Truthout75%

Report Reveals Marco Rubio Is Acting as Imperial “Viceroy” of Venezuela 80%

By Brad Reed0%

7/11/2026, 11:14:06 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 3 faulty reasoning types, including Framing Effect and Attempt to Sell a Product or Service, with Politically Left Leaning Bias as the most egregious example at 26% saturation with 141 hits. Analysis detected 258 faulty-reasoning hits from 543 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 73.3% and a BS Rank of 80% (3,141 of 15,051 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 79.10% of the article peer group.

United States Secretary of State Marco Rubio attends a press conference during the 2026 NATO Ankara Summit in Ankara, Turkey, on July 8, 2026. 
Beata Zawrzel / NurPhoto via Getty Images 
Support justice-driven, accurate and transparent news  make a quick donation to Truthout today! 
Some critics of the Trump administration are reacting with horror to revelations that US Secretary of State Marco Rubio has been serving as the de facto ruler of Venezuela . 
According to a Saturday report in The New York Times , Rubio for the last several months has been acting informally as the “viceroy” of Venezuela ever since its recognized president, Nicolás Maduro, was abducted by the American military in January and brought to the US to face charges related to  narco-terrorism .” 
The Times  sources revealed that Rubio “effectively controls Venezuela’s finances, the distribution of its natural resources, and its government” and “is deeply involved in the country’s day-to-day operations,” while maintaining regular contact with acting Venezuelan President Delcy Rodríguez. 
Under current arrangements, the US Treasury Department takes in revenue from Venezuela’s exports, including its petroleum, and then disperses the money back to the country through its private banks with strict conditions set by Rubio over what it can be spent on. 
In explaining the system, the Times likened it to “parents handing out allowances to children ,” adding that it gives Rubio “immense leverage over… Rodríguez, who depends on the money to pay workers and prop up the national currency.” 
Elizabeth Saunders, professor of political science at Columbia University , described Rubio’s power over Venezuela as “insane,” as well as “derelict, unconscionable, and impeachable.” 
“The secretary of state’s time is scarce, valuable, and not outsourcable,” Saunders emphasized. 
Orlando J. 
Pérez, professor of Political Science at the University of North Texas at Dallas, said the Times report made a mockery of Rubio’s professed claims to want to bring democracy back to Venezuela. 
“It appears Rubio has transformed from democracy promotion warrior,” Pérez commented , “to transactional realpolitik operative!” 
Kenneth Roth, former executive director at Human Rights Watch, wrote that US control over Venezuela appeared similar to the kind of imperial power wielded by European nations in the 19th Century. 
“Trump has turned Venezuela into an effective US colony,” said Roth, “with Marco Rubio as the viceroy and Washington controlling the country’s oil revenue and dictating major foreign and domestic policies. 
Democracy has been relegated to the distant future.” 
Bradley Simpson, historian at the University of Connecticut, also saw the current US arrangement with Venezuela as a return to overt imperialism . 
“We are literally back in the Dollar Diplomacy days of the 1910s,” Simpson wrote , “when the United States invaded countries and took over their financial systems and ran them as effective colonies. 
Flagrantly illegal, enormously corrupt. 
Where is the organization of American states or UN in denouncing this?” 
Media that fights fascism 
Truthout is funded almost entirely by readers  that’s why we can speak truth to power and cut against the mainstream narrative. 
But independent journalists at Truthout face mounting political repression under Trump. 
We rely on your support to survive McCarthyist censorship. 
Please make a tax-deductible one-time or monthly donation. 
Confirmation Bias
0%
Anchoring Bias
0%
Availability Heuristic
0%
Representativeness Heuristic
0%
Hindsight Bias
0%
Overconfidence Bias
0%
Framing Effect
17.5%
Loss Aversion
0%
Status Quo Bias
0%
Sunk Cost Effect
0%
Optimism Bias
0%
Pessimism Bias
0%
Negativity Bias
0%
Self-Serving Bias
0%
Fundamental Attribution Error
0%
Actor-Observer Bias
0%
In-Group Bias
0%
Out-Group Homogeneity Bias
0%
Halo Effect
0%
Horn Effect
0%
Dunning-Kruger Effect
0%
Recency Bias
0%
Primacy Effect
0%
Blind-Spot Bias
0%
Ad Hominem
0%
Straw Man
0%
Appeal to Authority
0%
False Dilemma
0%
Slippery Slope
0%
Circular Reasoning
0%
Hasty Generalization
0%
Red Herring
0%
Bandwagon
0%
Appeal to Emotion
0%
Begging the Question
0%
Post Hoc (False Cause)
0%
Tu Quoque
0%
Burden of Proof
0%
Appeal to Nature
0%
Composition/Division
0%
Anecdotal
0%
No True Scotsman
0%
Ambiguity (Equivocation)
0%
Gambler’s Fallacy
0%
Middle Ground
0%
Personal Incredulity
0%
Special Pleading
0%
Genetic Fallacy
0%
Unattributed Quote
0%
Quote-first Misdirection
0%
Biased Writer Voice
0%
Indoctrination
0%
Politically Left Leaning Bias
26%
Politically Right Leaning Bias
0%
Attempt to Sell a Product or Service
4.1%

543 words analyzed.

Speakers

6speakers65%attributed speech188writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Selected voice

Truthout

100%flagged-word coverage
50 attributed words14% of attributed speech60% writer coverage
Politically Left Leaning Bias+31.3 pts
Writer 53%Truthout 84%
Attempt to Sell a Product or Service+8.6 pts
Writer 7.4%Truthout 16%

Attribution is sentence-level. Pattern percentages are calculated only from words assigned to that voice.

Analysis

Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.