By La Tabla / Data Journalism Platform – December 3, 2025
Hugo Carvajal Barrios, formerly one of the most influential figures in Venezuela’s intelligence sector, now finds himself in a U.S. prison after admitting to charges of narco-terrorism. His public letter, presented as a confession, outlines a complex war waged by the Venezuelan government against the United States. However, a meticulous examination of his timeline and the events he claims to have witnessed exposes significant chronological discrepancies.
The letter is rife with dramatic allegations about incidents reportedly occurring after 2019, such as the alleged deployment of the Tren de Aragua gang to U.S. territory, which Carvajal could not have directly seen or been part of. By then, he had already distanced himself from the Maduro government, escaped Venezuela, and was in hiding, detained, or facing extradition.
These revelations raise significant doubts regarding the authenticity and purpose of the letter. Is Carvajal fabricating elements to secure a reduced sentence? Or might the document have been shaped—possibly even co-written—by federal authorities to align with a geopolitical narrative that casts Nicolás Maduro as a genuine narco-terrorist threat?
📅 Timeline of Access and Authority
Understanding Carvajal’s institutional track record is critical to assess the validity of his claims:
– July 2004 – Dec. 2011: Director of Military Intelligence (DIM) under Hugo Chávez.
– April 2013 – Jan. 2014: Director of Military Counterintelligence (DGCIM) under Nicolás Maduro.
– Jan. – Sept. 2014: Consul General of Venezuela in Aruba.
– 2015: Elected to the National Assembly.
– 2016 – 2019: Served as deputy, although distancing from the regime had started.
– 2017: Publicly opposed Maduro, denouncing repression and rejecting the Constituent Assembly.
– Feb. 2019: Released a video acknowledging Juan Guaidó as interim president.
– April 2019: Expelled from the military and charged with treason. Fled to Spain and was arrested.
– July 2023: Extradited to the U.S.
– June 2025: Pleaded guilty to narco-terrorism and drug trafficking in federal court.
🔍 Claim vs. Context: Four Key Contrasts
1. High-Level Drug Operations (2006–2008)
– Claim: Personally coordinated multimillion-dollar cocaine shipments, including the notorious DC-9 loaded with 5.6 tons.
– Position: Director of Military Intelligence.
– Analysis: Credible. This timeframe aligns with his role and U.S. Justice Department allegations.
2. Smartmatic Electoral Manipulation
– Claim: Appointed head of IT at Venezuela’s electoral council and oversaw manipulation using Smartmatic software.
– Historical Context: In 2017, Smartmatic publicly condemned vote inflation. Maduro severed ties with the firm.
– Position: By 2017, Carvajal was a dissident deputy with no direct influence over electoral processes.
– Analysis: Weak. He may have been aware of the system’s vulnerabilities from earlier years, but his claim of witnessing manipulation after 2017 lacks institutional foundation.
3. Exporting Tren de Aragua to the U.S.
– Claim: The regime exploited Biden’s border policies to send gang operatives to the U.S. with criminal orders.
– Position (2021–2023): Carvajal was either a fugitive, detained in Spain, or in U.S. custody.
– Analysis: Unlikely. He had no access to internal operations and could not have observed or coordinated such actions.
4. Espionage with Russia and Iran
– Claim: Russian intelligence suggested tapping submarine cables and warned Maduro in 2015 about a listening post on La Orchila.
– Position: By 2015, Carvajal was already a legislator, long out of intelligence roles.
– Analysis: Mixed. He might have retained informal knowledge from prior years, but operational details after 2014 are speculative at best.
🧩 A Narrative Built to Fit
The inconsistencies highlight a two-tiered narrative:
1. The credible core: His accounts from 2004–2014, when he held high-ranking intelligence positions, correlate with documented investigations and lend the letter an air of authenticity.
2. The strategic extension: Claims about events after 2019—especially regarding the alleged export of criminal networks—appear tailored to bolster a U.S. domestic security narrative. These elements echo the “criminal invasion” rhetoric promulgated during Trump’s presidency and continued thereafter.
In this context, Carvajal’s letter serves not just as a confession but as a political artifact. Its most sensational claims lack basis in his actual experience and raise the possibility that it was designed to fulfill a broader agenda: depicting Maduro not merely as a dictator but as a transnational menace to U.S. national security.
His testimony on past crimes may have evidentiary significance. However, his account of Venezuela’s current operations needs to be analyzed with caution and independently verified. The story of “El Pollo” ultimately portrays a witness whose credibility diminished as his influence and access to power waned.