Vladimir Padrino López Lines Up Behind Delcy Rodríguez After January 3 Attack

A central thread running through the U.S. role in Venezuela and Cuba is the question of who controls armed forces and how that control shifts after Washington applies pressure.

In Venezuela, La Libre.be describes Commander-in-Chief Vladimir Padrino López as “a crucial element for interim president Delcy Rodríguez and her fragile government,” arguing that Padrino “quickly lined up behind the former vice president after the January 3 American attack and the capture of the deposed president Nicolás Maduro.”

France 24

The same article says Padrino is “the country’s highest-ranking military officer” and that he “has served as defense minister for more than a decade,” positioning him as the person who can “shore up her power” because Rodríguez “having failed to cultivate ties with the military herself.”

La Libre.be quotes retired general Hebert García, a “former Maduro minister before breaking with power,” saying, “He knows the structure, he guarantees the control of the Armed Forces,” and adds García’s assessment that “Delcy Rodríguez has never had a relationship or affinity with the Armed Forces; it was Maduro who had it through Padrino.”

The article also frames Rodríguez’s diplomatic reversal with Washington as rapid, saying that “In barely three weeks, she has signed oil deals, approved the release of political prisoners, and is working to revive diplomatic relations.”

It further ties Padrino’s role to a political objective, stating that “Padrino's main role today is to stabilize the Armed Forces, remove them from politics, and bring them back onto the institutional stage.”

The La Libre.be account thus links the U.S.-Venezuela confrontation to a military alignment that Rodríguez needs in order to govern, while also describing Padrino as a stabilizing figure meant to keep the armed forces from becoming a direct political actor.

The U.S. pressure campaign described across the sources is also tied to the political identity and messaging of Marco Rubio, whose Cuba policy is presented as both ideological and personal.

Marianne says Rubio is “Now at the heart of the Trump administration, as Secretary of State and National Security Adviser,” and it places him at the center of early January with “the capture of the Venezuelan president.”

La Libre.be

The same article quotes Rubio’s Senate statement on January 15, 2025, writing: “There is absolutely no doubt: Cuba meets all the criteria to be considered a state sponsor of terrorism.”

Marianne adds that “On the same day, he was confirmed as Secretary of State,” and it frames Rubio as “a powerful symbol for the son of Cuban exiles.”

It situates his upbringing in Miami, stating that Rubio “Born in Miami in 1971” grew up in “Little Havana,” and it describes the family’s flight from the island “in 1956, before the revolution.”

Marianne also provides details about Rubio’s parents, saying “His father, Mario, works behind a counter; his mother, Oriales, makes beds in a hotel,” and it describes the household as speaking “Spanish, anti-communism, and revenge.”

The article’s portrayal connects Rubio’s anti-communist identity to the administration’s posture toward Cuba, while simultaneously placing him in the same broader U.S. trajectory that includes Venezuela.

While Rubio’s rhetoric is presented as hardline, France 24 describes Cuba’s internal political calculus around U.S. negotiations and the role of Raul Castro in those discussions.

France 24 reports that “Raul Castro is closely following the talks between his country and the United States and is taking part in the 'decision-making,' his daughter Mariela Castro said on Thursday.”

It notes that Raul Castro, “94,” is “officially now only a deputy since stepping down from the head of the Cuban Communist Party in 2021,” but it emphasizes that he “retains strong influence over Cuban politics and the loyalty of the armed forces.”

Mariela Castro is quoted saying, “My father follows all information rigorously, participating in the analyses for the decision-making,” and the article places her remarks during “the celebration of the 65th anniversary of the failure of the U.S. invasion attempt at the Bay of Pigs in 1961.”

France 24 also includes Mariela Castro’s view that the Cuban population “wants dialogue” to find a solution to “the renewed tensions with Washington,” while insisting it must be done “without calling into question our political system.”

The article then describes the U.S. pressure framework, stating that “Since January, the administration of President Donald Trump has pursued a policy of maximum pressure against the communist island,” and it specifies that the island faces “the embargo in place since 1962” and “drastic restrictions on oil imports.”

During the ceremony, Cuban President Miguel Díaz-Canel, “dressed in a military uniform,” is quoted as repeating that his country is “ready” to confront any American military aggression and reaffirming “the socialist character of the Cuban state.”

POLITICO frames the U.S.-Cuba approach as contested inside the American political system, describing Florida’s Cuban American community as pressing President Donald Trump to fully oust Cuba’s communist leadership.

It says “Florida’s politically influential Cuban American community is pressuring President Donald Trump to fully oust Cuba’s communist leadership as the Trump administration looks willing to settle for less,” and it describes Cuban opposition activists in South Florida taking “their uncompromising message public for months.”

La Libre.be

POLITICO quotes Orlando Gutíerrez-Boronat, secretary general for the Assembly of the Cuban Resistance, saying, “The Cuban exile community, which is my community, what we’re saying is there won’t be any real economic change until you have real political change,” and it adds that he stressed “this is a widespread sentiment in the Cuban American business community.”

The article also includes a warning from GOP state Sen. Ileana Garcia, who said that if the U.S. didn’t take military action or intervene in another way or have a plan that would “overthrow the regime” in Cuba, then Trump’s future presidential library in downtown Miami would be viewed as an “eyesore” next to the Freedom Tower.

POLITICO further quotes Garcia’s warning that “Inaction in Cuba, Garcia warned, would “definitely” affect the way people in South Florida vote, “especially after years of rhetoric and promises” to remove the communist regime.”

It describes the administration’s policy as imposing “an energy blockade on Cuba and expanded sanctions pressure on the island,” while also noting that “While administration officials have also said some top Cuban officials would need to step down, the overall message they’ve sent is that all-out regime change may have to wait.”

POLITICO also reports that an April poll for the Miami Herald of Cuban exiles found “78 percent said they’d be dissatisfied with economic reforms alone,” and it says many Cuban Americans were “thrilled that Trump named Rubio as his chief diplomat.”