Truthout⁠74%

Report Reveals Marco Rubio Is Acting as Imperial “Viceroy” of Venezuela ⁠82%

By Brad Reed⁠93%

7/11/2026, 4:14:06 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 30 faulty reasoning types, including Appeal to Authority, Appeal to Emotion, and Quote-first Misdirection, with Negativity Bias as the most egregious example at 55.6% saturation with 302 hits. Analysis detected 1,913 faulty-reasoning hits from 543 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 73.3% and a BS Rank of ⁠82% (4,064 of 21,887 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 81.40% 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. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 19.9%Brad Reed: 6.2%Truthout: 5.8%Confirmation Bias19.9%This article: 0.0%Brad Reed: 0.0%Truthout: 0.8%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 15.5%Brad Reed: 3.8%Truthout: 3.4%Availability Heuristic15.5%This article: 0.0%Brad Reed: 0.0%Truthout: 0.9%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Brad Reed: 1.2%Truthout: 0.4%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 7.2%Brad Reed: 5.9%Truthout: 1.3%Overconfidence Bias7.2%This article: 12.2%Brad Reed: 24.8%Truthout: 10.0%Framing Effect12.2%This article: 1.7%Brad Reed: 0.2%Truthout: 0.5%Loss Aversion1.7%This article: 0.0%Brad Reed: 0.6%Truthout: 0.4%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 4.1%Brad Reed: 0.4%Truthout: 0.2%Sunk Cost Effect4.1%This article: 0.0%Brad Reed: 0.0%Truthout: 1.0%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 7.2%Brad Reed: 3.3%Truthout: 2.3%Pessimism Bias7.2%This article: 55.6%Brad Reed: 14.3%Truthout: 12.2%Negativity Bias55.6%This article: 4.1%Brad Reed: 1.1%Truthout: 0.9%Self-Serving Bias4.1%This article: 2.2%Brad Reed: 1.9%Truthout: 1.4%Fundamental Attribution Error2.2%This article: 0.0%Brad Reed: 0.2%Truthout: 0.2%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.7%Brad Reed: 4.1%Truthout: 1.9%In-Group Bias0.7%This article: 0.0%Brad Reed: 0.7%Truthout: 0.7%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Brad Reed: 0.0%Truthout: 1.0%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Brad Reed: 0.0%Truthout: 0.3%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Brad Reed: 0.0%Truthout: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 8.1%Brad Reed: 1.4%Truthout: 1.2%Recency Bias8.1%This article: 2.4%Brad Reed: 0.2%Truthout: 0.3%Primacy Effect2.4%This article: 0.0%Brad Reed: 0.0%Truthout: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Brad Reed: 4.1%Truthout: 1.6%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Brad Reed: 1.7%Truthout: 0.5%Straw Man0.0%This article: 39.8%Brad Reed: 9.6%Truthout: 3.7%Appeal to Authority39.8%This article: 2.9%Brad Reed: 2.0%Truthout: 1.9%False Dilemma2.9%This article: 5.7%Brad Reed: 3.1%Truthout: 1.5%Slippery Slope5.7%This article: 0.0%Brad Reed: 0.4%Truthout: 0.3%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 2.8%Brad Reed: 13.2%Truthout: 7.7%Hasty Generalization2.8%This article: 0.0%Brad Reed: 0.0%Truthout: 0.3%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Brad Reed: 1.3%Truthout: 0.6%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 38.9%Brad Reed: 15.1%Truthout: 8.8%Appeal to Emotion38.9%This article: 1.5%Brad Reed: 3.5%Truthout: 1.7%Begging the Question1.5%This article: 4.1%Brad Reed: 0.6%Truthout: 3.0%Post Hoc (False Cause)4.1%This article: 0.0%Brad Reed: 0.0%Truthout: 0.2%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 7.7%Brad Reed: 0.7%Truthout: 0.8%Burden of Proof7.7%This article: 0.0%Brad Reed: 0.0%Truthout: 0.1%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 6.1%Brad Reed: 0.6%Truthout: 0.4%Composition/Division6.1%This article: 7.2%Brad Reed: 1.6%Truthout: 2.7%Anecdotal7.2%This article: 0.0%Brad Reed: 0.0%Truthout: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 19.7%Brad Reed: 2.6%Truthout: 1.5%Ambiguity (Equivocation)19.7%This article: 0.0%Brad Reed: 0.0%Truthout: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Brad Reed: 0.0%Truthout: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Brad Reed: 0.0%Truthout: 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Brad Reed: 0.0%Truthout: 0.1%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Brad Reed: 0.8%Truthout: 0.3%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 24.3%Brad Reed: 3.7%Truthout: 1.5%Unattributed Quote24.3%This article: 24.7%Brad Reed: 3.8%Truthout: 1.6%Quote-first Misdirection24.7%This article: 9.6%Brad Reed: 11.1%Truthout: 9.5%Biased Writer Voice9.6%This article: 4.2%Brad Reed: 2.1%Truthout: 2.9%Indoctrination4.2%This article: 2.8%Brad Reed: 15.3%Truthout: 7.2%Politically Left Leaning Bias2.8%This article: 0.0%Brad Reed: 2.4%Truthout: 0.3%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 9.8%Brad Reed: 2.8%Truthout: 1.3%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…9.8%

543 words analyzed.

Speakers

7speakers78%attributed speech120writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 11 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 24 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 7 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 30 words • 100.0% coverageThe New York Times • 54 words • 100.0% coverageThe New York Times • 39 words • 100.0% coverageUS Treasury Department • 42 words • 0.0% coverageThe New York Times • 39 words • 100.0% coverageElizabeth Saunders • 24 words • 100.0% coverageElizabeth Saunders • 13 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 2 words • 0.0% coverageOrlando J. Pérez • 32 words • 0.0% coverageOrlando J. Pérez • 16 words • 100.0% coverageKenneth Roth • 31 words • 0.0% coverageKenneth Roth • 31 words • 100.0% coverageKenneth Roth • 8 words • 0.0% coverageBradley Simpson • 23 words • 0.0% coverageBradley Simpson • 33 words • 100.0% coverageBradley Simpson • 4 words • 0.0% coverageBradley Simpson • 12 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 4 words • 100.0% coverageTruthout • 22 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 9 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 8 words • 100.0% coverage
Selected voice

Truthout

100%flagged-word coverage
22 attributed words5.2% of attributed speech73% writer coverage
0%50.0%100.0%Biased Writer Voice+75.0 ptsWriter: 25.0%Truthout: 100.0%100.0%Attempt to Sell a Product +74.2 ptsWriter: 25.8%Truthout: 100.0%100.0%Quote-first Misdirection-25.0 ptsWriter: 25.0%Truthout: 0.0%0.0%Indoctrination-19.2 ptsWriter: 19.2%Truthout: 0.0%0.0%Politically Left Leaning B-12.5 ptsWriter: 12.5%Truthout: 0.0%0.0%

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

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

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