U.S. spends millions maintaining shuttered embassy in Venezuela

In March 2019, the United States suspended operations at its embassy in Venezuela and evacuated all diplomats due to deteriorating relations with President Nicolás Maduro’s government. This followed the Trump administration’s recognition of an opposition figure as the legitimate leader of Venezuela in a contentious bid to force Maduro from power. Despite the shuttering of the embassy, the U.S. government continues to employ a substantial staff of 150 Venezuelans to maintain the compound and other diplomatic properties in Caracas, costing taxpayers over $6.7 million annually. This financial burden has raised questions regarding the necessity and justification of maintaining operations under such strained circumstances. A recent report by the State Department’s Office of Inspector General criticized U.S. officials for failing to perform a required cost-benefit analysis that would determine whether continuing to fund the security, operations, and maintenance of the embassy and its associated properties is a prudent use of taxpayers' money. There are concerns that millions are being spent merely to uphold a few empty buildings with no end in sight to the current political impasse in Venezuela. The inspector general's findings provide critical insights into the ongoing mission and operations conducted by the State Department’s Venezuela Affairs Unit, which functions out of a former training room in the U.S. Embassy in neighboring Colombia. The mission in Colombia has been responsible for overseeing U.S. interests in Venezuela even as ties between the two nations have worsened. The report indicates that while relations between the U.S. and Venezuela remain adversarial, they maintain a minimum level of diplomatic engagement, often carried out by the Venezuelan national staff within the embassy compound. This situation places local employees in a precarious position, given the Maduro government’s history of arresting individuals associated with U.S. endeavors. Public debate is building around the viability and morality of continuing to invest significant financial resources into maintaining properties that serve no direct diplomatic function. Expert opinions reflect a split perspective on the strategy. Some argue that keeping a baseline presence is important in case relations improve and negotiations can restart, allowing for a swift reestablishment of diplomatic connections. Others question the rationale of incurring heavy expenditures for unused facilities in a climate where political solutions seem distant. The report also noted a concerning increase in staffing over the years, yet lacked evidence of any formal review justifying this growing personnel count. Ultimately, the current strategy remains fraught with uncertainty and potential inefficiency as the U.S. weighs its options moving forward in handling its Venezuelan operations.