Delcy Rodríguez, presidenta encargada de Venezuela, afirmó este jueves que “la agresión invasora” llevada a cabo por Estados Unidos contra el país el pasado 3 de enero constituye “una mancha en la relación entre ambas naciones”, y agregó que, en el contexto político actual, su gobierno “ha decidido escoger la vía diplomática” para dirimir el conflicto. “Tenemos derecho a tener relaciones diplomáticas con China, con Rusia, con Irán, con Cuba, con todos los pueblos del mundo. También con los Estados Unidos. Somos una nación soberana”, añadió.

Rodríguez hizo estas afirmaciones durante la presentación anual de la gestión del Ejecutivo ante el Parlamento, un ritual constitucional que se celebra a comienzos de cada año en el Palacio Federal Legislativo. A la sesión han acudido varios embajadores extranjeros, gobernadores y autoridades del chavismo.

La presidenta encargada, que en sus últimas declaraciones ha señalado que el país se abre a un “nuevo momento político”, dedicó buena parte de su intervención a honrar a Nicolás Maduro y Cilia Flores, capturados durante la operación estadounidense del 3 de enero, y a elevar la moral de la militancia revolucionaria tras el ataque. Rodríguez se comprometió nuevamente con la lealtad a los principios fundamentales del chavismo. “Este trabajo es del presidente Maduro, afirmó al presentar el documento.

Rodríguez prometió trabajar por la liberación de Maduro y Flores y pidió “un minuto de aplausos” para los soldados venezolanos y cubanos que murieron en los enfrentamientos con tropas estadounidenses. “No le tengamos miedo a la contradicción planteada. Vamos a enfrentarla”, dijo en referencia a los acuerdos petroleros con Estados Unidos anunciados por el propio Donald Trump tras la detención de la pareja presidencial.

Tanto Delcy Rodríguez como su hermano Jorge Rodríguez, presidente del Parlamento, emplearon un tono conciliador hacia la oposición. Ambos invocaron la importancia de fomentar la convivencia política y asumieron, al menos de forma parcial, la responsabilidad de trabajar para consolidar un mejor clima en el país.

Rodríguez advirtió a la oposición: “No confundan las medidas sustitutivas tomadas con algunas personas judicializadas y nuestro interés en bajarle la presión al clima político con debilidad. No se equivoquen con esto. Es hora de desterrar el extremismo fascista. Vamos a rectificar todos”. Rodríguez agregó además: “No es que la presidenta encargada tenga miedo porque esté amenazada. No. Venezuela entera está amenazada y, con la soberanía por delante, daremos la batalla diplomática”.

La presidenta encargada criticó los fundamentos históricos de la diplomacia estadounidense y comentó que, históricamente, la nación norteamericana ha maniobrado e intrigado abiertamente para ampliar su radio de influencia en América Latina, socavar su independencia y traficar con sus recursos naturales. “La doctrina Monroe y el bolivarianismo que nosotros postulamos y defendemos son proyectos completamente opuestos, son antítesis”, afirmó.

En una alusión directa a las recientes conversaciones entre Donald Trump y la líder de la oposición venezolana, María Corina Machado, Rodríguez comentó: “Si algún día me tocara ir como presidenta encargada a Washington, lo haré con dignidad, de pie, caminando con la frente en alto y con la bandera tricolor. Será de pie, nunca será arrastrándome”.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced a significant shift in how it assesses air pollution standards. From now on, the agency will still recognize and describe the impacts of pollution on human health — such as premature deaths avoided or reduced respiratory disease — but those effects will no longer be translated into economic figures in cost-benefit analyses. Instead, regulatory assessments will focus on the costs businesses face in complying with environmental standards.

The decision affects regulations on fine particulate matter (PM₂.₅) and ground-level ozone, two of the most dangerous and widespread pollutants in the country, and has provoked a strong reaction from public health experts, scientists, and environmental organizations.

The change, initially revealed by The New York Times and confirmed in recent regulatory documents, is part of the approach to environmental policy under the Donald Trump administration, characterized by prioritizing industrial interests and paying less attention to various regulations designed to protect public health and the environment.

EPA officials argue that the modification does not imply ignoring the effects of pollution, but rather recognizing the limitations of the economic models used to date. In official communications, the agency has insisted that “not monetizing does not equate to not considering or valuing the impact on human health.” EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin said the agency will still take into account lives saved when setting pollution limits, but without assigning a dollar value to them.

For decades, monetizing health benefits was a pillar of the EPA’s regulatory approach. By estimating the economic value of avoided hospitalizations, workdays not lost, and premature deaths prevented, the agency was able to demonstrate that air quality standards generated net benefits of billions of dollars, even when the costs to industry were high.

Under the Biden administration, for example, the EPA calculated that tightening limits on PM₂.₅ could prevent up to 4,500 premature deaths and 290,000 lost workdays by 2032. According to those estimates, for every dollar invested in reducing this pollutant, the health benefits could reach up to $77.

The current administration believes that these figures convey a false sense of accuracy. In a recent economic impact analysis, the EPA argued that its previous assessments gave the public excessive confidence in the monetized benefits of reducing PM₂.₅ and ozone, despite scientific uncertainties, especially in a context of overall declining emissions.

To “correct this error,” the document states, the agency will stop monetizing the benefits associated with these pollutants until it has models that it considers more reliable.

Concerns intensified following the publication of a new standard on nitrogen oxide (NOx) emissions from gas turbines in power plants. Although these pollutants contribute to the formation of smog and fine particles associated with heart and lung disease, the final version of the rule is less stringent than the one proposed during the Biden administration and, in some cases, weakens protections that have been in place for two decades. The analysis accompanying the rule does not include any economic assessment of the health benefits of reducing pollution.

Warnings

Scientists and public health experts emphasize that the effects of PM₂.₅ and ozone are well documented. Fine particles can penetrate deep into the lungs and bloodstream, increasing the risk of asthma, cardiovascular disease, lung cancer, and premature death. Recent studies also link exposure to PM₂.₅ with low birth weight and other health problems.

Although air quality in the United States has improved since the passage of the Clean Air Act in 1970, pockets of pollution persist, especially in low-income and minority communities, which already bear disproportionate burdens of disease.

Some experts note that the legal impact of the change remains to be seen. The Clean Air Act requires that national air quality standards be based on public health criteria, not economic costs. Although the EPA will continue to quantify health impacts, eliminating their monetary translation could lead to more litigation and leave courts with incomplete assessments.

Concerns have also arisen internationally. For years, EPA methods have served as a global benchmark for assessing the costs and benefits of air pollution. Abandoning the monetization of health impacts, experts warn, could weaken environmental standards in other countries.

Sign up for our weekly newsletter to get more English-language news coverage from EL PAÍS USA Edition

Twelve days after the U.S. military operation that captured Venezuelan president Nicolás Maduro and his wife, and just days after U.S. President Donald Trump dashed the hopes of opposition leader and Nobel Peace Prize winner María Corina Machado, the two met at the White House on Thursday.

The meeting between Trump and Machado comes just hours after the U.S. president told reporters that Chavista leader and interim president, Delcy Rodríguez, was a “terrific person.” “She’s somebody that we’ve worked with very well,” said Trump. Following Maduro’s arrest, the former vice president took charge of Venezuela with the blessing of the White House.

In the hours following the surprise attack that ended with Maduro and his wife, Cecilia Flores, sitting in the dock of a federal court in New York accused of crimes of “narco-terrorism,” conspiracy and trafficking in cocaine and weapons, Trump made it clear that he does not consider Machado to be the right person to lead a transition in Venezuela — a transition in which Trump himself has reserved a central role.

White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt said Thursday that Trump was “looking forward” to meeting Machado, who she described as “a remarkable and brave voice for many of the people of Venezuela.” But when asked shortly afterward whether Trump still believes Machado is not the right person to lead Venezuela’s political transition because she lacks the “support and respect” of the population, Leavitt replied: “It was a realistic assessment […] and at this moment in time, his opinion on that matter has not changed.”

That was the big question surrounding Machado’s visit: will she be able to assert the opposition’s role in Washington’s plans to help steer the South American country and take charge of its oil? But the meeting, which was over in just two hours, was a discreet, low‑profile encounter. Leavitt’s statement that Trump’s view “has not changed” was another cold dose of reality.

Leavitt also responded to press questions about Trump administration contacts with Delcy Rodríguez. She said that Trump spoke to Rodríguez this week, and that Secretary of State Marco Rubio and other officials “have been in constant communication” with her and other members of the interim government in Venezuela.

“They have been extremely cooperative. They have thus far met all of the demands and requests of the United States and of the president. And I think you have all seen that play out,” Leavitt said. “We obviously had a $500 million energy deal that was struck in large part because of the cooperation from Ms. Rodríguez. The president likes what he’s seeing and we’ll expect that cooperation to continue.”

Since Maduro’s fall, Machado has tried to put on a brave face about Trump’s rebuffs and has worked to make this Thursday’s meeting happen, on which much was at stake: she needed to convince the U.S. president that it was not a good idea to allow Rodríguez, her great enemy, to remain in power. For months, Machado advocated for a military intervention that finally came on January 3 — only to be disappointed that the U.S. had not relied on her as much as she had expected.

Machado even showed herself willing to share the Nobel Peace Prize she received in Oslo last December with Trump, even though the Nobel Committee has already warned both of them that it is not transferable. The U.S. president is obsessed with the idea that he deserves that award, believing he has ended “eight or nine wars,” although that belief is another indication of his fraught relationship with the truth. After the meeting, Machado told the press that she had indeed “presented” the prize to Trump, who rarely even calls her by name when speaking about the Venezuelan opposition leader. “I presented the president of the United States the medal of the Nobel Peace Prize,” Machado told journalists, calling it “a recognition for his unique commitment with our freedom.”

Trump’s decision to sideline Machado gives the impression that the White House has chosen to turn the page on the results of Venezuela’s 2024 presidential election, which international reports say was broadly won by Edmundo González Urrutia, Machado’s candidate (she was unable to run because she was disqualified). Maduro refused to acknowledge that defeat.

At this point, it’s unclear whether the United States plans to call new elections in Venezuela, or when or how that might take place. All of these questions will certainly be on the table this Thursday at the White House.

Sign up for our weekly newsletter to get more English-language news coverage from EL PAÍS USA Edition