A criminal confessing that he tried to break an entire country
En el umbral entre la retórica política y el derecho internacional, el presidente de la Asamblea Nacional venezolana, Jorge Rodríguez, propuso ante la prensa en Caracas que las palabras de un expresidente estadounidense sean tratadas como prueba de un crimen. Las declaraciones públicas de Donald Trump sobre la estrategia de su gobierno hacia Venezuela —en las que describió el deseo de que el país colapsara para facilitar el control de sus recursos petroleros— fueron interpretadas por Rodríguez no como postura política, sino como confesión de intención criminal. La solicitud ante la Corte Penal Internacional convierte un discurso de campaña en un posible documento jurídico, planteando una pregunta que trasciende a Venezuela: ¿pueden las palabras del poder ser alguna vez su propia condena?
- Trump declaró públicamente que su gobierno esperaba que Venezuela colapsara bajo protestas para que Estados Unidos pudiera tomar control de sus reservas de petróleo y otros activos estratégicos.
- Rodríguez calificó esas palabras como una confesión en voz propia de quien orquestó un bloqueo costero, la incautación de combustible y medidas que, según el gobierno venezolano, elevaron la mortalidad infantil.
- La red de complicidad señalada se extiende desde John Bolton —quien habló de desplegar cinco mil marines— hasta Marco Rubio, Mike Pence y figuras políticas venezolanas que aplaudieron cada amenaza de intervención.
- La Asamblea Nacional anunció una investigación para identificar a los aliados internos que apoyaron y se beneficiaron de la estrategia revelada por Trump.
- Venezuela pide a la CPI que incorpore las declaraciones de Trump como prueba admisible en el caso 'Venezuela II', que investiga crímenes de lesa humanidad derivados de medidas coercitivas unilaterales desde 2014.
Jorge Rodríguez, presidente de la Asamblea Nacional venezolana, se presentó ante la prensa en Caracas con una acusación contundente: Donald Trump acababa de entregarle a la Corte Penal Internacional una confesión. El 11 de junio, Trump había descrito públicamente cómo su gobierno esperaba que Venezuela se derrumbara bajo el peso de las protestas antigubernamentales, un colapso que habría permitido a Estados Unidos apoderarse de las reservas de petróleo y otros recursos del país. Para Rodríguez, no se trataba de un debate de política exterior ni de una cuestión de interpretación, sino de una admisión de intención de desestabilizar una nación por ganancia económica.
Rodríguez detalló las consecuencias que atribuyó a esas políticas: el bloqueo de las costas venezolanas, la incautación de combustible vital y medidas que, según el gobierno, contribuyeron al aumento de la mortalidad infantil y al desmantelamiento de programas sociales para niños como el Programa Simón Bolívar. En su lectura, Trump había confesado haber orquestado exactamente ese tipo de daño.
El presidente parlamentario fue más lejos al trazar una red de complicidad: el exasesor de seguridad nacional John Bolton habló de enviar cinco mil marines; el senador Marco Rubio y el vicepresidente Mike Pence hicieron declaraciones incendiarias sobre intervención; y figuras políticas venezolanas aliadas a Trump celebraron cada amenaza. La Asamblea Nacional anunció que investigará quiénes dentro del país apoyaron esas medidas, quiénes se beneficiaron de ellas y cómo fueron coordinadas.
Sobre todo, Rodríguez exigió que la CPI actuara. Venezuela había presentado el caso conocido como 'Venezuela II', que investiga crímenes de lesa humanidad derivados de medidas coercitivas unilaterales —principalmente sanciones estadounidenses— impuestas desde 2014. Rodríguez argumentó que las propias palabras de Trump debían incorporarse a ese expediente como prueba. Si el tribunal funcionaba como una corte internacional genuina, sostuvo, no podía ignorar una confesión de tal magnitud. La pregunta de si la CPI actuaría en consecuencia permanece abierta, pero para el gobierno venezolano el momento representa la posibilidad de convertir una declaración política en un documento jurídico con consecuencias reales.
Jorge Rodríguez, who leads Venezuela's National Assembly, stood before reporters at the parliament building in Caracas and made a stark accusation: the former U.S. president had just handed the International Criminal Court a confession.
Days earlier, on June 11, Donald Trump had spoken publicly about his administration's strategy toward Venezuela. He described how his government had hoped the country would collapse under the weight of anti-government protests—a collapse that would have allowed the United States to seize control of Venezuela's oil reserves and other resources. For Rodríguez, this was not a policy debate or a matter of interpretation. It was an admission of intent to destabilize a nation for economic gain.
Rodríguez characterized Trump's remarks as a criminal's own testimony. He detailed what he said were the consequences of the policies Trump had overseen: a blockade of Venezuela's coastlines, the seizure of fuel supplies the country desperately needed, and measures that had contributed to rising infant mortality rates. The Venezuelan government had operated social programs for children—the Simón Bolívar Program—and those resources, Rodríguez argued, had been diverted or destroyed as a result of U.S. pressure. Trump, in Rodríguez's view, had now confessed to orchestrating exactly this kind of harm.
But the Venezuelan parliament chief went further. He identified what he saw as a network of complicity. Trump's former national security advisor John Bolton had publicly discussed deploying five thousand marines to invade Venezuela. Republican Senator Marco Rubio and Vice President Mike Pence had made inflammatory statements about intervention. And according to Rodríguez, Venezuelan political figures—Trump's allies within the country—had celebrated each of these threats and statements. They had applauded the pressure campaign. They had been part of a coordinated plan.
Rodríguez announced that the National Assembly would now investigate the full scope of what Trump had publicly revealed about his intervention strategy. The parliament intended to identify who in Venezuela had supported these measures, who had benefited from them, and how they had been coordinated.
More significantly, Rodríguez called on the International Criminal Court to act. Venezuela's government had filed a case known as 'Venezuela II' with the ICC, alleging crimes against humanity stemming from unilateral coercive measures—primarily U.S. sanctions—imposed on the country since 2014. The case names multiple foreign governments, including the United States, as alleged perpetrators. Rodríguez argued that Trump's own words should now be added to that docket as evidence. If the ICC functioned as a genuine international tribunal, he said, it could not ignore a confession of this magnitude. The court should incorporate Trump's testimony directly into the crimes against humanity investigation.
What Rodríguez was proposing was a legal maneuver with significant implications. He was asking the ICC to treat Trump's campaign speech—his public description of a strategy to exploit Venezuela's resources by destabilizing the country—as admissible evidence in a formal investigation into alleged crimes against humanity. The question of whether the court would do so, and whether such evidence could be used against a former U.S. president, remained open. But for the Venezuelan government, the moment represented an opportunity to transform a political statement into a legal document.
Citações Notáveis
If the International Criminal Court has real officials functioning as an international tribunal, it should incorporate Trump's confession into the crimes against humanity case against Venezuela— Jorge Rodríguez, president of Venezuela's National Assembly
A Conversa do Hearth Outra perspectiva sobre a história
When Rodríguez says Trump's words are a "confession," what exactly does he mean by that?
He's arguing that Trump publicly described the intent behind U.S. policy—to destabilize Venezuela so the U.S. could control its oil. In legal terms, that's an admission of motive. If you're investigating whether someone harmed people, and that person then explains why they wanted to harm them, that's powerful evidence.
But Trump was speaking as a candidate, not as someone under oath. Does that matter?
Legally, yes and no. It's not testimony given in court. But Rodríguez is saying it's a public statement of intent by the person who ordered the policies. The ICC would have to decide if that's admissible and what weight it carries.
He mentions children in social programs. Is he saying the U.S. deliberately targeted children?
He's saying the blockades and sanctions disrupted the supply chains and resources those programs needed. Whether that was deliberate targeting or a foreseeable consequence of the broader pressure campaign is exactly what the ICC would need to examine.
Who are the Venezuelan allies he's talking about?
He doesn't name them in these remarks, but he's referring to Venezuelan political figures who supported U.S. intervention—people who wanted regime change and celebrated when Bolton or Rubio made threats. He's saying they were part of the same plan.
What does Rodríguez actually want to happen next?
He wants the ICC to add Trump's statements to the Venezuela II case file as evidence of crimes against humanity. He also wants the parliament to investigate and expose the domestic network that supported these policies. It's both a legal move and a political one.