How have fact‑checkers evaluated claims that Hugo Carvajal released a list naming U.S. politicians tied to Maduro?

1. What was actually published and what fact‑checkers examined

Fact‑checkers traced the viral claim to a Dec. 2 letter by Hugo Carvajal that Carvajal’s lawyer allegedly shared with outlets such as the Dallas Express and later drew coverage from mainstream outlets like the Miami Herald; the text asserts that "U.S. diplomats and CIA officers were paid to assist [Chávez] and Maduro" but does not identify a roster of named U.S. politicians or the so‑called "Venezuela list" circulating online ^{[1] [2] [3]}. Snopes, which reviewed both the social posts and the purported letter, explicitly reported that the letter contains broad allegations without listing specific politicians or producing the viral "list" claimed in social posts ^{[1] [2] [4]}.

2. How mainstream reporting framed Carvajal’s allegations

Reporting in the Miami Herald presented Carvajal as a once‑powerful intelligence chief who wrote that Venezuela had sent spies abroad, and claimed that Americans—including diplomats and CIA officers—were paid to help Chávez and Maduro stay in power, presenting these assertions as his unverified allegations rather than established facts ^[3]. That reporting emphasized the content of the letter and Carvajal’s credentials and legal history, while stopping short of endorsing the social‑media narrative that he had published a vetted and named list of U.S. politicians receiving kickbacks ^{[3] [5]}.

3. The fact‑checker verdicts and why they rejected the viral claim

Fact‑checkers concluded the viral posts were false or misleading because their central factual claim—a public list naming U.S. politicians who accepted millions in kickbacks—could not be found in any authenticated public record or in Carvajal’s published letter; Snopes and other checks labeled the "Venezuela list" claim unfounded after comparing the social content to the actual letter and contemporaneous reporting ^{[1] [2] [4]}. In short, the underlying document contains sweeping allegations but lacks the granular, named evidence that the viral posts portray as having been "released" ^{[1] [2]}.

4. The sources pushing the list claim and their incentives

Several partisan or marginal outlets and social posts amplified the "Venezuela list" narrative in sensational terms—examples include a pro‑Trump Substack and sites that republished or embellished the allegation—without producing verified documentary evidence of named U.S. politicians ^{[6] [7]}. Those outlets often framed the material as a political revelation that dovetailed with political narratives about corruption and the "deep state," an incentive structure that helps explain rapid amplification despite the absence of corroborating detail in primary documents ^{[6] [7]}.

5. What remains unverified and why the caution matters

Public records and reporting confirm Carvajal’s legal cooperation with U.S. authorities after his extradition and guilty plea on narco‑terrorism charges, which makes his statements potentially consequential but not automatically credible without corroboration ^[5]. Fact‑checkers therefore stressed that while Carvajal’s allegations warrant investigation, social posts claiming he "released a list" of named U.S. politicians overstep what the available documents and reputable reporting actually show ^{[1] [2] [3]}.

6. Bottom line: how to read future claims about the "Venezuela list"

Fact‑checkers treated the viral assertion that Carvajal released a named list of U.S. politicians as unsubstantiated and misleading because the document in circulation contains general accusations but no corroborated list of names; readers should demand authenticated filings, court disclosures, or direct transcripts before treating such claims as factual ^{[1] [2] [3]}.