Evaluating the meeting between Delcy Rodriguez and Donald Trump in New York on September 22, 2026, solely as an initiative for diplomatic normalization in terms of relations between Venezuela and the United States (US) would be an incomplete assessment. The meeting demonstrates that the concept of a ‘rules-based international order’, championed by the US particularly since the end of the Cold War, is increasingly and explicitly being redefined through power, economic interests, and the control of strategic resources. The meeting between Trump and Rodriguez during the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) marks a significant rupture in Washington-Caracas relations, which have been shaped by antagonistic political rhetoric for nearly thirty years. While Rodriguez announced following the meeting that discussions focused on strengthening relations between the two countries, US Secretary of State Marco Rubio stated that the restructuring of Venezuela’s debts was also brought to the agenda.[i]
The primary factor increasing the significance of this development is Venezuela’s energy resources. The Trump administration has presented the oil agreement signed in September 2026 as a strategic gain of historic proportions for the US. The White House announced that through this agreement, the US has acquired significant economic and administrative rights over more than 65 billion barrels of proven oil reserves in Venezuela. In his UNGA speech, Trump drew attention to the combined oil resources of Venezuela and the US, describing the deal as “perhaps the biggest deal ever made” and utilizing the phrase “to the victor go the spoils”.[ii] This rhetoric differs noticeably from the traditional American liberal hegemony discourse. Following the Second World War, US leadership attempted to legitimize itself through international institutions, alliances, economic interdependence, and liberal norms, alongside the use of force. The language used by Trump, however, indicates a form of power politics where the gains provided by economic and military superiority are expressed much more directly.
The picture emerging for Venezuela, however, is even more striking. During the Hugo Chavez era, one of the fundamental elements of the Bolivarian political identity was opposing American hegemony. Chavez’s characterization of George W. Bush as “the devil” at the UNGA on September 20, 2006, and his argument that the US-centric international order was collapsing constituted one of the most symbolic examples of this approach.[iii] During the same period, Chavez asserted that the existing United Nations (UN) system had lost its function and that a different international system, which shows greater respect for new actors and state sovereignty, needed to be established. Nearly twenty years later, the pursuit of cooperation by Delcy Rodriguez, a prominent figure of the same political tradition, with the Trump administration on the basis of energy, financing, and economic restructuring reveals a severe tension between the discursive continuity of Bolivarian foreign policy and current state interests.
However, Rodriguez’s stance is not evaluated solely as an ideological retreat. The economic and financial conditions Venezuela currently faces significantly restrict the administration’s room for maneuver. It is reported that the defaulted bonds of the Venezuelan state and Petróleos de Venezuela, S.A. (PDVSA) amount to approximately 60 billion dollars, while total external liabilities could reach the 150-200 billion dollar level according to some estimates.[iv]
The fact that the Venezuelan delegation led by Rodriguez engaged with institutions such as the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund (IMF), and the Inter-American Development Bank during their New York visit also indicates that the Caracas administration’s pursuit of reintegration into the international financial system is not limited solely to bilateral relations with the US. Consequently, the rapprochement with Washington is also viewed as a part of the Venezuelan state’s initiative to rebuild its economic capacity.
Rodriguez’s stance at the UNGA also supports this pragmatic shift. Rodriguez announced that elections will be held in Venezuela but stated that the timing would be determined by the Venezuelan people at the “right time”.[v] Washington, meanwhile, continues to assert that the political transition in Venezuela must result in free and fair elections. Thus, while energy and economic cooperation advance between the two sides, it is evident that there is not yet a fully aligned approach regarding Venezuela’s future political order. This situation demonstrates that the relationship bears the characteristics of a pragmatic bargain where mutual, yet highly asymmetric interests intersect, rather than an alliance.
The Trump administration’s Venezuela policy is also a part of the US’s broader strategy toward the Western Hemisphere. In his 2026 UNGA speech, Trump emphasized the US’s military power in the region, advocated for harsher interventions against drug cartels, and clearly demonstrated his administration’s approach to reinforcing American supremacy in the Western Hemisphere. This approach is reminiscent of the sphere of influence logic, where great powers determine strategic priorities in their immediate neighborhood, rather than the discourse of a liberal international order built upon the formal equality of sovereign states.
Therefore, the significance of the image projected by Trump and Rodriguez extends far beyond a personal affinity between the two leaders. The emerging picture demonstrates the strengthening of an international system where ideological antagonisms can rapidly become secondary in the face of economic and geopolitical interests. Venezuela’s Bolivarian discourse, which challenged American hegemony for many years, has not completely disappeared; however, the state’s economic necessities and the military, financial, and diplomatic capacity possessed by the US are steering the Caracas administration toward developing a new form of relationship with Washington. Similarly, while the US has not completely abandoned its traditional discourse regarding democracy and liberal norms, it is placing concrete interests such as energy security and regional supremacy much more directly at the center of its foreign policy.
Consequently, the emerging “new world” should not simply be defined as a system where American hegemony has come to an end. It is more accurate to state that the instruments utilized by US hegemony and its mode of legitimacy generation are undergoing a transformation. Under the Trump administration, hegemonic leadership is moving away from the claim of representing universal rules and liberal values, acquiring a character where power supremacy, economic bargaining, and the control of strategic resources come to the forefront more explicitly. The Rodriguez-Trump meeting constitutes one of the most visible examples of this transformation in Latin America. Twenty years after the UN setting where Hugo Chavez declared the decline of the American empire in 2006, Venezuela’s return to the negotiating table with the very same great power reveals, once again, the determinative nature of power distribution and state interests rather than the permanence of ideological rhetoric in international politics.
[i] Rojo, José Andrés. “Delcy Rodríguez y Trump, la imagen del nuevo mundo”, El País, https://elpais.com/opinion/2026-09-25/delcy-rodriguez-y-trump-la-imagen-del-nuevo-mundo.html, (Access Date: 27.09.2026).
[ii] Ibid.
[iii] Ibid.
[iv] Ibid.
[v] Ibid.
