A Delcyfied US Foreign Policy
A Spanish translation of the headline today: La Delcyficación de la política exterior de los EE.UU.
Yesterday, while speaking about Iran and the Strait of Hormuz, Donald Trump suggested some form of joint control of the Strait between the US and a new Ayatollah in Iran, ending that comment with: “Look at Venezuela, how well that’s working out.”
Danny Citrinowicz at the Atlantic Council commented, “It’s possible that, despite everything, Trump still views Iran through a ‘Venezuela lens,’ meaning believing there’s a figure in Tehran (Ghalibaf) who can play the role of Delcy Rodríguez and accept U.S. terms to end the fighting.”
I’m going to take the argument to an extreme and say that much of US foreign policy, and definitely US policy in Latin America, has become Delcyfied. Trump views the operation in Venezuela that left Delcy Rodriguez in charge as his single biggest foreign policy success. He regularly praises Delcy and how well things are going in Venezuela. He views himself as controlling the country of Venezuela, even suggesting statehood in recent weeks, and Delcy as one of the people who answers to him. And having “succeeded” in Venezuela by his own standards, the US president now wants similar subservient leaders in other countries who allow the US to make/veto policy decisions, accept US terms on economic negotiations, and even allow US military operations within their territories.
As I wrote last week regarding Cuba, the idea of Delcy has become a meme, a caricature of the Venezuelan interim president and her policies. Yet, this goes beyond the widely discussed questions of who is the Delcy of Iran or who is the Delcy of Cuba. Yes, Trump wants regime change in those countries and others to lead to a Delcy-like leader. But just as importantly, he wants other allied leaders to act more like Delcy1. This was somewhat true before this year, but now that he has Delcy as an example, he is leaning even more on those allies.
So who is the next Delcy? I’m watching Milei, Bukele, Asfura, Noboa, and Peña as top choices. Trump really likes them. More importantly, all five are quite good at sucking up to Trump, and arguably, all five need Trump to succeed economically. Trump has leverage, and he is going to demand fealty. Noboa, in particular, seems to be playing up his role as “Ecuador’s Delcy” as key to his own political future. Mulino, Fernandez, and Paz are in slightly different positions, but could also be pushed into this category of “right-wing Delcys” in the coming year if Trump decides to focus on them. In terms of hypothetical leaders who have not yet been elected, watch how Trump treats Paloma Valencia and Flavio Bolsonaro. Trump will want “regime change” in Colombia and Brazil to come with a leader who follows his orders.
What I just wrote feels ugly. It is an insult to sovereignty in Latin America. I’d like to think that any or all of these leaders would read these words with revulsion and would fight against them. But they won’t publicly. Because, as the recent Shield of the Americas Summit showed, Trump is succeeding in molding his allies in the region into mini-Delcys, and they are all afraid to push back in any way. The bigger point is that even as commentators ask who the next Delcy is in an antagonistic country where regime change is plausible, they should be asking whether Trump’s allies are all becoming more Delcy-like.
One risk to Trump’s Delcyfied geopolitical strategy is that the economic damage from the war in Iran undermines the entire so-called “shift to the right” political framework in the region that is giving Trump his army of mini-Delcys. Inflation and energy prices are rising and each of these leaders is likely to face political challenges at home. As I wrote last Thursday, when the economic realities overwhelm the benefits of security populism, being an ally of Trump in 2026 is about to become more politically costly than it was in 2025.
The ironic exception to that will be in Venezuela, where Delcy Rodriguez benefits from higher oil prices and will use that economic boom to consolidate control.
Footnote: The fact that so many leaders in Europe plus the prime minister of Canada refuse to act this way is a source of frustration, causing him to lash out in anger.