Senior officials inside the Trump administration are locked in a behind-the-scenes power struggle over how to handle Venezuela that sources say is fracturing U.S. diplomatic efforts and complicating policy toward President Nicolás Maduro’s government.
The dispute pits Secretary of State Marco Rubio, who is urging a hardline stance and rejects any engagement with Maduro, against Special Envoy Ric Grenell, who has been pursuing more pragmatic, deal-based diplomacy, according to people familiar with the matter who spoke to the Daily Mail. The rivalry intensified after a U.S. naval strike in the southern Caribbean on Sept. 2 that killed 11 people aboard a Venezuelan boat and after a collapsed hostage-release agreement earlier this year.
Administration officials and others familiar with the dispute described divergent goals and tactics. Grenell, the envoy tasked with Venezuela issues, has pushed for "practical" arrangements such as hostage negotiations, deportation flights, and possible oil leases that he and his team view as mutually beneficial ways to extract concessions from Maduro’s government. Sources say Grenell secured the release of six Americans and has been the only U.S. official the Venezuelan government has been willing to engage directly.
Rubio, who the sources described as a hardliner with deep ties to Miami’s Cuban exile community, has argued that negotiating with Maduro would legitimize a "narco-terror cartel" and has rejected any deals that, in his view, reward an illegitimate regime. "Nicolás Maduro is not a government or political regime. They are a terrorist organization and organized crime organization that has taken over a country so that they can become the leaders who can become billionaires," Rubio told reporters earlier this month, according to the Daily Mail.
The Sept. 2 strike has become a flashpoint in the debate. The White House described the operation as an interdiction of a vessel carrying "massive amounts of drugs coming into our country to kill a lot of people." Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth and Rubio defended the strike publicly, saying they were certain of the target and its illicit activity. But a person familiar with the operation told the Daily Mail that U.S. officials "did not even know if there were drugs on the boat," and described the action as designed to "elicit a response from Maduro and provoke him," a response that did not materialize.
Officials and sources described distinct chains of responsibility inside the administration. President Donald Trump has designated Grenell as envoy to Venezuela while directing Rubio to "cover the rest of the world," according to one person familiar with the president’s diplomatic assignments. That division, the person said, was deliberate: Trump reportedly sought to limit Rubio’s lead role on Venezuela because of Rubio’s personal and political ties to the issue.
Several administration officials emphasized that final authority rests with Trump. "Everything [Rubio] does reflects Trump's direction—no one else's," a senior administration official said, underscoring Rubio’s close alignment with the president even as tactical disagreements persist. Another source said the president "has a diplomatic plan on what he wants to do in Venezuela moving forward, and has not shared it yet."
Former National Security Adviser John Bolton has also weighed in publicly and in writing, urging U.S. leaders to maintain a strict posture toward Maduro. Bolton wrote that he first proposed declaring Venezuela a state sponsor of terrorism in 2018 and has warned against allowing Maduro to perceive a political win. "Ensure that Maduro does not believe he has won," Bolton recently advised Rubio, according to sources.
Policy analysts and conservative voices within the U.S. policy community have voiced support for the hardline approach. Andres Martinez-Fernandez of the Heritage Foundation warned that Maduro has historically used negotiations to buy time with false promises, and cautioned against what he described as "unsound policy prescriptions" that would rely on dialogue alone.
Grenell’s supporters argue that practical diplomacy has yielded results—citizens returned, and lines of communication with Venezuelan officials opened—while Rubio’s backers say any engagement risks legitimizing a regime the United States does not recognize. The State Department reiterated to the Daily Mail that the White House "does not, and will never, recognize Nicolás Maduro as the president of Venezuela."
The split has had tangible consequences for U.S. engagement on the ground. Sources said the two envoys pursued different deals after a hostage-release agreement collapsed earlier this year; Grenell reportedly pushed for arrangements that would allow U.S. oil companies to operate in parts of Venezuela, a proposal Rubio rejected. The competing efforts have left some officials questioning whether the administration has a clearly outlined, unified strategy.
The dispute has also exposed tensions within a foreign-policy team assembled around a president who, according to people familiar with internal discussions, prefers to keep strategic options centralized and closely held. Some aides described Rubio as carrying out the president’s vision, while others said Trump has been willing to entertain a deal with Maduro—a posture reportedly shaped by the 2019 episode in which efforts to back opposition leader Juan Guaidó did not remove Maduro from power.
Neither Rubio nor Grenell has been universally credited with the final say. Sources inside the administration said the president will make ultimate decisions, and that the ongoing tug-of-war between a punitive, sanctions-based approach and a transactional, engagement-focused approach continues to shape U.S. actions in the region.
As U.S. officials debate tactics, Venezuelans inside and outside the country continue to face a humanitarian and political crisis. The United States maintains sanctions and diplomatic nonrecognition of Maduro’s government even as some officials pursue narrow, pragmatic deals intended to secure the release of detainees or to blunt illicit traffickers’ activity. The competing strategies and recent use of force in the Caribbean underscore the risk that internal divisions and opaque decision-making could complicate efforts to formulate a consistent policy that advances both U.S. objectives and regional stability.
Administration officials did not provide a timetable for resolving their internal differences. For now, the sources said, the rivalry between Rubio and Grenell remains a defining feature of U.S. policy-making on Venezuela, and whether it will produce a unified course or continue to produce mixed signals will depend on the president’s next moves.