U.S. officials considered that international pressure, without a well-defined political plan within Venezuela, was not enough to force a regime change. This was especially true in the face of a government willing to ignore adverse electoral results.
Sanctions, dialogue, and internal tensions
The report also highlights the differences over the approach to sanctions and dialogue. Machado's categorical rejection of any type of contact with Maduro's government limited her ability to build a broader coalition, both domestically and internationally.
In addition, her unequivocal support for economic sanctions deteriorated her relationship with Venezuelan business sectors that, after decades of Chavismo, had established survival mechanisms under the regime. For Washington, that factor also affected the viability of a possible transition process.
Machado's economic advisers went so far as to argue that every dollar that entered Venezuela strengthened the regime. That stance ended up alienating actors in civil society who operate inside the country and who seek to improve living conditions without openly confronting those in power.
The final assessment in Washington
Political scientist Orlando J. Pérez, professor of Political Science at the University of North Texas, summarized the assessment that prevailed in the United States: "The Venezuelan opposition doesn't control institutions or possess real levers of power, and without direct external assistance its chances of gaining access to government are limited."
Under that scenario, Trump chose a prudent and pragmatic strategy. He prioritized cost control, regional stability, and the United States' strategic interests over political support without guarantees of concrete results.
