Marco Rubio is America’s secretary of state.
But according to a startling new report, his power may now extend far beyond Washington.
Critics of the Trump administration reacted with alarm Saturday after The New York Times reported that Rubio has become the de facto overseer of Venezuela—exercising sweeping influence over the country’s finances, oil revenue and daily government decisions.
The arrangement was described in terms more commonly associated with empire than diplomacy.
Rubio, the report said, is being viewed informally as Venezuela’s “viceroy.”
That word immediately ignited outrage.
A viceroy is not an ordinary diplomat. Historically, it refers to an official who governs a territory on behalf of a distant ruler.
To critics, the comparison captured something deeply troubling: Venezuela may still have an acting president, but Washington reportedly controls the money that keeps her government functioning.
The extraordinary arrangement followed the capture of Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro during a U.S. military operation in January. Maduro was taken to the United States to face charges linked to alleged narco-terrorism.
Since then, Delcy Rodríguez has led the country on an acting basis.
But according to the Times, the real center of power may be thousands of miles away.
The report said Rubio maintains regular contact with Rodríguez and is deeply involved in Venezuela’s daily operations. It also claimed that he effectively controls the country’s finances, the distribution of its natural resources and major government decisions.
The financial system described in the report is especially striking.
Revenue from Venezuelan exports—including petroleum—reportedly flows first through the U.S. Treasury Department.
The money is then returned to Venezuela through private banks.
But there are conditions.
Rubio reportedly holds substantial power over how the funds can be spent, giving Washington enormous leverage over a government that depends on the revenue to pay public workers and support the national currency.
The Times compared the system to parents giving children an allowance.
For critics, that comparison was not merely insulting.
It appeared to expose the depth of Venezuela’s dependence.
Rodríguez may hold the office of acting president, but if her government cannot access its own oil income without approval from the American secretary of state, then questions about sovereignty become impossible to avoid.
Elizabeth Saunders, a political science professor at Columbia University, described the situation as “insane.”
She also called it “derelict, unconscionable, and impeachable.”
Saunders focused not only on the power Rubio reportedly holds, but also on the enormous demands such an arrangement would place on a secretary of state who already oversees American diplomacy around the world.
“The secretary of state’s time is scarce, valuable, and not outsourceable,” she argued.
Her criticism cut in two directions.
First, she questioned whether Rubio should possess such extensive control over another country at all.
Second, she suggested that managing Venezuela’s daily financial and political affairs could distract him from the broader responsibilities of his office.
Rubio’s supporters may view the arrangement as a strategic triumph.
Maduro’s government had long been accused of authoritarianism, corruption and economic mismanagement. Washington spent years imposing sanctions and demanding political reform.
From that perspective, American control over revenue could be defended as a temporary safeguard—one designed to prevent theft, stabilize the country and create leverage for a political transition.
But critics say the reported system appears to have moved far beyond temporary oversight.
Orlando Pérez, a political science professor at the University of North Texas at Dallas, argued that Rubio’s behavior contradicted his long-standing claims about democracy in Venezuela.
Rubio had positioned himself for years as an advocate for replacing Maduro’s authoritarian government with democratic rule.
Now, Pérez said, he appeared to have transformed from a democracy advocate into a practitioner of “transactional realpolitik.”
In other words, democratic ideals may have given way to direct control.
Kenneth Roth, the former executive director of Human Rights Watch, compared the arrangement to colonial rule.
“Trump has turned Venezuela into an effective U.S. colony,” Roth wrote.
He portrayed Rubio as the modern equivalent of an imperial administrator, with Washington controlling oil revenue and dictating major domestic and foreign policies.
Roth argued that democracy had been pushed into the distant future.
Historian Bradley Simpson offered an equally grim comparison.
He said the arrangement resembled the “Dollar Diplomacy” era of the early 20th century, when the United States intervened in Latin American countries and took control of their financial systems.
“We are literally back” in that period, Simpson wrote.
He called the reported structure illegal and corrupt, and questioned why international organizations had not denounced it more forcefully.
The allegations raise fundamental questions about what the United States is trying to accomplish in Venezuela.
Is Washington stabilizing a country after the removal of an authoritarian leader?
Or is it replacing one form of concentrated power with another?
Is Rubio preparing Venezuela for democratic elections?
Or has the United States created a government that survives only through American permission?
The distinction matters.
Democracy cannot be restored simply by changing who controls the money.
It requires legitimate institutions, accountable leadership and a population with the ability to choose its own future.
If Venezuela’s acting government must consult Rubio over budgets, oil income and major decisions, critics argue, then Venezuelans may have little more control over their country than they did before.
The Trump administration may insist that extraordinary measures are necessary during an unstable transition.
But transitions can become permanent.
Temporary authority can harden into occupation.
And financial oversight can become political domination.
Rubio once built his reputation as one of Washington’s loudest advocates for freedom in Latin America.
Now, according to the report, he may wield more direct power over Venezuela than any unelected American official in modern history.
His allies may call that influence.
His critics have another word for it:
Empire.
