Connect with us

News

Why fintech upstarts have failed to unseat UK banks

Published

on

Why fintech upstarts have failed to unseat UK banks

In a 2018 letter to new staff members, digital bank Monzo outlined a lofty series of ambitions. The company said it aimed “to do for personal finance what Facebook has done for keeping up with your friends, or Google for finding information”.

The company, barely three years old at the time, also set a “long-term goal” of reaching a billion customers worldwide. Alongside a new cohort of challengers that also included Starling and Revolut, it was on a mission to usurp “legacy” banks, particularly the Big Four of HSBC, Barclays, Lloyds and NatWest that dominate the UK market.

A decade after these fintechs burst on to the scene, they have arguably succeeded in their mission of setting new standards for digital banking; features such as foreign currency transactions and bill-splitting, along with reliable, smartphone-friendly technology, are loved by younger customers.

“They have been amazing at challenging some of the norms in the industry,” says Tom Merry, a partner at consultancy Accenture.

But they are now being tested in a downturn. The plentiful venture capital that financed their heady growth — globally, the sector attracted $102bn in investment in 2021 — is drying up. Yet they are still burning through cash to acquire new customers while higher interest rates are driving increased competition for consumer deposits.

Advertisement

You are seeing a snapshot of an interactive graphic. This is most likely due to being offline or JavaScript being disabled in your browser.

Traditional high-street banks have raised their game by upgrading their own digital banking services, with the result that about 60 per cent of adults living in Britain now use a mobile banking app, up from 33 per cent in 2015, according to trade body UK Finance

Critics say consumers are using neobanks as a convenient payment management service, rather than as a replacement for traditional current accounts.

Investors in fintechs are increasingly scrutinising the neobanks’ differing business models and assets, looking for proof they can be durably profitable and attract sufficient deposits to fund lending.

Their managers are working out alternative ways to generate revenue, including monetising data and licensing technology to others.

Advertisement

“Are neobanks an evolution or are they a revolution? They feel like an evolution,” says Tom Mendoza, fintech partner at EQT venture.

“Many of them are good companies but they will not fundamentally disrupt the fabric of retail banking.”


Launched within a year of each other between 2014 and 2015, the UK’s three leading digital challengers all benefited from ready access to venture capital funding.

The companies quickly reached “unicorn” status — defined as a private valuation of above $1bn — and valuations ballooned higher still during the mania for tech stocks. Revolut became the UK’s top fintech in 2021 after a funding round led by Japanese investment group SoftBank implied a $33bn valuation, though two of its investors last year reduced the carrying values of their stakes.

All have enjoyed a decade of rapid growth in customer numbers but pursued increasingly differentiated strategies.

Advertisement

Revolut is Europe’s largest neobank with 40mn customers worldwide. It has opted for rapid expansion across multiple markets and attracted users with a broad suite of services including multi-currency current accounts, cheap foreign exchange and cryptocurrency trading.

The fintech is based in London, where its offices are emblazoned with neon signs exhorting staff to “get shit done”, but licensed as a bank in Lithuania. Its application for a licence in the UK, its single biggest market, has been stalled for more than three years; the departure of several senior executives and a warning from auditors that it may have “materially misstated” its revenues on its 2021 accounts have not helped.

Anne Boden, chief executive of Starling
Anne Boden, chief executive of Starling. Its focus on banking for small businesses has helped it to reach an almost 10 per cent share of that market © Geoff Caddick/AFP/Getty Images

Starling and Monzo secured UK banking licences in 2016 and 2017, respectively. But the two banks, which split from the same company following a row between founders Anne Boden and Tom Blomfield, have also pursued divergent paths.

Monzo has focused on retail customers, while Starling has also expanded into banking for small businesses and built up a 9 per cent share of that market. 

Starling is also the only one of the three that is currently profitable, posting a £195mn pre-tax profit in the year to March 2023. Monzo and Revolut say they expect to do so in their next set of accounts.

Profitability has moved to the top of the agenda for the sector as higher interest rates and an investment slowdown in the last two years forced companies to drop their “growth at all costs” mindset.

Advertisement

Global fintech investment has dropped by nearly 50 per cent in 2023 compared with the previous year, according to trade body Innovate Finance.

Neobanks have undeniably achieved one of their mission statements: making digital banking easy. Their designed-for-mobile interfaces attracted a new generation of customers while clever graphics, clear copywriting and intuitive budgeting tools helped foster transparency around personal finance.

Features such as the ability to split bills, temporarily freeze bank cards, move money and get payment notifications in real time within an app have become staples of modern-day banking.

You are seeing a snapshot of an interactive graphic. This is most likely due to being offline or JavaScript being disabled in your browser.

Unlike traditional banks, whose IT often comprised multiple layers of mostly server-based systems, further complicated by mergers and acquisitions, fintechs have relied on newer, cloud-based applications.

They were also run like start-ups. Managers encouraged staff to move quickly to build and test new products. Lucas Johnston, a former software engineer at Starling and Monzo who now works in the FT’s consulting arm, recalls the nascent industry embracing “the Silicon Valley mantra of constantly talking to customers and iterating on [their] products”.

Advertisement

“That, combined with a relatively young team typically from a tech background working with a modern tech stack, meant that they found the core features that consumers wanted,” he says. 

Within a few years of existence, the new banks had forced some of the nation’s largest and oldest financial institutions to pour millions of pounds into the development of their own apps in order to compete with their younger peers. The big banks not only borrowed some of the fintechs’ flagship features, they also poached staff from their ranks.

“The progress that has been made by the incumbent high street banks would not have happened absent the intervention that these neobanks have made,” says Merry.

But the ability to quickly open accounts and make transfers has also proved a boon for criminals. Britons lost £1.2bn to financial fraud last year, according to trade body UK Finance, with experts pointing to the country’s digitised banking industry as a factor.

The start-ups struggled to scale up their anti-financial crime capacities at the same speed they were attracting new users, while a wave of new sanctions imposed after Russia’s 2021 invasion of Ukraine increased the amount of due diligence banks had to conduct on new customers.

Advertisement

The Financial Conduct Authority in 2022 warned that a spike in “suspicious activity reports” to the National Crime Agency had raised “concerns about the adequacy of [neobanks’] checks when taking on new customers”. The year before, the watchdog launched an investigation into Monzo over potential breaches of financial crime regulations. 

“There cannot be a trade-off between quick and easy account opening and robust financial crime control,” FCA executive director Sarah Pritchard said at the time. 

Tom Blomfield co-founded Monzo in 2015
Tom Blomfield co-founded Monzo in 2015. Higher interest rates and a recent investment slowdown has forced fintechs to drop their ‘growth at all costs’ mindsets © Charlie Bibby/Financial Times

A separate report from the UK’s Payment Systems Regulator said that Monzo and Starling had some of the highest fraud rates in 2022, with only 6 per cent of those who reported fraud to Monzo fully reimbursed by the bank — compared to 44 per cent for Starling, 70 per cent for NatWest and 91 per cent for Nationwide.

Revolut’s compliance has also raised concerns. A flaw in its payment system in the US allowed criminals to steal more than $20mn of company funds over several months in 2022, the FT has previously reported.

The FCA has also investigated Revolut over allegations it allowed money to be released from accounts flagged by the National Crime Agency as suspicious.


The push for profitability will require the challengers to tweak their business models away from simply acquiring more customers.

Advertisement

“The neobanks recognise they will not survive at scale and be sustainably profitable without a two-sided balance sheet [with loans and deposits] that’s deep, but they are not there yet,” said Accenture’s Merry.

Conventional banks have traditionally offered current accounts at little or no profit to attract customers and provide deposits that can then be recycled into mortgages and personal loans.

The differential between the interest paid on those deposits and that charged on loans — the so-called net interest margin — underpins their profits. Customers are also upsold other products, such as credit cards, insurance and investment services.

£1.2bnAmount Britons lost to financial fraud last year, according to trade body UK Finance

By contrast, and despite attempts to push into new areas including buy-to-let mortgages for Starling and passive investing for Monzo, fintechs still derive most of their revenue from transaction fees and interest on cash deposited with central banks.

Advertisement

“Outside of the current account, there hasn’t really been any other game-changing propositions [from neobanks],” says Julian Sawyer, who co-founded Starling but left the bank in 2019 and now works in crypto.

Many of their customers still rely on a traditional bank account to receive salary payments, then use the convenient functionality of a neobank to manage payments.

Jayne Opperman, chief executive of consumer relationships at Lloyds Banking Group, says that while many Lloyds customers hold multiple bank accounts, they still want “a trusted bank” and tend to rely on the legacy institutions for big life transactions such as buying a home.

Investors are closely watching the fintechs’ shares of “primary bank accounts” — typically those that receive salary payments. An FCA review in 2022 estimated that UK neobanks had a market share of about 8 per cent of personal current accounts.

But the same review found that relative to big banks, a smaller proportion of those were primary accounts. “This results in lower balances, lower volumes of transactions, and lower overdraft usage [leading] to lower funding benefits and less scope to generate fee income.”

Advertisement

Fintechs downplay the importance of primacy. Revolut’s head of growth, Antoine Le Nel, says that while “we may not have too many people bringing their salaries . . . we have a lot of people who move all their money to Revolut the day after”.

Its customers move about £2,000 to their Revolut account every month, Le Nel says. The company estimates that more than a third of its customers use Revolut as their primary bank account for day-to-day payments.

Revolut chief executive Nikolay Storonsky
Revolut chief executive Nikolay Storonsky. The digital bank is thinking of diversifying its revenue sources by moving into areas such as advertising © Charlie Bibby/FT

Monzo chief executive TS Anil told the FT in March that while it does not publish the percentage of salaries paid into its current accounts, “the quality of engagement” of its users was “off the charts” relative to the UK market.

Monzo and Starling rank ahead of other banks when it comes to how likely customers would be to recommend them to friends and families, according to an industry-wide survey conducted by Ipsos.

“Whether you look at weekly transactions, bank retention, customer love, net promoter score, it’s no accident that the largest share of our user growth comes from word of mouth and organic channels,” said Anil.

Even if digital banks can convince customers to trust them with a larger portion of their money, they will have to contend with wider structural changes in the UK banking market.

Advertisement

Analysts say that customers who would once have relied on a single institution for many of their financial needs — a frequent quip used to be that Britons were more likely to change their spouse than their bank — are increasingly using a potpourri of services from various providers.

One person may use Starling or Monzo to buy groceries while holding a mortgage with NatWest, sending cross-border payments via listed fintech Wise and trading crypto on Revolut.

60%Percentage of adults living in Britain that now use a mobile banking app, up from 33 per cent in 2015

Neobanks are also rushing to explore new sources of revenue beyond the traditional business of banking. Starling is betting that franchising its technological knowhow will boost its valuation, Monzo is expanding into the US, while Revolut is diversifying into areas such as advertising.

In addition to the reinvigoration of high-street banks, fintechs are also facing competition from digital challenger Chase UK, which has attracted more than 2mn customers since its launch in 2021 by offering market-leading interest rates, cashback promotions and a slick app.

Advertisement

Backed by US banking giant JPMorgan Chase, it is expected to launch a credit card this year and expand into Europe. Chief executive Kuba Fast says Chase UK was in “a unique position”, able to offer a fintech-like experience “with the reassurance of an established and trusted bank”.

Merry considers it unlikely that a large bank would acquire a fintech, even though their valuations have moderated. A purchaser would have to put in heavy investment, and the operational risks of adapting tech platforms designed for a smaller pool of customers and business lines to a wider product range and many more clients would be significant, he says.

Alex Barkley, head of strategic partnerships at HSBC Ventures, agrees most big banks would not want to write “a cheque that large”. Listing a fintech on the stock market would also be difficult, given that most still lose money and that the share price performance of challenger banks such as Metro has been poor.

Sir Ron Kalifa, who authored a government-commissioned review into the competitiveness of fintech in the UK, says collaboration between big banks and fintechs would benefit the industry as this would allow the latter to combine their tech and agility with the scale, customer bases and regulatory expertise of traditional banks.

But others argue that the main beneficiaries of the investment that has poured into fintechs have been consumers. “It’s silly to suggest that neobanks have materially challenged the hegemony of traditional institutions,” says Barkley.

Advertisement

“Arguably, their only lasting impact is pushing big banks to improve their own digital platforms.”

News

Cuba says 32 Cuban fighters killed in US raids on Venezuela

Published

on

Cuba says 32 Cuban fighters killed in US raids on Venezuela

Havana declares two days of mourning for the Cubans killed in US operation to abduct Nicolas Maduro.

Cuba has announced the death of 32 ⁠of its ​citizens during the United States military operation to abduct and detain Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro and his wife in Caracas.

Havana said on Sunday that there would be two days of mourning on ‌January 5 and ‌6 in ⁠honour of those killed and that ‌funeral arrangements would be announced.

Recommended Stories

list of 4 itemsend of list

The state-run Prensa Latina agency said the Cuban “fighters” were killed while “carrying out missions” on behalf of the country’s military, at the request of the Venezuelan government.

The agency said the slain Cubans “fell in direct combat against the attackers or as a result of the bombing of the facilities” after offering “fierce resistance”.

Advertisement

Cuba is a close ally of Venezuela’s government, and has sent military and police forces to assist in operations in the Latin American country for years.

Maduro and his wife have been flown to New York following the US operation to face prosecution on drug-related charges. The 63-year-old Venezuelan leader is due to appear in court on Monday.

He has previously denied criminal involvement.

Images of Maduro blindfolded and handcuffed by US forces have stunned Venezuelans.

Venezuelan Minister of Defence General Vladimir Padrino said on state television that the US attack killed soldiers, civilians and a “large part” of Maduro’s security detail “in cold blood”.

Advertisement

Venezuela’s armed forces have been activated to guarantee sovereignty, he said.

‘A lot of Cubans’ killed

US President Donald Trump, speaking to reporters on board Air Force One on Sunday, said that “there was a lot of death on the other side” during the raids.

He said that “a lot of Cubans” were killed and that there was “no death on our side”.

Trump went on to threaten Colombian President Gustavo Petro, saying that a US military operation in the country sounded “good” to him.

But he suggested that a US military intervention in Cuba is unlikely, because the island appears to be ready to fall on its own.

Advertisement

“Cuba is ready to fall. Cuba looks like it’s ready to fall. I don’t know how they, if they can, hold that, but Cuba now has no income. They got all of their income from Venezuela, from the Venezuelan oil,” Trump said.

“They’re not getting any of it. Cuba literally is ready to fall. And you have a lot of great Cuban Americans that are going to be very happy about this.”

The US attack on Venezuela marked the most controversial intervention in Latin America since the invasion of Panama 37 years ago.

The Trump administration has described Maduro’s abduction as a law-enforcement mission to force him to face US criminal charges filed in 2020, including “narco-terrorism” conspiracy.

But Trump also said that US oil companies needed “total access” to the country’s vast reserves and suggested that an influx of Venezuelan immigrants to the US also factored into the decision to abduct Maduro.

Advertisement

While many Western nations oppose Maduro, there were many calls for the US to respect international law, and questions arose over the legality of abducting a foreign head of state.

Left-leaning regional leaders, including those of Brazil, Colombia, Chile and Mexico, have largely denounced Maduro’s removal, while countries with right-wing governments, from Argentina to Ecuador, have largely welcomed it.

The United Nations Security Council plans to meet on Monday to discuss the attack. Russia and China, both major backers of Venezuela, have criticised the US.

Beijing on Sunday insisted that the safety of Maduro and his wife be a priority, and called on the US to “stop toppling the government of Venezuela”, calling the attack a “clear violation of international law“.

Moscow also said it was “extremely concerned” about the abduction of Maduro and his wife, and condemned what it called an “act of armed aggression” against Venezuela by the US.

Advertisement
Continue Reading

News

Here’s a partial list of U.S. elected officials opposing Trump’s invasion of Venezuela

Published

on

Here’s a partial list of U.S. elected officials opposing Trump’s invasion of Venezuela

Protesters rally outside the White House Saturday, Jan. 3, 2026, in Washington, after the U.S. captured Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro and his wife in a military operation.

Julia Demaree Nikhinson/AP


hide caption

toggle caption

Advertisement

Julia Demaree Nikhinson/AP

President Trump’s move to depose Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro has drawn praise inside the United States, especially from Republican leaders. But the invasion also faces significant skepticism, questions about legality, and full-throated opposition from some elected officials across the political spectrum.

Here’s a survey.

Some Republicans condemn, or question, Trump’s invasion

While most conservative lawmakers voiced support for Trump’s action, a small group of Republican House members and GOP Senators described the move as unlawful or misguided.

Advertisement

“If the President believes military action against Venezuela is needed, he should make the case and Congress should vote before American lives and treasure are spent on regime change in South America,” said Rep. Thomas Massie, a Republican from Kentucky, speaking on the House floor. “Do we truly believe that Nicolás Maduro will be replaced by a modern-day George Washington? How did that work out in Cuba, Libya, Iraq or Syria?”

Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, R-Ga., posting on social media, voiced skepticism that the true goal of Trump’s invasion was to stop the flow of drugs into the United States. She also described the military action as a violation of conservative “America First” principles.

“Americans disgust with our own government’s never ending military aggression and support of foreign wars is justified because we are forced to pay for it and both parties, Republicans and Democrats, always keep the Washington military machine funded and going,” Greene posted on X. “This is what many in MAGA thought they voted to end. Boy were we wrong.”

Rep. Don Bacon, R-Neb., a retired U.S. Air Force Brigadier General, generally praised the military operation, but he also said the precedent of U.S. military intervention could embolden more aggressive action by authoritarian regimes in China and Russia.

Advertisement

“Freedom and rule of law were defended last night,” Bacon said on X, referring to the invasion of Venezuela, “but dictators will try to exploit this to rationalize their selfish objectives.”

At least three Republican Senators also voiced concern or skepticism about the invasion and its legal justification, while also celebrating the fall of Maduro.

“In this case, a leader who monopolized central power is removed in an action that monopolizes central power,” Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul wrote on the platform X. “Best though, not to forget, that our founders limited the executive’s power to go to war without Congressional authorization for a reason—to limit the horror of war and limit war to acts of defense.”

GOP Senators Lisa Murkowski and Dan Sullivan, both of Alaska, said Maduro’s ouster would make the United States and the world safer, but suggested the operation could turn into a quagmire for U.S. troops.

“Late last year, I voted to proceed to debate on two resolutions that would have terminated the escalation of U.S. military operations against Venezuela absent explicit authorization from Congress,” Murkowski wrote on the platform X. She added that she expects further briefings from Trump officials on the “legal basis for these operations.”

Advertisement

“The lessons learned from what took place after the United States deposed another Latin American indicted drug lord—Panama’s Manuel Noriega in 1989—could prove useful, as could the painful and difficult lessons learned after the U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003,” Sullivan wrote on X.

Most Democrats condemn the invasion

Most Democratic lawmakers and elected officials also described Maduro as a dictator, but they generally condemned Trump’s action. At a press conference Saturday, New York City’s new Mayor Zohran Mamdani told reporters he phoned Trump and voiced opposition to the invasion.

“I called the President and spoke with him directly to register my opposition to this act and to make clear that it was an opposition based on being opposed to a pursuit of regime change, to the violation of federal and international law,” Mamdani said.

Democratic minority leader Sen. Chuck Schumer of New York accused Trump of acting in bad faith and violating the U.S. Constitution. “The idea that Trump plans to now run Venezuela should strike fear in the hearts of all Americans,” Schumer said in a post on X. “The American people have seen this before and paid the devastating price.”

According to Schumer, the Trump administration assured him “three separate times that it was not pursuing regime change or or military action without congressional authorization.”

Advertisement

California’s Democratic Sen. Adam Schiff, a frequent Trump critic, posted a series of comments on X describing Saturday’s military action and Trump’s proposed U.S. occupation of Venezuela as potentially disastrous.

“Acting without Congressional approval or the buy-in of the public, Trump risks plunging a hemisphere into chaos and has broken his promise to end wars instead of starting them,” Schiff wrote.

“Donald Trump has once again shown his contempt for the Constitution and the rule of law,” said Vermont’s Independent Sen. Bernie Sanders, in a video posted on social media, where he described the U.S. invasion as “imperialism.”

“This is the horrific logic of force that Putin used to justify his brutal attack on Ukraine,” Sanders said.

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Democrat of New York, also spoke harshly of the military strike, describing it as an effort by Trump to distract attention from domestic troubles in the United States.

“It’s not about drugs. If it was, Trump wouldn’t have pardoned one of the largest narco traffickers in the world last month,” Ocasio-Cortez said, referring to Trump’s decision to free former Honduran President Orlando Hernandez, who had been convicted in the U.S. of helping smuggle more than 400 tons of cocaine into the U.S.

Advertisement

“It’s about oil and regime change. And they need a trial now to pretend that it isn’t. Especially to distract from Epstein + skyrocketing healthcare costs,” Ocasio-Cortez added on X.

Continue Reading

News

Who is Delcy Rodríguez, Venezuela’s leader after Maduro’s capture? | CNN

Published

on

Who is Delcy Rodríguez, Venezuela’s leader after Maduro’s capture? | CNN

Following the capture of President Nicolás Maduro during a US military operation in Venezuela, the command of the South American country has fallen into the hands of Executive Vice President Delcy Rodríguez.

That is what Venezuela’s constitution outlines in its different scenarios anticipating a president’s absence. Under Articles 233 and 234, whether the absence is temporary or absolute, the vice president takes over the presidential duties.

Rodríguez – also minister for both finance and oil – stepped into the role on Saturday afternoon. Hours after the capture of Maduro and his wife, Cilia Flores, she chaired a National Defense Council session, surrounded by other ministers and senior officials, and demanded the couple’s “immediate release” while condemning the US military operation.

Standing before the Venezuelan flag, Rodríguez said the early-morning operation represents a blatant violation of international law and Venezuela’s sovereignty. She added that the action must be rejected by Venezuelans and condemned by governments across Latin America.

“We call on the peoples of the great homeland to remain united, because what was done to Venezuela can be done to anyone. That brutal use of force to bend the will of the people can be carried out against any country,” she told the council in an address broadcast by state television channel VTV.

Advertisement

Rodríguez, 56, is from Caracas and studied law at the Central University of Venezuela.

She has spent more than two decades as one of the leading figures of chavismo, the political movement founded by President Hugo Chávez and led by Maduro since Chávez’s death in 2013.

Alongside her brother Jorge Rodríguez, the current president of the National Assembly, she has held various positions of power since the Chávez era. She served as minister of communication and information from 2013 to 2014 and later became foreign minister from 2014 to 2017. In that role, she defended Maduro’s government against international criticism, including allegations of democratic backsliding and human rights abuses in the country.

As foreign minister, Rodríguez represented Venezuela at forums such as the United Nations, where she accused other governments of seeking to undermine her country.

In 2017, Rodríguez became president of the Constituent National Assembly that expanded the government’s powers after the opposition won the 2015 legislative elections. In 2018, Maduro appointed her vice president for his second term. She retained the post during his third presidential term, which began on January 10, 2025, following the controversial July 28, 2024, elections. Until the president’s capture, she served as Venezuela’s chief economic authority and minister of petroleum.

Advertisement

Venezuela’s opposition maintains that the 2024 elections were fraudulent and that Maduro is not a legitimately elected president. They insist that the true winner was former ambassador Edmundo González Urrutia, a position supported by some governments in the region.

José Manuel Romano, a constitutional lawyer and political analyst, told CNN that the positions Rodríguez has held show she is a “very prominent” figure within the Venezuelan government and someone who enjoys the president’s “full trust.”

“The executive vice president of the republic is a highly effective operator, a woman with strong leadership skills for managing teams,” Romano said.

“She is very results-oriented and has significant influence over the entire government apparatus, including the Ministry of Defense. That is very important to note in the current circumstances,” he added.

On the path to an understanding with the US?

Hours after Maduro’s capture, and before Rodríguez addressed the National Defense Council, US President Donald Trump said at a press conference that Secretary of State Marco Rubio had spoken with the vice president. According to Trump, she appeared willing to work with Washington on a new phase for Venezuela.

Advertisement

“She had a conversation with Marco. She said, ‘We’re going to do whatever you need.’ I think she was quite courteous. We’re going to do this right,” Trump said.

Trump’s remarks, however, surprised some analysts, who believe Rodríguez is unlikely to make concessions to the United States.

“She is not a moderate alternative to Maduro. She has been one of the most powerful and hard-line figures in the entire system,” Imdat Oner, a policy analyst at the Jack D. Gordon Institute and a former Turkish diplomat based in Venezuela, told CNN.

“Her rise to power appears to be the result of some kind of understanding between the United States and key actors preparing for a post-Maduro scenario. In that context, she would essentially serve as a caretaker until a democratically elected leader takes office,” the analyst added.

In her first messages following Maduro’s capture, Rodríguez showed no signs of backing down and, without referencing Trump’s statements, closed the door to any potential cooperation with the United States.

Advertisement

Earlier in the morning, during a phone interview with VTV, Rodríguez said the whereabouts of Maduro and Flores were unknown and demanded proof that they were alive. Later in the afternoon, during the National Defense Council session, she escalated her rhetoric, condemned the US operation and, despite the circumstances, insisted that Maduro remains in charge of Venezuela.

“There is only one president in this country, and his name is Nicolás Maduro Moros,” said Rodríguez — now, by force of events, the most visible face of the government.

Reuters news agency contributed to this report.

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Trending