The White House has called off diplomatic talks with Venezuela, a move reported by The New York Times. These discussions were led by U.S. envoy Richard Grenell. This decision has restarted conversations about potential military actions. It also drew criticism from Democrats. Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro responded dramatically, asking the Pope for help and claiming a “false flag operation” at the U.S. embassy was stopped.
- The New York Times reported the White House told Grenell to stop engaging with Nicolás Maduro.
- The same paper stated military plans are being considered. It also said Senator Marco Rubio pushes for tougher options.
- Maduro sought support from “Pope Leo XIV.” He claimed to have foiled a plot against the U.S. embassy.
October 7, 2025, 8:58 p.m.
The White House, as reported by The New York Times, told its envoy Richard Grenell to halt diplomatic talks with Nicolás Maduro’s government. Anonymous sources told the newspaper that President Donald Trump chose to “cancel diplomatic outreach to Venezuela.” This decision, according to the same report, opens the door for possible military actions. These actions could target drug traffickers or Maduro’s regime.
This decision follows an event in early September. The U.S. administration authorized actions against Venezuelan drug boats in the Caribbean. Maduro then sent a letter to “Respected President Donald Trump.” He defended his government and asked to continue talks through Grenell.
The New York Times story indicated the President was frustrated. Maduro’s regime refused to willingly give up power. Venezuelan authorities also insisted they were not involved in drug trafficking. PJ Media originally repeated these claims from the NYT.
Sarah Anderson, who wrote the PJ Media article, noted many news outlets and Democratic lawmakers used terms like “military escalation” and “regime change.” Anderson also wrote that, in her view, the action does not necessarily mean an all-out war in Venezuela. However, it could lead to more aggressive options to end impunity.
What The New York Times Said About Plans and Key Players
The NYT reported, according to the original piece, that several potential military plans exist to remove Maduro. Senator Marco Rubio is said to be pushing for these options. The report added that the President concluded Grenell’s diplomatic efforts were not helpful and caused confusion.
Grenell reportedly tried to negotiate a deal. This deal would let U.S. oil companies access Venezuelan oil. The idea was to lower tensions and offer an economic solution without armed conflict. The White House saw this effort as not enough, given the Venezuelan regime’s behavior. The NYT mentioned this, and PJ Media repeated it.
In her column, Anderson said she personally wanted Maduro out of power quickly. She also stated that President Trump’s stance on this issue is different from past administrations. Those past governments often pursued long wars. The piece presents these views as Anderson’s own political interpretation of the events.
Reactions Inside the U.S. and Political Dialogue
Ending the talks caused quick reactions among lawmakers and on social media. The original article quoted responses from House Democrats. It also mentioned a post on X. This post summarized the political clash. It criticized some Democratic figures for supporting authoritarian regimes.
The text also brought up comments from users like Estrella Infante. She defended Trump’s decision. She argued that Venezuela is not just any country. She called it a “narco-dictatorship allied with U.S. enemies.” She blamed it for regional chaos and mass migration.
PJ Media’s coverage suggested that the “regime change” story did not fully match the administration’s official position. It highlighted the difference between seeking a long war and pursuing a strategy. This strategy aims to end impunity and provide regional stability.
Nicolás Maduro’s Response: Appealing to the Pope and Accusations on State TV
Maduro appeared on his weekly state TV show. He claimed he wrote to “Pope Leo XIV.” He asked for help to “save Venezuela from the great evil United States.” The article quotes Maduro expressing his faith. He believes the Pope will help keep peace and stability in the country.
The article noted the writer’s irony and doubt about this appeal. It suggested that, in PJ Media’s view, if the Pope truly wanted to help Venezuela, he would support actions that lead to Maduro’s removal. This would help ease the humanitarian crisis.
During the same broadcast, Maduro also stated that Venezuelan security forces stopped a “false flag operation.” He claimed right-wing terrorists tried to plant bombs at the U.S. embassy in Caracas. The embassy has been closed since 2019. Various sources mentioned in the piece estimate only a few lower-level employees remain there.
The article warned that Maduro often makes conspiracy accusations when cornered. It added that no clear public evidence has emerged to support these claims so far.
Brief Analysis and Possible Outcomes
The piece repeated by PJ Media considers Trump’s action. It could initially be a pressure tactic. This would aim to intimidate the regime and its allies. However, the NYT and other analysts cited in the text point to military plans as a real possibility if conditions worsen.
The article reminded readers of recent actions against drug trafficking boats. These marked a turning point in the relationship between the two countries. According to the NYT, the White House is looking at many options. These range from more sanctions to more direct operations.
Anderson concluded in her column that, despite media talk of “military escalation,” the Trump administration does not seem to want endless wars. However, she left open the possibility of harsher measures in the future. This interpretation is presented as the author’s opinion, not as an official White House statement.