Carvajal’s letter serves as a meticulously crafted confession. His serious allegations regarding operations post-2019 (such as sending the Tren de Aragua to the U.S.) detail events he could not have directly participated in due to his timeline as a dissident and arrested individual.
This indicates that the narrative was tailored to fit the U.S. geopolitical storyline that portrays Maduro as a currently active narcoterrorist threat, a necessary justification for sanctions.
Doubts arise about the authorship of the letter itself: it could either be a lie from him to negotiate his sentence or a product influenced by federal authorities.
Author: La Tabla/Data Journalism Platform, December 3, 2025
The former general Hugo Carvajal Barrios, known as “El Pollo,” transitioned from being one of the most poweful figures within Chavismo to an accused individual.
He confessed guilty before a New York court on charges of narcoterrorism. His public letter, which outlines a multifaceted war by the Venezuelan government against the United States, has been presented as the confession of an “insider.” Yet, a detailed comparison of his personal timeline with the historical events he describes reveals a series of critical temporal inconsistencies.
To evaluate his claims, it’s crucial to recount his official trajectory that defined his access to privileged information:
· July 2004 – December 2011: Director of Military Intelligence Directorate (DIM) under Hugo Chávez.
· April 2013 – January 2014: Director of General Directorate of Military Counterintelligence (DGCIM) under Nicolás Maduro.
· January – September 2014: Consul General of Venezuela in Aruba.
· 2015: Elected deputy to the National Assembly.
· January 2016 – March 2019: Served as deputy. However, during this period, he had already begun to distance himself.
· 2017: Publicly breaks with Maduro’s regime, accusing him of responsibility for the deaths of protesters and opposing the Constituent National Assembly.
· February 2019: Takes a decisive step by releasing a video recognizing Juan Guaidó as interim president of Venezuela.
· April 2019: Expelled from the Armed Forces by Maduro and accused of treason. He flees to Spain, where he is arrested shortly thereafter.
· July 2023: Extradited from Spain to the United States.
· June 2025: Pleads guilty to narcoterrorism and conspiracy to import cocaine into the U.S. in a Manhattan federal court.
Contrast: What he says vs. Where he was
Examining his most serious claims alongside his timeline raises doubts about the veracity of his firsthand knowledge.
1. Claim: High-Level Drug Trafficking Operations (2006-2008)
· Carvajal’s Account: Personally coordinated billion-dollar cocaine shipments, like the 5.6 tons on a DC-9 in 2006, in alliance with the FARC.
· His position at the time: Director of Military Intelligence (2004-2011).
· Analysis: Consistent. This is the period where his claims hold the highest chronological plausibility. His position placed him at the center of the state security apparatus, making it credible that he had involvement or direct knowledge of these operations, as the U.S. Justice Department’s accusation posits.
2. Claim: Manipulation of the Smartmatic Electoral System
· Carvajal’s Account: Claims he placed the head of IT at the National Electoral Council (CNE) and that Smartmatic software can be altered.
· Key Historical Context: In 2017, after the Constituent Assembly elections, Smartmatic publicly denounced an overstated vote count. The Maduro government immediately severed ties with the company.
· His Position in 2017: By then, Carvajal had already publicly distanced himself from the regime and was serving as a deputy, a role without direct influence over electoral administration.
· Analysis: Inconsistent. His knowledge about the software’s alleged capabilities could stem from his intelligence days. However, claiming to be a witness to manipulations after 2017, a year when the company was expelled and he was in open break, lacks support in his role or access.
3. Claim: Exportation of the “Tren de Aragua” Gang to the U.S.
· Carvajal’s Account: Claims that the regime, knowing the Biden-Harris administration’s border policy, “capitalized on the opportunity” to send this gang’s operatives to U.S. soil with criminal orders.
· His position between 2021-2023: Carvajal had broken with Maduro in 2019, was arrested in Spain in 2021, and extradited to the U.S. in 2023. He was in fugitive status, arrested, or in the extradition process.
· Analysis: Highly Inconsistent. It is chronologically impossible that, as a fugitive dissident or prisoner in Europe, he would have firsthand knowledge of internal orders and logistics coordination from Maduro’s government during Biden’s presidency. This claim severely undermines his credibility as a witness to recent events.
4. Claim: Espionage with Russia and Connections with Iran
· Carvajal’s Account: Describes Russian intelligence proposals to Chávez and warnings to Maduro in 2015 regarding a base in La Orchila. Also claims to have information on links with Iran.
· His Position in 2015: By that year, he was already an elected deputy and had been out of any role in the intelligence community for over a year (since January 2014).
· Analysis: Mixed. It’s possible he was aware of collaboration schemes initiated during his term. However, claims about specific operational details in 2015 or later, when he was no longer part of the internal security circle, lack a clear explanation of their source.
Conclusion: A Tailored Narrative
The temporal inconsistencies point to a narrative structured in two timelines:
1. A believable core: His revelations about the 2004-2014 period, when he was intelligence chief align with his position and prior international investigations. This core lends an overall appearance of credibility.
2. An opportune extension: The accusations about activities after 2019, especially those related to the export of the Tren de Aragua, do not hold up in his biography. They seem to be added to refresh the threat and align his testimony with U.S. domestic security priorities, particularly the narrative of a criminal “invasion” promoted during Trump’s administration and continued afterward.
Thus, the letter is not merely the confession of a repentant individual. It is a political document whose most sensational and contemporary parts lack the basis of firsthand experience that Carvajal claims to have. This raises two possibilities, as the reader might suggest: that the former general is either amplifying or fabricating details to negotiate a lighter sentence, or that his testimony has been shaped to serve a specific geopolitical agenda aimed at presenting the Maduro government not only as an authoritarian regime, but as an active and current narcoterrorist threat against the United States.
The evidentiary value of his statements regarding the distant past may be significant, but his narrative about current Venezuelan government operations must be examined with extreme caution and corroborated with independent evidence. The story of “El Pollo” is, at its core, that of a witness whose credibility decayed at the same pace he lost access to power.
