifically grounded, ecologically protected, and centred on the people who call it home.

II. A Practical Blueprint for a Peaceful Arctic Future

1. A Demilitarised Arctic: Security Through Cooperation

A peaceful Arctic begins with the establishment of an Arctic Demilitarised Zone — a region where military assets, bases, and exercises are gradually phased out and replaced with civilian, scientific, and humanitarian functions. This does not diminish national sovereignty; it simply recognises that the Arctic’s most pressing threats are not military in nature. Melting ice, extreme weather, collapsing ecosystems, and unpredictable sea routes cannot be deterred by submarines or fighter jets.

A demilitarised Arctic would reduce tensions between major powers, prevent accidents and escalation, and protect fragile ecosystems. It would also free enormous financial resources currently tied up in polar‑ready military systems. Verification would rely on satellite monitoring, open data, and periodic inspections — ideally under UN auspices. The Arctic would become a symbol of what cooperative security looks like in the 21st century: not the absence of sovereignty, but the presence of trust.

The US insistence on a ‘Golden Dome’ – and Greenland as vital for the US to control – is one big destabiliser because it aims at enabling the US to destroy Russia or China and (hope to) shoot down retaliatory second-strike missiles from either. This lowers the threshold for the US starting a nuclear war because its decision-makers may hope it can start and win a nuclear war without cost. The solution to this – terror-based – philosophy is a new agreement between the US and Russia about reducing and finally abolishing nuclear weapons. It is not to further militarise Greenland.

2. A New Governance Architecture: The Arctic Cooperation Council

The Arctic Council, while valuable, is no longer sufficient. It was never designed to handle today’s geopolitical tensions or the accelerating climate crisis. A new Arctic Cooperation Council would build on the strengths of the existing Council while correcting its weaknesses. It would be inclusive, transparent, and capable of making binding decisions in areas where cooperation is essential.

Greenlandic authorities and indigenous peoples would be full co‑decision makers. Arctic states, observer states, and scientific organisations would participate in a structure that uses qualified majority voting, clear mandates, and indigenous veto rights on cultural and ecological matters. Its remit would include environmental protection, sustainable resource management, shipping regulation, scientific cooperation, emergency response, and dealing with conflict to prevent violence. This is not a supranational authority; it is a place where states and peoples coordinate policies, resolve disputes, and build trust.

3. Greenland as a Special Responsibility Zone

Greenland is the moral and strategic heart of the Arctic. Its people have endured centuries of colonialism, strategic exploitation, and geopolitical pressure. A peaceful Arctic future must therefore include a Greenland Partnership Compact, anchored in the UN system, that guarantees full respect for Greenlandic self‑determination and protects the island from coercive diplomacy. The Compact would ensure that Greenland retains priority access to revenues from local resources and receives sustained investment in education, health, cultural preservation, and sustainable infrastructure.

Greenland would also host a UN Arctic Peace Centre — a hub for research, diplomacy, and Indigenous knowledge. This approach recognises that Greenland is not a passive object of international interest but an active subject with its own aspirations.

4. Sustainable Resource Use: A Civilised Alternative to Extraction Rivalry

The Arctic’s resources must be used wisely, sparingly, and for the benefit of all. This requires strict ecological thresholds, Indigenous consent, transparent impact assessments, and shared revenue mechanisms. It requires clean shipping corridors, slow‑steaming regulations, and the designation of large protected areas — Arctic Peace Parks — that safeguard biodiversity and cultural heritage. This is responsible development, the only kind that makes sense in a region whose ecological health affects the entire planet.

5. The UN as Custodian: Completing UNCLOS

The United Nations would anchor the entire system through a suite of new instruments: a UN Arctic Demilitarisation Treaty, a UN Arctic Commons Charter, a UN‑Greenland Partnership Compact, a UN Sustainable Resource Convention for the Arctic, and a UN Arctic Mobility and Knowledge Accord.

These instruments would not replace the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS). On the contrary, they would complete it. UNCLOS provides the legal foundation for maritime zones, navigation rights, and resource claims. But it does not address demilitarisation, Indigenous rights, cooperative governance, or sustainable development. The UN framework proposed here would fill those gaps while fully respecting UNCLOS principles. In this way, the Arctic becomes not a legal vacuum but a region where international law is strengthened, clarified, and modernised.

III. Conclusion: A More Rational, Civilised, and Visionary Arctic Future

The Arctic is not destined to become a militarised arena of suspicion and strategic posturing. That path is simply intellectually lazy and unimaginative. What this blueprint demonstrates is that a different Arctic future is not only possible but profoundly more rational. It is more cost‑effective, more stabilising, more respectful of the people who live there, and far more beneficial to humanity than anything conceived through the narrow lens of transactional geopolitics.

This vision recognises the realities of the 21st century. Russia’s vast Arctic coastline makes it indispensable. China’s scientific and economic presence makes it inevitable. The United States, the Nordic countries, Canada, and others all have legitimate interests.

This is not naïve. What is naïve is believing that more bases, more submarines, and more strategic signalling will somehow produce peace, development and cooperation – all of which are dealy needed. What is naïve is assuming that the Arctic can be militarised without consequence, or that the climate crisis can be managed through deterrence.

What is naïve is imagining that the future can be secured by repeating the – bad – habits of the past.

Politics, at its best, is the art of imagining what does not yet exist and then building the institutions that make it real. It is the ability to include others in a shared horizon of development and security. It is the courage to say: we can do better than rivalry, better than fear, better than the logic of the strongest.

This blueprint is an invitation to return to that deeper meaning of politics—the politics of vision, responsibility, and common purpose—of thinking globally and locally instead of only nationally.

And it is no coincidence that such a proposal arises from the traditions of peace research and future studies. These fields have always insisted that security is not the absence of war but the presence of cooperation about the realisation of society’s potentials. That the future is not predetermined but shaped by choices; that humanity advances when it replaces domination with dialogue and competition with creativity.

The Arctic, perhaps more than any other region, calls for this kind of thinking — thinking that is rigorous, long‑term, interdisciplinary, and grounded in respect for the lived realities of local communities. How else to develop peace and security?

The question is not whether this vision is too ambitious. The Arctic and the world can not afford anything less. A militarised Arctic offers only instability, resource waste, and ecological destruction. All involved ‘big’ powers must rethink and think out of their common militarist box.

A cooperative, demilitarised, UN‑anchored Arctic offers stability, sustainability, and shared benefit for us all. The Arctic is a brilliant opportunity to think in new ways and shape a more civilised future. There Are Many Alternatives (TAMA), and this proposal is not the only one. But the present bullying build-up to visionless raw exploitation with military power projection and nuclearism, however, can not be one of them.

The world needs visions, images of a better future and constructive-creative thinking to realise that better world. TFF welcomes your constructive ideas and visions, because we cannot drive toward a better, more desirable place with our eyes fixed on the rearview mirror.

Jan Oberg is a peace researcher, art photographer, and Director of The Transnational (TFF) where this article first appeared. Reach him at: oberg@transnational.orgRead other articles by Jan.


 

Venezuela after the Abduction of President


 Maduro


The Decapitation that Failed


The kidnapping of a sitting head of state marks a grave escalation in US-Venezuela relations. By seizing Venezuela’s constitutional president, Washington signaled both its disregard for international law and its confidence that it would face little immediate consequence.

The response within the US political establishment to the attack on Venezuela has been striking. Without the slightest cognitive dissonance over President Maduro’s violent abduction, Democrats call for “restoring democracy” – but not for returning Venezuela’s lawful president.

So why didn’t the imperialists simply assassinate him? From their perspective, it would have been cleaner and more cost-efficient. It would have been the DOGE thing to do: launch a drone in one of those celebrated “surgical” strikes.

Targeted killings are as much a part of US policy now as there were in the past. From Obama’s drone strikes on US citizens in 2011 to Trump’s killing of Iranian General Qasem Soleimani, lethal force has been used when deemed expedient. And only last June, the second Trump administration and its Zionist partner in crime droned eleven Iranian nuclear scientists.

The US posted a $50-million bounty on Maduro, yet they took him very much alive along with his wife, First Combatant (the Venezuelan equivalent of the First Lady) Cilia Flores.

The reason Maduro’s life was spared tells us volumes about the resilience of the Bolivarian Revolution, the strength of Maduro even in captivity, and the inability of the empire to subjugate Venezuela.

Killing Nicolás Maduro Moros appears to have been a step too far, even for Washington’s hawks. Perhaps he was also seen as more valuable to the empire as a hostage than as a martyr.

But the images of a handcuffed Maduro flashing a victory sign – and declaring in a New York courtroom, “I was captured… I am the president of my country” – were not those of a defeated leader.

Rather than collapsing, the Bolivarian Revolution survived the decapitation. With a seamless continuation of leadership under acting President Delcy Rodríguez, even some figures in the opposition have rallied around the national leadership, heeding the nationalist call of a populace mobilized in the streets in support of their president.

This has pushed the US to negotiate rather than outright conquer, notwithstanding that the playing field remains decisively tilted in Washington’s favor. Regardless, Venezuelan authorities have demanded and received the US’s respect. Indeed, after declaring Venezuela an illegitimate narco-state, Trump has flipped, recognized the Chavista government, and invited its acting executive to Washington.

NBC News gave Delcy Rodríguez a respectful interview. After affirming state ownership of Venezuela’s mineral resources and Maduro as the lawful president, she pointed out that the so-called political prisoners in Venezuelan prisons were there because they had committed acts of criminal violence.

Before a national US television audience she explained that free and fair elections require being “free of sanctions and…not undermined by international bullying and harassment by the international press” (emphasis added).

Notably, the interviewer cited US Energy Secretary Chris Wright’s admission made during his high-level visit to Venezuela. The US official said that elections there could be held, not in three months, but in three years, in accordance with the constitutionally mandated schedule.

As for opposition politician María Corina Machado, the darling of the US press corps, Rodríguez told the interviewer that Machado would have to answer for her various treasonous activities if she came back to Venezuela.

Contrary to the corporate press’s media myth, fostered at a reception in Manhattan, that Machado is insanely popular and poised to lead “A Trillion-Dollar Opportunity: The Global Upside of a Democratic Venezuela,” the US government apparently understood the reality on the ground. “She doesn’t have the support within, or the respect within, the country,” was the honest evaluation, not of some Chavista partisan, but of President Trump himself.

Yader Lanuza documents how the US provided millions to manufacture an effective astroturf opposition to the Chavistas. It is far from the first time that Washington has squandered money in this way – we only have to look back at its failed efforts to promote the “presidency” of Juan Guaidó. Its latest efforts have again had no decisive result, leaving Machado in limbo and pragmatic engagement with the Chavista leadership as the only practical option.

Any doubts that there is daylight between captured President Maduro and acting President Rodríguez can be dispelled by listening to the now incarcerated Maduro’s New Year’s Day interview with international leftist intellectual Ignacio Ramonet.

Maduro said it was time to “start talking seriously” with the US – especially regarding oil investment – marking a continuation of his prior conditional openness to diplomatic engagement. He reiterated that Venezuela was ready to discuss agreements on combating drug trafficking and to consider US oil investment, allowing companies like Chevron to operate.

That was just two days before the abduction. Subsequently, Delcy Rodríguez met with the US energy secretary and the head of the Southern Command to discuss oil investments and combating drug trafficking, respectively.

Venezuelan analysts have framed the current moment as one of constrained choice. “What is at stake is the survival of the state and the republic, which if lost, would render the discussion of any other topic banal,” according to Sergio Rodríguez Gelfenstein. The former government official, who was close to Hugo Chávez, supports Delcy Rodríguez’s discussions with Washington – acknowledging that she has “a missile to her head.”

“The search for a negotiation in the case of the January 3 kidnapping is not understood, therefore, as a surrender, but as an act of political maturity in a context of unprecedented blackmail,” according to Italian journalist and former Red Brigades militant Geraldina Colotti.

The Amnesty Law, a longstanding Chavista initiative, is being debated in the National Assembly to maintain social peace, according to the president of the assembly and brother of the acting president, Jorge Rodríguez, in an interview with the US-based NewsMax outlet.

As Jorge Rodríguez commented, foregoing oil revenues by keeping oil in the ground does not benefit the people’s wellbeing and development. In that context, the Hydrocarbon Law has been reformed to attract vital foreign investment.

The Venezuelan outlet Mision Verdad elaborates: “The 2026 reform ratifies and, in some aspects, deepens essential elements of the previous legislation…[I]t creates the legal basis for a complete strategic adaptation of the Venezuelan hydrocarbon industry, considering elements of the present context.”

As Karl Marx presciently observed about the present context, people “make their own history, but they do not make it as they please; they do not make it under self-selected circumstances.” The present US-Venezuelan détente is making history. So far – in Hugo Chávez’s words, por ahora – it does not resemble the humanitarian catastrophes imposed by the empire on Haiti, Libya, Iraq, Syria, or Afghanistan.

But make no mistake: the ultimate goal of the empire remains regime change. And there is no clearer insight into the empire’s core barbarity than Secretary of State Marco Rubio’s speech at the Munich conference with his praising of the capture of a “narcoterrorist dictator” and his invocation of Columbus as the inspiration “to build a new Western century.”

Washington’s kidnapping of Maduro was intended to demonstrate the empire’s dominance. But it also exposed its limits: the durability of the Bolivarian Revolution and the reality that even great powers must sometimes negotiate with governments they detest. The outcome remains uncertain.

John Perry, based in Nicaragua, is with the Nicaragua Solidarity Coalition and writes for the London Review of Books, FAIR, and CovertActionRoger D. Harris is with the Task Force on the Americas, the US Peace Council, and the Venezuela Solidarity NetworkRead other articles by John Perry and Roger D. Harris.


Venezuela passes amnesty law but excludes opposition leaders

Venezuela passes amnesty law but excludes opposition leaders
"One must know how to ask for forgiveness and one must also know how to receive forgiveness," said acting president Delcy Rodríguez upon signing the legislation, framing the measure as advancing national reconciliation.
By bnl editorial staff February 20, 2026

Venezuela's parliament passed amnesty legislation on February 19 by unanimous vote, potentially freeing hundreds of individuals imprisoned for political opposition to the regime of deposed president Nicolas Maduro. But the measure explicitly excludes those accused of promoting foreign military intervention, a provision that appears designed to bar opposition leader María Corina Machado and other government critics from benefiting.

The law, signed into effect by acting president Delcy Rodríguez hours after parliamentary approval, applies retroactively to offences committed between January 1999 and January 2026, covering those detained during the April 2002 coup attempt, the subsequent oil sector shutdown, and unrest surrounding the contested 2024 elections.

Article 9 explicitly bars from amnesty "persons who are being prosecuted or may be convicted for promoting, instigating, soliciting, invoking, favouring, facilitating, financing or participating in armed actions or the use of force" against Venezuela "by foreign states, corporations or individuals,” a language that directly targets opposition figures whom the ruling party accuses of encouraging the January 3 US military operation that removed Maduro.

"One must know how to ask for forgiveness and one must also know how to receive forgiveness," Rodríguez declared at Miraflores Palace upon signing the legislation, framing the measure as advancing national reconciliation.

The exclusion appears crafted specifically to prevent Machado, the Nobel Peace Prize laureate whose coalition won more than two-thirds of votes in the disputed 2024 elections, from returning to Venezuela without facing prosecution. Chavista officials have repeatedly accused her of calling for international intervention, claims she denies whilst acknowledging support for US pressure that eventually led to Maduro's toppling.

The provision creates legal grounds for continuing prosecution of the opposition leader whom President Donald Trump has systematically sidelined despite her electoral legitimacy, choosing instead to work with Rodríguez and other Chavista administrators who deliver coveted access to vast oil reserves and cooperation on American demands.

National Assembly President Jorge Rodríguez, the interim president's brother, said that "amnesty is a pardon" applicable only to those who committed recognised crimes under Venezuelan law, insisting the legislation "does not condone impunity." He warned of provocations following the law's approval, allegedly perpetrated by "extremist" sectors seeking to "create further division among Venezuelans."

The law covers 13 specific events, including the 2002 coup, the oil strike, demonstrations surrounding the 2013 and 2024 presidential elections, and violent protests in 2014, 2017 and 2019. However, it omits the alleged 2018 assassination attempt against Maduro, for which human rights organisations warn numerous civilians and military personnel remain behind bars without due process.

A special parliamentary commission of 23 members, headed by Jorge Arreaza with deputy Nora Bracho as vice president, will monitor implementation and evaluate cases not explicitly covered. Notably, the commission includes Cilia Flores, Maduro's wife, who remains detained alongside him in New York facing narco-terrorism charges – an inclusion which seeks to demonstrate the interim government's symbolic loyalty to the ousted leader.

The law's passage followed delays and intense lobbying by human rights defenders and prisoners' families demanding broader coverage and faster releases. Article 7, which initially caused the postponement of a previous parliamentary session, was modified to allow exiled individuals to apply for amnesty through legal representatives whilst stipulating they cannot be arrested during the application process.

Deputy Nora Bracho of the opposition Un Nuevo Tiempo party, who serves as vice president of the special commission that drafted the legislation, acknowledged imperfections whilst supporting passage. "The law isn't perfect, but it's a step forward for reconciliation in Venezuela. It will alleviate the suffering of Venezuelans," she said, calling for an end to political persecution.

Jorge Rodríguez admitted during the debate that Venezuela's Law Against Hatred, under which numerous prisoners have been detained, was "likely" subject to reform because "it is true that in some cases it was misapplied." He indicated the Coexistence and Peace Programme appointed by Delcy Rodríguez would evaluate potential changes.

The amnesty excludes those convicted of serious human rights violations, crimes against humanity, war crimes, intentional homicide, drug trafficking and crimes against public property – categories that could apply to regime officials as much as opposition activists, though selective application appears likely given the interim government's composition.

The legislation emerged under US pressure as Rodríguez scrambles to meet Washington's demands for prisoner releases and to consolidate control over Venezuela's fractured political landscape.

Human Rights Watch has warned that without dismantling Venezuela's repressive state machinery and pursuing sweeping institutional changes including electoral reform and judicial independence, any transition would constitute a "sham" serving Venezuelan and American government interests rather than restoring citizens' rights.

Human rights organisation Foro Penal reports roughly 450 releases since Maduro's removal, with over 600 individuals still imprisoned.

"If the amnesty is not as broad as we would have liked it to be, that does not mean that the fight for the freedom of all the imprisoned and pursued is over," Foro Penal Vice President Gonzalo Himiob wrote on X.

"Total liberty will come when the apparatus and culture of political repression are dismantled."


Venezuela: Forty days of accelerated counter-revolution


Delcy Rodriguez Donald Trump

First published in Spanish at Luís Bonilla-Molina’s blog. Translated by LINKS International Journal of Socialist Renewal.

The pace at which the counter-revolution in Venezuelan politics has unfolded since January 3 is incredible. Let us summarise what has happened so far.

Who exercises power?

United States President Donald Trump organised a media conference on January 3 to explain in detail the US attack on Venezuela. He made it clear that, moving forward, the US would rule in Venezuela. Trump noted that the political leaders who had governed with former president Nicolas Maduro (until his kidnapping) were willing to cooperate, and even praised Maduro’s vice-president Delcy Rodríguez, who according to the constitution was to fill the presidential vacancy. But the main message was that those in charge of Venezuela’s government were now to implement orders from the US administration.

On January 7, US Secretary of State Marco Rubio announced the administration’s stabilisation plan for Venezuela, which involves three phases. Phase 1 is stabilisation to “avoid Venezuela falling into chaos and to maintain internal order and security.” This includes controlling oil production and exports, the release of political prisoners and the return of exiles. Phase 2 is economic recovery and national reconciliation, in which efforts are made to revive the economy, lift international sanctions, guarantee US and Western transnational corporations full access to Venezuela’s market, and steps towards national reconciliation (finally sealing an inter-capitalist class agreement). Phase 3 is political transition to consolidate the structural changes in Venezuela’s political system and return to bourgeois democracy. The aim is to open up spaces for the different political forces to come together (though excluding the left by pretending it is represented by Madurismo) and organise new elections.

This colonial plan is already being implemented. In Venezuela, the government’s response has been moderate, with occasional statements to appease its supporters, while the right celebrated Maduro’s kidnapping. The quartet running the colonial administration (Delcy Rodríguez, National Assembly president Jorge Rodríguez, interior minister Diosdado Cabello and defence minister Vladimir Padrino) have generated great uncertainty by accepting the role of valid interlocutor for the US, while the radical left has failed to build an anti-imperialist front of national unity.

Who runs the oil industry?

The Trump administration has announced it will directly sell Venezuela’s oil, receive all payments and decide how those funds are used for the good of the US and the Venezuelan people. It is the clearest example of the country’s new colonial status.

The announced confiscation of between 30–50 million barrels of oil, the creation of a bank account in Qatar from which funds will be disbursed to Venezuela (at Trump’s discretion), the return of four Venezuelan private banks to the Swift system to allow them to sell foreign currency generated from crude oil sales (rather than the Central Bank of Venezuela) and the requirement that Venezuela’s government report to the White House how it uses those funds — all this was sealed with the US’ first international sale of Venezuela’s oil for US$500 million on January 15.

US energy secretary Chris Wright arrived in Venezuela on February 11 to oversee oil operations and reforms to the Hydrocarbons Law that the Trump administration ordered after the January 3 attacks. Venezuela has lost any genuine control over the sale of its crude oil, the country’s main source of income, and now depends on the US administration to access funds from oil sales and to decide what these can be used for.

Legalising the colonial status

Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) director John Ratcliffe, who coordinated the January 3 attack and Maduro’s kidnapping, visited Venezuela on January 16, and met with Delcy Rodríguez to personally lay out the US government’s plans. This visit preceded the arrival of US Chargé d’affaires for Venezuela Laura Doug, on February 1. Doug, who will directly coordinate Washington’s interests from Caracas, was received at the presidential palace, Miraflores. One of her priorities will be ensuring that the legal and institutional reforms Trump has ordered are implemented.

Jorge Rodríguez (brother of the acting president) has announced the legislative agenda for 2026. It includes a plan to modernise the legal system through 29 new laws and eight new codes, in line with changes needed to facilitate foreign investment. This package of reforms includes mechanisms for international oil trade licenses, bills on prices and domestic regulation, a more flexible tax regime (with tax and royalties cuts to attract investment) and allowing contracts and operations to be authorised without any state oversight.

On January 29, the National Assembly reformed the Organic Hydrocarbons Law. The new law takes the country back to a situation similar to the start of the 20th century when transnationals exercised control. It rolls back previous progressive legislations promoted by social democracy (Law 1943, the nationalisation of 1976) and all progress made during the Chavista period. This law marks the de facto end of the state’s monopoly — exercised through the state-owned oil company, PDVSA — over the exploration, extraction, marketing and export of crude oil. Private companies, both national and foreign, can now extract and sell oil without needing to sign mixed ownership contracts granting the state majority control.

Direct contracts with private companies have been introduced, allowing private companies to assume operational management, risk and costs in return for agreed upon benefits. Even minority shareholders in joint ventures can sell all or part of the oil produced and open accounts in foreign currencies outside the country. Royalties and taxes have been reduced from 30% to 15%, with several taxes being eliminated and an integrated hydrocarbon tax created. One of the most harmful aspects for national sovereignty is the introduction of the potential to resolve contractual disputes through international arbitration or independent mediation. This violates the constitution, which explicitly states that disputes in the public interest must be resolved in Venezuelan courts.

As if all this was not enough, the reform reduces to a minimum — practically eradicating — the role of the legislature in approving oil contracts. The National Assembly now only has to be notified. The drop in taxes and royalties will lead to a cut in public revenue, which will structurally worsen the economic situation. On the other hand, Trump’s intentions to run the local oil industry at full production may end up affecting oil geopolitics, especially Venezuela’s relationship with OPEC.

Amnesty without freedom of opinion

Madurismo always denied the existence of political prisoners, even as community, trade union and party leaders remained jailed, accused of violating the Law against Hatred, treason against the homeland or subversion. But as soon as Trump demanded the release of political prisoners in early January, the cell doors begun swinging open.

Hundreds of social and political activists, as well as ordinary citizens unjustly accused of crimes for having an opinion or being somewhere the state considered suspicious, were freed, though under conditions preventing them from speaking publicly, attending meetings or demonstrating. Human rights activists say more than 1000 people remain in prison. The government also refuses to publish the names of those released, much less those still detained.

After Trump publicly complained that the release of political prisoners was going too slow, Delcy Rodríguez proposed an Amnesty Law on January 29. Framed as a pardon, it reflects the state’s refusal to recognise the killing of innocent people, the lack of due process, extrajudicial arrests, deaths in prison and dozens of citizens considered disappeared by their relatives. Social organisations and human rights defenders continue demanding freedom for all, without conditions. They are also considering demanding state compensation for damages.

The Labour Law: The most complex obstacle

An amendment to the Labour Law has been announced. Meanwhile, the business federation Fedecamaras refuses to accept salary rises without the elimination of rights enshrined in the current legislation. The greatest point of social tension, after the issue of political prisoners, is wages. The minimum wage in Venezuela is about 35 cents a month. The average salary of a university professor is $1 a month, plus $160 in bonus payments (which are not included when calculating vacation subsidies, social security, severance pay, etc). This is in a nation where basic products can cost up to three times more than other countries in the region. Raising salaries could deactivate the trigger of a social explosion that may be brewing.

But salaries have fallen so far that any rise, which in another country would seem extraordinary, in Venezuela would be miserable. A 100% salary rise in Venezuela — unthinkable in Colombia or Spain — would still mean a minimum wage of less than $1 a month. This creates a very complex situation. After announcing improvements in the country’s income, the justification for opening up the oil industry, social expectation is that wages will rise enough to cover basic household costs, estimated at above $500 a month. That is why Fedecamaras is pressuring to ensure that any labour legislation reform finally puts an end to salaries, with employment instead being remunerated through bonus payments, which would take the country back to the situation before the first Labour Law was passed.

Trump knocks on the IMF’s door

This fast-track counter-revolution has seen Rubio lobbying for Venezuela’s reentry into the International Monetary Fund to be fast-tracked to access resources currently denied to it by this multilateral body. But this would only occur as part of a structural adjustment plan, such as those being imposed in Bolivia or Argentina, which would see the public budget further cut.

While Delcy Rodríguez’s representative sits patiently waiting for the US efforts to succeed at the IMF, in Venezuela expectations are that workers’ situation will improve after the IMF releases the$4.9 billion currently being held back by the organisation. But the numbers do not add up.

Undercurrents

Venezuela is marked by a tense calm. Expectations are very high — exaggeratedly high — that people’s material situation will improve, allowing us to return to a life with a minimum of dignity, and facilitating the return of 8 million migrants. The working class wants wage rises now, before May 1, that are substantive and genuinely in line with existing needs.

Yet this is not on the horizon. It would be wonderful if it happens, but would be a surprise. If this does not occur, however, the wave of outrage that exists as an undercurrent throughout the country could become a volcano, converting the current democratic bubble into the prologue of an unprecedented repression of social movements.

And the left?

Madurismo not only buried the progressive aspects of Chavismo; it also destroyed democracy.

The US aggression on January 3 represented a deep blow to the republic and opened up a new colonial relationship, clearly revealing the historic defeat of the Bolivarian project and 21st century socialism that Hugo Chávez Frías embodied. This is the reality in which democratic, popular, progressive and left-wing forces will have to reformulate their politics. 

This defeat is expressed in the absence of an autonomous, popular and self-organised response against the military aggression and the colonial status that the US intends to impose. The government has managed, using the state apparatus, to organise small mobilisations lacking any combative spirit. Meanwhile, the right was immobilised by Trump’s decision to recognise Delcy Rodriguez as head of the Colonial Administration Board. The radical, anti-capitalist and anti-colonial left has also failed to mobilise popular sectors. The popular movement activated itself on February 2 around the most pressing demand: better wages and material conditions.

Though it hurts to say it, there are no possibilities right now for united mobilisations that demonstrate broad anti-imperialist national unity. This disaster is Madurismo’s fault. The exercising of citizenship has hit rock bottom, leading to collective despair, expressed politically by the fact that an important swath of the population (not just the right) think US tutelage might be better than Madurismo’s mismanagement. That is why there have been no large mobilisations nor any anti-imperialist national front created. Denying this reality means not understanding the political moment.

Consequently, the struggle to redemocratise the country’s social and political life must be a national priority. This requires restoring public powers and a process of political opening up that attends to urgent social demands. This is the only possible way to create channels for raising consciousness and advancing anti-colonial struggle. Without democratising Venezuelan society, it will be impossible to recover the republic.

In previous colonialist experiences, we have seen how the aggressor sponsored the formation of sepoy political parties that, because they accept the country’s colonial status, are considered valid interlocutors. Today, an important part of the political class, both in government and parts of the opposition, seek to fulfill that role. Consequently, the challenge is to build democratic political parties that can genuinely fulfill the role of intermediation in a way that constructively contributes to recovering the republic. This will involve building spaces of convergence that accept differences and organising plural political instruments, as the only way to prevent redemocratisation leading to the rise of parties that simply promote the new colonial status.

It will not be easy, because we are coming out of decades of polarisation, disagreements, and abandonment of politics as the art of making possible the impossible for the majorities. For the non-Madurista left, this implies overcoming self-importance, sectarianism and radical posturing that has no ability to link up with the mass movement. But it also means defending identity and the right to exist as an option for power of the poor and popular sectors, within an imperial framework that may seek to outlaw any political instrument that references socialism. The biggest challenge for the Venezuelan left, in a moment as complex as this, is to reinvent in order to not err.