Watching her travel the world to meet with leaders in Europe, with businesspeople in California, or give interviews on YouTube, many may conclude that María Corina Machado, 58, is a leader in limbo, trapped in a situation that prevents her from returning to Venezuela. There, the mission she set for herself still awaits: carrying through the task of removing the Chavista regime from power. According to that view, every day she spends abroad is a gain for the siblings Delcy and Jorge Rodríguez, Venezuelan president and speaker of the National Assembly, respectively, and for strongman Diosdado Cabello —and rising pressure from the millions of Venezuelans waiting for her. But that is not the impression she conveys in person. Machado is signing an English copy of her book The Freedom Manifesto when she is told that the Attorney General’s Office has confirmed the death of Víctor Hugo Quero Navas, who disappeared at the hands of security forces a year and a half ago. She listens, and it’s as if she’s been struck. A second later, she inhales and steadies herself: “It’s what we already knew. He was dead.” A staffer blurts out: “Bastards!”The Nobel Peace Prize laureate and her team work in a spartan Washington office whose furnishings have seen better days. She bursts into the kitchen to make coffee, brimming with energy, and treats her colleagues with familiarity and camaraderie. Each one seems to have a clear understanding of their specific role within a broader mission: to envision and plan the Venezuela they want to see in the coming decades. The beige walls are almost bare, save for a simple painting dated 2025 and a few illustrations by the Venezuelan cartoonist Rayma. Before sitting down in front of the camera, she asks for help concealing the microphone cable. A touch of vanity? “It’s to avoid distractions.”Question. More than 100 days have passed since this new situation began in Venezuela: no Maduro, but Chavismo still effectively remains in power. What has really changed?Answer. We need to look at it on several levels. Politically, things have happened that were unthinkable a few months ago. In a country where people didn’t even dare to pray for political prisoners in a church, today you can have 30 or 50 demonstrations of various kinds in a single day. More than 600 political prisoners have been released, although hundreds more remain in prison. You’re starting to see expressions of freedom of speech, of mobilization, of denunciation that didn’t exist before. However, this is far from a full restoration of civil rights. Economically, limits have been placed on the regime’s discretionary management of funds, and investments have been allowed, although no one knows their size or the terms of the contracts. There is no oversight. Annual inflation is 650%, and 86% of the population lives in poverty. And socially, there is growing tension: products are on the shelves, but people can’t afford them. We Venezuelans have learned the hard way that the economy cannot be solved without political change. Q. Following events in Venezuela, it seems a sense of fatigue and uncertainty is brewing among the population. Is the expectation of change fading before the transition even takes shape?A. There’s a bit of everything. There’s genuine anguish from people who can’t take it anymore, who see their children not eating well or not going to school. That’s what I call the ethical urgency. And there’s also a deliberate narrative of demoralization, which seeks to convince people that this process isn’t about democracy, but about oil, about foreign interests. That narrative suits the regime. But the fact that this is complex doesn’t mean it’s not moving forward. The approach of [U. S. President Donald] Trump and [U. S. Secretary of State Marco] Rubio, of the three phases that lead to a free and fair election, is correct and urgent. Q. President Trump said last week that Venezuelans are “very happy.” What isn’t he seeing?A. I don’t want to interpret what the president is thinking. What I can say is that there is a growing concern, not to say anxiety, that this is taking too long, because for many people, every day is a matter of life and death. The way to prevent this from turning into a chaotic process is to assure people that we will be able to uphold the will of the people through the electoral process. That’s what I tell Trump every time I speak with him. I say in public the same thing I say in private. Q. What exactly do you say to him?A. We have a great opportunity ahead for the Americas, and there is a momentum that we cannot afford to waste. Venezuela has the best-prepared society for an orderly transition: there are no deep religious, racial, or regional divisions; there is a level of civic organization that we have never had before. I tell him that we must adhere to a timeline that allows us to carry out this process properly, that we must make these elections a model for the world. Q. Is that possible this year? The word is that elections will not be possible before 2027. A. From a technical standpoint, you need approximately 40 weeks from the time you appoint a new National Electoral Council (CNE). That’s the trigger. It can be compressed somewhat, but we have to be serious. The important thing is to start now. Q. Today, Washington controls a large portion of Venezuela’s oil, revenues, and business access. Trump has joked that Venezuela could be the 51st state. Where is the line that separates support from Venezuela’s most powerful neighbor and outright tutelage?A. An election. The exercise of popular sovereignty is that path. To reach it, we will need the support of the international community and, first and foremost, that of the United States. Trump is the only head of state who has risked his position and resources for the freedom of Venezuela. We wouldn’t be where we are without that support. A criminal system only yields to a real threat. Q. If you were to come to power under the current conditions, what would be your first concrete decision to regain sovereignty without breaking the alliance with Washington?A. It’s all about trust. With the 2023 primaries, we decided to trust the people, and the people trusted us in return. Now we need to build trust in institutions: we need the trust of citizens, creditors, investors, and other governments. The key is the rule of law: a serious government, where there is an independent judiciary, the law is respected, and everyone is equal before it. That immediately creates the incentives for the country to transform itself. Q. What happens if Washington is comfortable with things as they are and does not move towards political transformation?A. I don’t think that’s possible. First, there is the migration incentive: almost a million Venezuelans in the United States, 65% of whom want to return as soon as there’s an election. Second, the economic factor: Venezuela has the potential for five million barrels, but reaching that level requires $200 billion in investment, and that only comes with the rule of law. The investors who are exploring the market today are doing so because they want an option. That option is worthwhile if we arrive; if we don’t, it’s worthless. A regime that stole, confiscated, and persecuted will never generate that confidence. And third: for these businesses to work, you need talent. The Venezuelan engineer working in Riyadh isn’t going to bring his family to a country without education or healthcare. Q. The Chilean intellectual Fernando Mires recently said that Venezuela today is neither a dictatorship nor a democracy. You yourself seem to have moderated your tone. What is the regime today?A. The same as always, with a few pockets that give the appearance of freedom. Some first steps toward dismantling a brutally repressive system. But if the executive controls the judicial, the legislative, and the electoral branches — what do you call that?Q. A dictatorship?A. Obviously. Q. I’ll ask you a direct question, and I hope you don’t dodge it: when are you returning to Venezuela?A. Soon. And I didn’t dodge it. Q. In Madrid, you announced your return in weeks. You said the same thing two months ago. When then? May, June, July?A. I have to finish the tasks I set for myself when I left Venezuela in December: speaking with heads of state, with investors, with creditors, with thousands of Venezuelans around the world. And there’s also all the internal preparation for this new stage. We’re working very hard on it. Q. What is the objective condition that still doesn’t exist and prevents you from returning?A. None. Q. So you could pack your bag tomorrow and go. A. Nobody wants that to happen more than I do. Q. How much weight does Trump carry in that decision?A. The position of the United States and other allies certainly carries weight. It’s a matter of coordination. My return will help the process flow smoothly, and that’s why it’s important that the timing is right. Q. According to several accounts, at the breakfast on March 6, Trump advised you against returning. What does that reveal?A. I didn’t release that information, so don’t take it as fact. There’s a lot of speculation. What I can say is that the U. S. government’s primary concern has always been my safety. Q. Is there a point at which the strain of staying away outweighs the risk of returning?A. I spent 12 years unable to leave, and everyone told me, “Go, you have to speak out abroad.” Now that I’m out, everyone tells me, “You have to come back.” My filter is always the same: where can I be most useful? I know that in Venezuela, I can help, contribute to moving everything in a firm and civic direction. But there’s also a lot to do here. I wish I could be in both places at the same time. Q. Trump suggested on January 3 that you were not in the best position to guarantee governability. How would you control real power in a country where the army, the courts, the electoral council, and the oil industry remain in the hands of Chavismo, with criminal groups and guerrillas dominating parts of the territory?A. It’s a fundamental problem, and that’s why we’ve spent years evaluating in detail the state of the country in each of these areas and what a process of institutional and territorial takeover would look like. My assessment is that the vast majority of those in these positions, from ministry employees to police and military personnel, would favor a transition. There are armed and financed groups seeking to create disruption, such as the DGCIM or some collectives, but they are very small and have already been identified. This isn’t about dismantling the Armed Forces, but about liberating them: the yoke and persecution they endure are intense. To those who fear retaliation, I give you my word: we will guarantee the rights and freedoms even of those who denied them to us. Q. In Spain, you avoided meeting with Spanish Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez when Sánchez, together with Brazilian President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva and Colombian President Gustavo Petro, was seeking to revitalize the left in the face of Trump’s rise. If the opportunity arose again, would you meet with him? What role could the Spanish government play in the transition?A. Every decision is filtered through whether it helps the Venezuelan cause and accelerates the transition. If the answer is yes, I’ll meet him. Q. You’ve spoken of a grand national agreement before the elections. Who would have to sit at that table, and what would you be willing to negotiate?A. I see it as something broader than the electoral process. It’s a unique moment to articulate the consensus for the country we want to build: pluralism, limits on presidential power, the subordination of military to civilian authority, genuine decentralization, and the principle of subsidiarity between the state and the individual. This translates into concrete agreements, such as a ban on reelection and a bicameral legislature. The country is eager to discuss these issues. Q. Would you support a ban on reelection?A. Without a doubt. Q. And would you sit down to negotiate directly with Delcy and Jorge Rodríguez?A. It depends on the terms. We have offered, publicly and privately, our willingness to move forward with a negotiated transition. What we will not accept is another charade. Q. When you see Delcy Rodríguez purging her inner circle and appointing ministers to strategic positions, aren’t they simply trying to present a façade of normality while holding on to power?A. They will do that as long as they are allowed to. It shouldn’t surprise us. They have had to release prisoners, open communication channels, and place restrictions on the use of funds. On other issues, they haven’t budged. Part of our job is to persuade key players that certain decisions need to be expedited. Q. Under what conditions could Chavismo survive as a political movement?A. [Former Spanish prime minister] Felipe González told me in Spain: “In a transition, there are two things that cannot be amnestied: crimes against humanity and acts of corruption, unless those who stole return absolutely everything they stole.” I replied that he doesn’t know what he’s asking of us, because this is the biggest looting in history. It’s very complex. But I am aware of the historical responsibility to make this work well. A sustainable transition needs the support of the people, and those people will only accept difficult compromises if they trust the leadership that represents them. That’s why I say to those clinging to power: it’s in your best interest to negotiate with leaders who have legitimacy. You can achieve more. Q. Hugo Chávez built a hyper‑personalist, caudillo‑style leadership. Some people compare you to him in that ability to sway people. How do you dispel the fear that you, too, could become a hyper-personalist leader?A. I am the antithesis of Chávez. He started among the elites and the middle class; we began in the poorest neighborhoods and overcame urban skepticism. Chávez spoke of division; we went out to unite. He promoted revenge; we, reconciliation. Chávez offered gifts; I asked for work and responsibility. They humiliated; we valued dignity. He built a project based on hatred and violence; ours is rooted in love. They are completely opposite expressions. Q. Two Venezuelas coexist today: one undergoing rapid economic liberalization that attracts investment, and another where millions survive on miserable wages. How do you reconcile those two countries and prevent that fracture from becoming permanent?A. I don’t believe there are two countries. There is only one country that wants to live with dignity and transparency, that wants its children to return. That includes those who see investment opportunities today: if they do so transparently and in accordance with the law, their best interest is a democratic transition, because without it, those options are worthless. I travel the world and tell the major players in the technology and energy sectors: come to Venezuela, but let’s row in the same direction. A country with clear rules, no privileges, with transparent privatizations. My father, who was a great industrialist, used to tell me: “Making money is easy. What’s difficult is generating wealth.” A true entrepreneur creates wealth — for workers, for suppliers, for the entire country. That’s what we have to build. Q. In Madrid, there was controversy over the chants of “get out monkey” directed at Delcy Rodríguez during your event in Puerta del Sol. What did you think, and what does it reveal about the mood of the Venezuelan exile community?A. I can’t say for sure, but some people believe they were infiltrators. What I can say is that those chants don’t reflect who we are. When the event ended, the Spanish police told me, “We’ve never seen anything like this.” People were crying, singing, praying, and hugging each other. An aide to the premier of the Madrid region told me, “The last time we saw something like this was when Spain won the World Cup.” That’s Venezuela for you. Q. Is there a vein of racial resentment in Venezuela that would be worth addressing without taboos?A. You’re right, there’s no topic we shouldn’t address. But what I see today is a truly extraordinary level of cohesion around fundamental values: respect for human dignity, pluralism, individual responsibility, solidarity, love of freedom, property, and family. These are the values of our founding fathers. This has been a long march that has led us back to our roots. Q. When you are alone and think about Venezuela, not about strategy or transition, but about the country, what do you see? What hurts you and what gives you strength?A. I miss the light of my country. The colors in Venezuela are different to my eyes. I miss getting in my car and driving alone on any road. I love getting out anywhere and talking to people. When we traveled on tour, there were eight of us in the car; we sang llanera music in Los Llanos, eastern music in the east, gaitas in Zulia. I miss those very human things about the country so much. I’m sustained by the messages of energy and the prayers I receive every day. This movement has taken root culturally and socially. That’s why I always said: one day sooner, one day later, Maduro will be gone. And now I’ll say it again: one day sooner, one day later, this regime will finally be gone. What’s truly important is this Venezuela that is emerging, and how we ensure we build institutions that will last for centuries. Q. And what gives you strength?A. The people. This conversation. Being able to talk about the future. Sometimes I look back and say: how many times was I told it was impossible? And look at the incredible things we’ve done. I have a deep faith in the power of the people and their love of freedom. And I also feel that we’ve been guided by God. Sign up for our weekly newsletter to get more English-language news coverage from EL PAÍS USA Edition