Election Deniers and the Venezuela Conspiracy: How False Narratives Keep Spreading

In January 2025, something unusual happened in American political discourse. A major international event involving Venezuela became instant fuel for a narrative that had already been thoroughly debunked: that the 2020 presidential election was stolen.

The capture of Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro should have been straightforward geopolitical news. But within hours, a network of election deniers, MAGA influencers, and conspiracy theorists had reframed it into something entirely different. They weren't discussing oil production, regional stability, or humanitarian concerns. Instead, they were certain the event proved a massive international conspiracy to rig the 2020 election in favor of Joe Biden, as highlighted by Democracy Docket.

This isn't a small fringe movement anymore. The same people spreading these claims have access to President Donald Trump's inner circle, appear regularly on major conservative media platforms, and are actively shaping conversations millions of people see daily. What's particularly striking is how they're doing this without a shred of credible evidence, while simultaneously claiming they're the ones fighting for election integrity.

The story of how election deniers seized on the Venezuela crisis reveals something important about how misinformation operates in 2025. It shows how a determined group of influencers can take an unrelated geopolitical event, tie it to thoroughly debunked claims, get amplification from the president himself, and create a narrative that feels real to millions of people despite being completely false. It demonstrates why election integrity matters, why debunking conspiracy theories is so difficult, and why we need to understand how these narratives actually form and spread.

TL; DR

• Election deniers immediately claimed Venezuela's political crisis was linked to nonexistent 2020 election fraud conspiracies, as reported by Wired.
• No credible evidence exists that Venezuela, Smartmatic, or Dominion had anything to do with the 2020 election outcome, as confirmed by official White House statements.
• Trump and administration officials amplified these claims despite their administration declaring 2020 "the most secure election in history", according to the Brookings Institution.
• These same groups are mobilizing again ahead of 2026 elections with baseless claims about immigrant voting, as noted by Votebeat.
• The pattern shows how international events get weaponized to resurrect thoroughly debunked conspiracy theories, as discussed by Forbes.

The Immediate Pivot to Election Fraud

Within 24 hours of Maduro's capture, the conspiracy apparatus was already in full motion. QAnon influencer Chad Vivas, someone who has appeared in photos with President Trump, posted about a supposed "Venezuelan Military Intelligence whistleblower" confirming that "the CIA outsources election rigging technology like Smartmatic and Dominion from Venezuela."

The timing was suspicious for one specific reason: it wasn't. Maduro's capture had nothing to do with election technology or American elections. But that didn't matter. The narrative was already constructed. Trump himself amplified Vivas' post on Truth Social, adding the phrase "Confirmation from the Boss," which Vivas then repeated back to Trump in a feedback loop designed to look like verification.

Sean Davis, CEO of the Federalist, a conservative magazine with significant reach, tweeted confidently that Maduro would eventually offer to provide "evidence that the 2020 election was stolen" as a bargaining chip. A Justice Department pardon attorney responded by quoting Davis' post approvingly with an exclamation mark. When federal officials are engaging with these narratives, it sends a signal down through the entire ecosystem of election deniers that these claims have legitimacy.

Jordan Sather, a prominent QAnon promoter with hundreds of thousands of followers on Telegram, made the claim even more explicit: "Drugs may be an issue in Maduro's capture, but I think the real reason is that Venezuela was being used to launder election rigging technology by the Deep State."

Notice what's happening here. There's no evidence being presented. No documents. No testimony from credible witnesses. No technical analysis. Instead, there's a formula: take an unrelated event, connect it to a conspiracy theory that's already embedded in your audience's worldview, then layer it with insider language and supposed insider knowledge. When a QAnon influencer says "the Deep State," followers hear a coded reference to their understanding of how the world actually works. When a DOJ official responds to these claims, followers interpret it as tacit confirmation.

Sidney Powell and the Venezuela Election Mythology

The Venezuela-election fraud connection didn't suddenly appear in January 2025. It's been part of the election denial mythology since November 2020, when Sidney Powell, one of Trump's lawyers attempting to overturn the election, first introduced it.

Powell cited "anonymous and unverified affidavits from a former Venezuela military official" to claim that Smartmatic, an election technology company, had helped rig Venezuelan elections. From there, she made a logical leap without any actual logic: if Smartmatic helped Venezuela, she suggested, maybe the company helped Biden win in America too.

This was Powell's method throughout the post-election period. She would present something that sounded plausible on the surface (voting companies have international operations, some Latin American elections have had problems), then connect it to a completely different scenario with no actual evidence. Courts repeatedly rejected her cases. Eventually, Powell agreed to pay millions in settlements for the defamatory claims she made. But the narratives she created didn't disappear. They just moved into the ecosystem of election deniers and influencers who keep them alive.

When Maduro was captured, Powell immediately started celebrating Trump's action and promoting the Venezuela election conspiracy again. She wasn't alone. Emerald Robinson, a streamer on Lindell TV (the platform owned by election denier Mike Lindell), posted about Venezuela being behind 2020 vote rigging. Robinson has made promoting this conspiracy theory one of her core activities.

What's important to understand is that Powell, Robinson, Lindell, and Rudy Giuliani have all faced serious legal and financial consequences for their election fraud claims. Giuliani lost his law license. Lindell's company faced massive lawsuits. Fox News paid nearly $800 million to Dominion over its coverage of Powell's claims. Yet these figures haven't disappeared or become humble. Instead, they're positioning themselves as martyrs to the cause, claiming they were "targeted" and "bankrupted" for telling the truth.

Robinson made this explicit in a post claiming that she, Powell, Lindell, and Giuliani had all been persecuted for pushing election fraud claims. The rhetoric wasn't just about vindicating the 2020 claims. It was about framing themselves as truth-tellers in a battle against powerful enemies. To her followers, this narrative structure is more compelling than any actual evidence would be.

Smartmatic and Dominion: The Real Targets

Two voting technology companies became the focal point of election denial narratives: Smartmatic and Dominion Voting Systems. Neither company was remotely responsible for the 2020 election outcome, but both became targets because they made useful symbols for a conspiracy narrative.

Dominion manufactures voting machines used in 25 states. After 2020, election deniers claimed Dominion machines were programmed to flip votes from Trump to Biden. There was no evidence. Election officials from both parties certified the results. Trump's own cybersecurity officials said the election was secure. The Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency stated that "the November 2020 election was the most secure in American history." But the narrative persisted.

Fox News and its hosts repeatedly amplified these claims about Dominion. When Dominion sued for defamation, Fox settled and effectively admitted its claims were false. But the settlement didn't erase the conspiracy theory from the minds of millions who had heard it repeated on Fox News, talked about among friends, and shared on social media.

Smartmatic, an election technology company with operations in multiple countries, became implicated in similar narratives. Election deniers claimed Smartmatic had ties to the Venezuelan government (it did have business operations there) and therefore had the capability and motivation to rig American elections. The logic never quite held up, but it didn't need to. The narrative was already constructed around symbols rather than facts.

Both companies became useful because they represented something abstract: the idea that voting machines themselves could be compromised. This resonated with people who didn't understand how voting systems work, how they're audited, and how elections are verified. It was easier to believe in a grand technological conspiracy than to accept that Trump lost an election.

When Powell and others repeatedly invoked these companies in their lawsuits, and when those lawsuits were dismissed (all of them), you might think the narrative would lose power. Instead, it metastasized. The dismissals became evidence of a cover-up. The companies' lack of evidence for the claims became evidence that they had powerful protectors. Every single detail that contradicted the narrative was reinterpreted as proof that the narrative was true.

The Emergence of Election Denial as a Movement

Election denial didn't begin in 2020, but that election crystallized it into a coherent (if incoherent) movement. Before 2020, election denialism existed at the margins. After 2020, it became a political identity for millions of Americans.

What changed wasn't the 2020 election. Dozens of audits, recounts, court cases, and investigations all confirmed the results. What changed was the political ecosystem around the election. Certain political leaders, media personalities, and influencers chose to question the results despite having no credible evidence, and millions of people followed their lead.

Groups like South Carolina Safe Elections, an election denial organization, immediately connected Maduro's capture to election fraud claims. They published a blog post titled "Will the arrest of Maduro bring election disclosure?" as if Maduro's arrest might somehow expose information about how the 2020 election was supposedly stolen. It's the kind of narrative that only makes sense if you're already inside an election denial framework.

Seth Keshel, a former army intelligence captain, became one of the most prominent voices in election denial circles. He claimed to have briefed the White House on election fraud. When asked about this alleged briefing, a White House spokesperson said the administration "does not comment on mysterious meetings with unnamed staffers." This non-denial created space for Keshel to claim the meeting happened, which he did. His followers interpreted the White House's refusal to deny the meeting as confirmation that it happened.

Keshel published a blog post about Maduro's arrest titled "President Who Stole Election Captured by U. S. Forces," as if the circumstances of Maduro's detention somehow validated claims about 2020. The internal logic of election denial doesn't require external validation. Everything gets interpreted through the lens of the conspiracy.

Benny Johnson, a right-wing influencer with close ties to the Trump administration, decided to add his own twist to the narrative. He claimed on his podcast to have insider knowledge about Maduro's arrest, citing an anonymous source in the intelligence community. This source allegedly told Johnson that Maduro had evidence the 2020 election was rigged, and that Venezuela and China were involved, as discussed in Media Matters.

Consider what Johnson did here: he took an international event, invented insider knowledge about it, attributed that knowledge to an anonymous source he couldn't verify, connected it to election fraud claims that have been thoroughly debunked, and presented it as exclusive reporting. His followers heard a credible-sounding insider account. His critics heard a made-up story. But in the ecosystem of election denial, Johnson's account gets repeated, gets cited, gets treated as evidence.

How the Trump Administration Fueled the Narrative

What might seem like a fringe conspiracy theory became something more consequential when the Trump administration itself started engaging with it. Within days of Maduro's capture, Trump posted multiple times on Truth Social connecting Maduro's arrest to Dominion Voting Systems and election fraud.

Trump's posts weren't subtle. They included phrases like "WHERE IS THE DOMINION FILES?" as if Maduro might have been arrested to retrieve evidence about 2020 election fraud. His administration didn't publicly explain why Maduro was captured or what the specific charges were. Instead, Trump used the event as an opportunity to resurrect election fraud narratives.

The effect of Trump's posts was to signal to the entire election denial ecosystem that these narratives were acceptable, even encouraged. When the president of the United States is posting about Dominion and election fraud, it's no longer a fringe conspiracy. It becomes part of the mainstream conversation, even if most people recognize it as false.

Ed Martin, a pardon attorney at the Justice Department, responded approvingly to Sean Davis's post about Maduro potentially offering evidence of 2020 election fraud. A DOJ employee engaging with this narrative, even just by retweeting it with enthusiasm, sends a powerful signal. It suggests the administration doesn't see these claims as obviously false. It suggests there might be something to them after all.

The White House didn't respond to direct questions about whether alleged election rigging factored into the decision to capture Maduro. That silence was itself a statement. In normal circumstances, such a claim would be immediately and forcefully denied. The absence of a denial created space for election deniers to claim the silence was confirmation.

This is a crucial pattern in how election denial operates in the Trump era: presidential amplification of these narratives, combined with administration silence on contradicting them, creates a permission structure for the entire ecosystem of election deniers to repeat and expand these claims.

The Original False Claims About 2020

To understand why the Venezuela narrative is so obviously false, you need to understand what election deniers have claimed about 2020, and why those claims were rejected by courts, auditors, and cybersecurity officials.

The election denialism movement largely coalesced around several specific claims: that voting machines were programmed to flip votes, that voting totals were changed by foreign actors, that mail-in ballots were fraudulently counted, and that election officials in key states engaged in a coordinated conspiracy.

Each of these claims was investigated. Some were investigated multiple times. In Georgia, election officials conducted hand recounts, audits, and reviews. The Republican Secretary of State certified the results. In Arizona, a Republican-led audit couldn't find the fraud that had been claimed. In Michigan, investigations found no evidence of widespread fraud. The pattern repeated across every state where deniers made claims.

Courts rejected election fraud cases at every level, including judges appointed by Trump. Trump's own Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency called 2020 "the most secure election in American history." Trump's Attorney General said there was no evidence of fraud that would have changed the outcome.

Yet despite all this, election deniers persisted in their claims. Each rejection of their claims was reinterpreted as evidence of a cover-up. Each audit that confirmed results was claimed to be fraudulent. Each investigation that found no evidence was claimed to be corrupt. The narrative became unfalsifiable.

Into this environment came the claim that Venezuela and its voting companies were somehow involved. There was no reason to believe this. Venezuela's government didn't run American elections. Smartmatic didn't have access to American voting systems. There was no mechanism by which such a conspiracy could have operated. But none of that mattered. The narrative fit the larger election denial framework, so it got absorbed and repeated.

The Settlement That Changed Nothing

In February 2023, Fox News settled Dominion's defamation lawsuit by paying $787.5 million. This wasn't a small judgment. It was one of the largest media settlements in American history, driven entirely by Fox's false coverage of Dominion and election fraud.

The settlement was significant because it represented Fox News officially admitting that its claims about Dominion were false. The company had aired coverage suggesting Dominion machines were programmed to flip votes. The company had hosted guests making these claims. The company had promoted these narratives repeatedly. And all of it was false.

But the settlement didn't erase the claims from people's minds. It didn't reach the millions who had heard these narratives repeated on Fox News. It didn't change the political identity of people who had built their worldview around election denialism. If anything, some interpreted the settlement as evidence that the truth was so powerful that deep state actors had to pay massive amounts to silence it.

Other voting technology companies sued for defamation as well. The point wasn't just to win settlements. It was to establish in court that the claims being made about their systems were false. That happened. But the false claims continued spreading anyway.

This dynamic reveals something important about how misinformation operates in modern America. Legal accountability and factual correction aren't automatically effective against narratives that have become politically and socially embedded. People who have built their identity around a belief don't abandon it just because a court ruled against it. They reinterpret the court ruling as corrupt.

The Fox settlement was supposed to send a signal: these claims are false, and spreading them has consequences. It did send a signal. But the signal was received differently by different audiences. Some people understood that Fox had lied. Others understood that Fox had been forced to capitulate by powerful enemies. The same event meant completely different things depending on your starting framework.

Mobilization Ahead of 2026

As 2025 progresses and the 2026 midterm elections approach, election denial groups are mobilizing again. They're not starting from scratch. They have organizational infrastructure, millions of followers across social media platforms, and access to Republican political figures.

These groups are already circulating new narratives about immigrant voting, illegal voting, and supposed election security vulnerabilities. The specific claims have evolved, but the structure remains the same: assert a problem without evidence, claim the problem is massive and coordinated, position yourself as the solution, and build a following around the narrative.

The increased access these groups have to the Trump administration is a new element. When election deniers can meet with DOJ officials, can get the president to amplify their claims, and can see themselves reflected in policy discussions, the narrative becomes more powerful. It's one thing to believe in election fraud. It's another to believe the government is starting to investigate it.

Some of the 2026 narratives will certainly involve international elements. Election deniers have already demonstrated they're willing to implicate other countries in American election fraud. Venezuela, China, and other geopolitical adversaries may all become part of the 2026 election denial narratives. Each will be presented as evidence that American elections are vulnerable and that only certain trusted figures can protect election integrity.

The Mechanics of Narrative Construction

Understanding how the Venezuela narrative got constructed tells you something important about how misinformation spreads in 2025. It's not a simple process of lying. It's a complex process of narrative construction that involves multiple actors, multiple platforms, and multiple layers of interpretation.

First, someone with credibility (or claimed credibility) makes a connection. Chad Vivas, as a QAnon influencer with historical connections to Trump, had existing credibility with a certain audience. When he posted about a supposed Venezuelan Military Intelligence whistleblower confirming election rigging, his followers didn't fact-check it. They incorporated it into their existing worldview.

Second, someone more prominent amplifies it. When Trump reposted Vivas's claim, it gained legitimacy. Trump's platform is enormous, and his engagement with a claim suggests he believes it or at least finds it credible enough to share. His followers saw the repost as validation.

Third, it gets repeated and elaborated. Different election deniers started adding their own details. Sather invoked the "Deep State" as the orchestrator. Johnson claimed insider intelligence. Robinson positioned herself and other deniers as martyrs who had been persecuted for telling the truth. Each elaboration made the narrative more complex and more resistant to simple fact-checking.

Fourth, it gets incorporated into existing frameworks. People who already believed the 2020 election was stolen had a framework ready to receive the Venezuela claim. It fit perfectly into their understanding of how global elites conspire against Trump and his movement. It didn't require new beliefs. It just extended existing ones.

Fifth, contradictions get reinterpreted as confirmation. When the White House didn't explicitly confirm the Venezuela connection, election deniers interpreted the silence as confirmation. When journalists fact-checked the claims, deniers treated the fact-checking as evidence of a cover-up. Every possible response to the narrative could be reinterpreted as supporting it.

This is why simple fact-checking is often ineffective against election denial narratives. The narrative is constructed in such a way that contradicting it just makes it stronger. Denying something is the same as confirming it. Investigating something is the same as covering it up. Every possible reality gets interpreted through the lens of the conspiracy.

The Problem With "Anonymous Sources"

One consistent element in the election denial narrative is reliance on anonymous sources who can't be verified. Benny Johnson cited an anonymous intelligence community source about Maduro. Chad Vivas cited an unnamed Venezuelan Military Intelligence whistleblower. Sidney Powell's original claims relied on anonymous and unverified affidavits.

Anonymous sources can be legitimate in certain contexts. Journalists sometimes use them to protect whistleblowers who face real risk. But there's a difference between using anonymous sources to report facts that can be verified, and using them to establish an entire conspiracy narrative that can't be verified.

In the election denial ecosystem, anonymous sources function differently. They provide a way to assert things that wouldn't be credible if attributed to named sources. An anonymous intelligence source can say anything, because you can't fact-check them. An unnamed whistleblower can confirm anything, because they don't actually exist in the public record.

When Johnson claimed his source was in the intelligence community and had supposedly spoken to Maduro, that sounded plausible to people unfamiliar with how intelligence communities actually work. But someone with intelligence experience would recognize that getting Johnson information about conversations with Maduro would violate numerous protocols and legal restrictions. The claim isn't plausible within the world of actual intelligence work. It's only plausible within the world of election denial narratives.

The same applies to Vivas's Venezuelan Military Intelligence whistleblower. Why would such a person be talking to a QAnon influencer? How would that conversation happen? What would be the motivation? None of these questions get asked within the election denial community, because asking them would undermine the narrative.

The Role of Streaming Platforms and Alternative Media

Election denial narratives spread partly through traditional conservative media outlets like Fox News, but also through a growing ecosystem of alternative platforms: Telegram channels, streaming networks like Lindell TV, podcasts, and social media accounts that operate outside traditional media structures.

These platforms have different incentive structures than traditional news organizations. A traditional news outlet, even a conservative one, faces some constraint from legal liability if it broadcasts obviously false claims. Fox News learned this with the Dominion settlement. But a Telegram channel has almost no such constraints. A streamer on Lindell TV doesn't face defamation lawsuits the way a national news network does.

Emerald Robinson used Lindell TV, Mike Lindell's streaming platform, to promote election denial narratives. Lindell, who has spent millions on his own election denial activities, created a platform specifically designed to host the kind of content traditional media outlets increasingly rejected. Robinson positioned herself on this platform as a truth-teller persecuted for her honesty.

The growth of these alternative platforms matters because they create echo chambers where election denial narratives can grow without fact-checking or institutional constraint. Within these spaces, absurd claims can be repeated so often they seem normal. People who spend most of their media consumption in these spaces develop a completely different understanding of reality than people consuming traditional news.

Jordan Sather uses Telegram, where he can post to hundreds of thousands of followers without platforms applying fact-checking labels or reducing his reach. When his posts get repeated on other platforms, they carry an implicit endorsement from his existing follower base. The repetition creates the illusion of widespread belief, which itself becomes evidence that something might be true.

This ecosystem was already mature before the Venezuela event. But the Venezuela event showed how effectively the entire ecosystem could coordinate around a new narrative. Within hours, the same claims were appearing on different platforms, being repeated by different influencers, and getting amplified by Trump's Truth Social account. It was a demonstration of how networked and coordinated the election denial ecosystem has become.

The Question of Motivation

Why do election deniers continue making these claims despite overwhelming evidence against them? Why would intelligent people, some with backgrounds in military intelligence or law, persist in spreading narratives they can't prove?

There are several possible explanations. One is genuine belief. Some election deniers may genuinely believe the claims they're making, having interpreted so much evidence through the lens of conspiracy that they've become unable to see reality clearly. Confirmation bias is powerful, and it's easy to create a self-contained narrative where every piece of evidence supports your worldview.

Another is political identity. For millions of Americans, election denialism has become part of their political identity. Abandoning these claims would require acknowledging they were wrong about something significant. That's psychologically difficult, especially when you've built community and friendship networks around shared belief in the narrative.

A third is direct benefit. For influencers and political figures, election denial narratives bring attention, followers, donations, and media appearances. Sidney Powell may genuinely believe the claims she's making, but she also benefits professionally from making them. The same applies to other prominent election deniers. Whether their motivation is purely belief, purely profit, or some combination, the economic incentives are real.

A fourth is the satisfaction of having a simple explanation for something chaotic. Elections are complicated. Results depend on millions of individual votes, multiple jurisdictions, different voting methods, and numerous systems. It's easier to believe in a simple conspiracy than to understand the actual complexity. Election denial provides a narrative that makes sense of something that's otherwise just the messy outcome of democratic processes.

For Trump specifically, election denial serves a crucial function. It allows him to maintain a narrative of victimhood and vindication. If the 2020 election was stolen, then Trump is rightfully president and has been robbed of his power. This narrative is essential to his political identity. Abandoning it would require reckoning with the reality that he lost an election, which conflicts with his self-image as a winner.

The International Dimension

What's particularly notable about the Venezuela narrative is how it shows election deniers are willing to implicate entire countries in American election fraud. Venezuela, China, Iran, and other geopolitical adversaries have all been claimed to have involvement in 2020 election fraud.

This creates a double narrative: first, that American elections are vulnerable to foreign interference, and second, that specific countries are using that vulnerability in ways that benefit American political figures election deniers oppose.

The irony is that foreign election interference is a real phenomenon. Russia engaged in information operations related to the 2016 election. Various countries attempt to influence American politics through various means. But the claim that foreign governments literally stole an American presidential election through voting machines or voting software is different from and more serious than the actual, documented phenomenon of foreign interference.

Election deniers collapse these categories. They take the fact that foreign interference is real and use it to justify claims that it determined an American election outcome. They point to Trump's own intelligence agencies warning about foreign interference (particularly from Russia and China) as evidence that foreign actors were involved in 2020.

What they don't do is explain why, if foreign actors stole the election, Trump's own officials would certify the results and his own appointees on the judiciary would reject his claims. They don't explain why, if foreign actors stole the election, subsequent investigations haven't found evidence of the theft.

The Venezuela-specific claim is particularly weak because it requires believing that a Latin American country with a severely weakened government, facing international sanctions, and dealing with a humanitarian crisis simultaneously maintained the technical sophistication to rig American elections without being detected. It requires believing that American intelligence agencies either didn't know about this conspiracy or covered it up. It requires a truly elaborate web of coordination and secrecy.

Yet within the election denial ecosystem, the narrative spread anyway.

The Comparison to Other False Narratives

The Venezuela election fraud narrative is part of a larger pattern of false claims that have circulated widely despite abundant contradictory evidence. Understanding this pattern is important for recognizing how similar claims might develop around future events.

QAnon, the conspiracy theory movement that influenced many election deniers, followed a similar pattern. It made elaborate claims about a secret government within the government, about celebrities and politicians engaged in horrific crimes, and about an eventual reckoning where these figures would be arrested. None of it materialized, but the movement didn't collapse. It incorporated the failures into the narrative. Lack of evidence became evidence of a cover-up. Unfulfilled predictions were reinterpreted as metaphorical truths.

The patterns also resemble historical conspiracy theories: that the moon landing was faked, that vaccines are dangerous despite overwhelming safety data, that JFK's assassination was orchestrated by government actors despite extensive investigations. In each case, believers construct elaborate narratives to explain why official explanations are false, why evidence of alternative explanations can't be trusted, and why their interpretation is the true one.

What makes election denial particularly significant is that it's not just a belief about a past event. It's a belief that feeds into current behavior, including support for political candidates and policies based on the idea that elections are fraudulent and need to be fixed. This creates real-world consequences.

When people believe elections are stolen, they become more willing to support restrictions on voting access, more willing to engage in political violence, and more willing to support anti-democratic measures in the name of election security. The false belief produces false solutions.

The Problem of Institutional Credibility

One reason election denial narratives have proven so resilient is that they've developed in a context of declining institutional credibility. Many Americans, before 2020, already had low trust in government institutions, media institutions, and scientific institutions.

Election deniers exploit this context. They can say that election officials are corrupt, courts are compromised, media is lying, and government agencies are covering up fraud. Each claim is individually plausible to people with low institutional trust. And each claim is reinforced by any institutional action that can be reinterpreted as confirmation of the narrative.

The irony is that Trump himself led the erosion of institutional credibility. During his presidency, he repeatedly attacked the media, the judiciary, intelligence agencies, and election officials. He created the context in which it was possible for his supporters to distrust institutions so thoroughly that they would believe those institutions were coordinating an election theft rather than certifying legitimate results.

Now election deniers have benefited from that erosion of credibility. When courts reject their claims, courts are corrupt. When election officials certify results, they're complicit. When law enforcement doesn't investigate their allegations, law enforcement is covering up. When news organizations fact-check them, the media is lying.

Rebuilding institutional credibility, if it's even possible, would require demonstrating reliability and honesty over time. But in a polarized political environment, almost anything an institution does can be reinterpreted as politically motivated. It's a very difficult problem to solve.

Looking Forward to 2026 and Beyond

As the 2026 midterm elections approach, election denial groups are already preparing narratives. They've learned from 2020 and the subsequent attempts to overturn the election. They understand what messages resonate. They've built infrastructure to spread those messages. They have access to political figures who amplify their claims.

The Venezuela event demonstrated their ability to rapidly coordinate around a new narrative. It showed that Trump's amplification of their claims gives them enormous reach. It showed that government officials are willing to engage with these narratives rather than dismiss them.

It seems likely that 2026 election denial narratives will focus on immigration and changing demographics. They'll claim that non-citizens are voting, that immigration policy is designed to change the electorate, and that election officials are complicit in these changes. None of this will be true. But the narratives will spread anyway.

Whatever the specific claims, they'll follow the same pattern: take a real phenomenon (immigration exists, voting eligibility is determined by citizenship), exaggerate it into an existential threat (millions of illegal aliens voting), claim it's coordinated by powerful enemies (the Democratic Party and the deep state), and offer yourself as the solution (strict voter ID requirements, purged voter rolls, election police).

Preventing this from shaping 2026 politics will require different institutions working together: media organizations choosing to fact-check effectively, election officials being transparent about how elections actually work, courts willing to dismiss unfounded claims quickly, political leaders willing to reject election denial narratives, and citizens willing to seek out accurate information.

None of this is guaranteed.

FAQ

What is election denialism?

Election denialism is the political position that rejects the legitimacy of election results without credible evidence, typically based on conspiracy theories about voting technology, voter fraud, or foreign interference. Unlike evidence-based election disputes, election denial persists despite official audits, recounts, court decisions, and investigations confirming results. It has become a significant political identity and movement in American politics since 2020.

How did the Venezuela narrative connect to 2020 election fraud claims?

Election deniers claimed that Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro was captured because his government had helped rig the 2020 American election through Smartmatic voting technology. The narrative originated in November 2020 when Trump lawyer Sidney Powell cited unverified claims about Smartmatic and Venezuela, and was revived by influencers and conspiracy theorists in January 2025 when Maduro's capture occurred. No credible evidence supported this connection.

What did the Dominion defamation settlement mean?

Fox News settled a $787.5 million defamation lawsuit brought by Dominion Voting Systems in February 2023, effectively admitting that Fox's claims about Dominion machines rigging the 2020 election were false. However, the settlement didn't eliminate the false claims from public discourse. Some election deniers reinterpreted the settlement as evidence that powerful actors had to pay to silence the truth.

Why do election denial narratives persist despite being debunked?

Election denial narratives persist for several reasons: they've become embedded in political identity, they're reinforced through alternative media platforms with minimal fact-checking, they're profitable for influencers and figures amplifying them, they provide simple explanations for complex events, and they're constructed in ways that reinterpret all contradictory evidence as confirmation of the conspiracy. Additionally, declining institutional credibility makes distrust of official explanations seem plausible.

How did Trump administration officials engage with these Venezuela conspiracy theories?

President Trump himself posted multiple times on Truth Social about election fraud in connection with Maduro's capture, including references to Dominion Voting Systems. Ed Martin, a pardon attorney at the Justice Department, responded approvingly to posts promoting these conspiracy theories. The White House declined to deny that election fraud considerations factored into decisions about Venezuela, allowing election deniers to interpret the silence as confirmation.

What makes election denial different from legitimate election concerns?

Legitimate election concerns are based on evidence, pursued through established legal channels, and subject to verification through audits and investigations. Election denialism rejects official results despite investigations confirming them, relies on anonymous sources and unverifiable claims, persists even when courts reject lawsuits, and interprets all contradictory evidence as part of a cover-up. Legitimate election concerns can be resolved. Election denial narratives are constructed to be unfalsifiable.

How are election denial groups preparing for 2026?

Election denial groups are mobilizing ahead of 2026 with new narratives focusing on immigration, immigrant voting, and changing demographics. They've learned from 2020 infrastructure they've built, they've demonstrated ability to rapidly coordinate around narratives, and they have access to political figures willing to amplify their claims. The same pattern of exaggeration, coordination claims, and offered solutions will likely reappear.

Why is the reliance on anonymous sources problematic?

Anonymous sources can be legitimate for protecting whistleblowers facing real risk, but in election denial narratives they serve a different purpose: they allow claims that can't be verified. When Benny Johnson cited an anonymous intelligence source about Maduro or Chad Vivas cited an unnamed Venezuelan whistleblower, these sources can't be fact-checked, questioned, or verified. This makes anonymous sources in election denial narratives more about creating the appearance of credibility than about establishing truth.

What role did alternative media platforms play in spreading these narratives?

Alternative platforms like Telegram, Lindell TV, and independent streaming networks have different constraints than traditional media. They face less legal liability, apply less fact-checking, and create echo chambers where false claims can be repeated without institutional pushback. These platforms allowed figures like Emerald Robinson and Jordan Sather to build followings and spread election denial narratives with minimal editorial resistance, creating a distributed ecosystem of coordinated messaging.

What would it take to reduce election denial narratives?

Reducing election denial would require multiple institutions working together: media organizations applying rigorous fact-checking, election officials being transparent about election security and processes, courts quickly dismissing unfounded claims, political leaders refusing to amplify false narratives, and citizens seeking out accurate information. It would also require rebuilding institutional credibility through demonstrated reliability and honesty over time, a difficult task in a polarized political environment.

Conclusion: The Resilience of False Narratives

The Venezuela-election fraud narrative is not, in isolation, particularly significant. Maduro's capture is a straightforward geopolitical event with clear international dimensions and documented circumstances. The connection to 2020 election fraud is entirely fabricated.

But the narrative is significant because it reveals something important about how misinformation operates in American politics in 2025. It shows how quickly false claims can spread when they're amplified by prominent figures. It shows how thoroughly these narratives have become embedded in political identity. It shows how institutional credibility erosion makes people receptive to claims that would have been dismissed a decade ago.

Most importantly, it shows that election denial isn't collapsing. It's evolving. The specific claims change with circumstances, but the underlying narrative structure remains the same. Each new event gets incorporated into the framework. Each contradiction gets reinterpreted as confirmation. Each official action gets treated as evidence of cover-up.

The movement has already influenced policy. States have implemented voting restrictions based on election denialism. Republican officials have embraced election denial narratives. The Trump administration is demonstrating willingness to engage with these claims at the highest levels of government.

For people concerned about the future of American elections and democratic institutions, this matters. Not because the Venezuela narrative is true (it isn't), but because the pattern it reveals will likely repeat with new events and new claims. The infrastructure for spreading election denial narratives is in place. The financial incentives are real. The political support is increasingly available.

Fighting back requires understanding how the narratives actually function, recognizing the pattern before it fully forms, and building institutional credibility through demonstrated reliability. It also requires recognizing that not every person who believes election denial claims is a bad actor. Many are people who've lost trust in institutions and are reaching for explanations that seem to make sense within the context of that lost trust.

The Venezuela narrative will fade. New narratives will emerge. But unless something changes about how these narratives are created, spread, and consumed, election denial will remain a significant force in American politics for years to come. And that has real consequences for the future of democratic elections and governance.

The question isn't whether election denial narratives will emerge around 2026 and beyond. They will. The question is whether the institutions and individuals who care about election integrity will be effective in countering them. Based on the Venezuela example, the answer appears to be: not yet.