Writing: La Tabla / Data Journalism Platform 20 JAN 2026
With a news release presented as exclusive, the American news agency Associated Press (AP) is applying pressure on the acting president of Venezuela, Delcy Rodríguez.
The publication, released just two weeks after the kidnapping of the constitutional president, Nicolás Maduro, claims that the DEA has been investigating the high-ranking official since 2018 for alleged ties to drug trafficking, which is clearly a move to influence her new term.
The timing selected by AP turns the disclosure into a timely geopolitical pressure tool. The information is published just as Rodríguez assumes the interim presidency, a position she takes following the operation that led Maduro to a federal prison in New York.
This “timing” seeks to maximize the political vulnerability of the new leader, aligning with the U.S. administration strategy to exert influence in the Venezuelan transition.
The tactic was tacitly confirmed by President Donald Trump, who stated after the operation against Maduro that Rodríguez “appeared willing to work” with Washington.
The second structural flaw of the report lies in the opacity of its documental sources. Although the AP claims to have accessed “records” from the DEA that list Rodríguez as a “priority target,” the description of these documents is notably vague. The wording does not specify the origin, exact date, format, or verifiable source of said documents.
This lack of basic descriptors, essential for assessing the authenticity of the evidence, leaves the accusation in the realm of unverified claims, relying entirely on a generic attribution to the U.S. drug agency.
The AP’s product attempts to mitigate its objective by noting that despite the investigation, Rodríguez has not been formally accused and that Washington sees her as a necessary partner for stability.
This dual presentation exposes the central contradiction of U.S. policy: simultaneously treating a figure as a criminal target and as a valid interlocutor.
The approach seeks to discredit the Chavista leadership while keeping channels of negotiation open that function in the strategic interests of the United States in the region, serving as another example of media coverage that instrumentalizes the Venezuelan situation within contexts of American internal political disputes.