The short version
- US officials are reportedly in advanced talks to secure direct stakes or long-term leases for dozens of Venezuelan oilfields, potentially covering nearly a third of the nation's reserves.
- Venezuelan opposition figures and economists condemn the proposed arrangements as unconstitutional land grabs that violate national sovereignty and benefit Washington at the expense of local interests.
- Analysts draw historical parallels to early 20th-century colonial concessions, suggesting the deal aims to exclude rival powers like China and Russia from accessing Venezuela's vast energy resources.
Reports emerging this week indicate that the United States is preparing to secure a significant stake in Venezuela’s massive energy reserves, a move that has triggered intense backlash from political opponents and regional analysts. Media outlets have revealed that officials within the Trump administration are engaged in advanced negotiations with Venezuelan authorities to obtain direct ownership interests or long-term leases for more than a dozen oilfields. These fields, located primarily in the Orinoco Belt and Lake Maracaibo regions, contain an estimated 90 billion barrels of crude, representing nearly one-third of the country’s total proven reserves.
Venezuela possesses the largest proven crude oil reserves globally, with approximately 303 billion barrels, surpassing those of Saudi Arabia and Iran. The scale of the proposed American involvement has been described by unnamed officials as massive and legacy-defining for President Trump. According to Bloomberg, one potential arrangement under discussion involves a century-long lease on several key fields. A source familiar with the negotiations told Reuters that these discussions are occurring at the highest levels of both governments, underscoring the strategic importance Washington places on securing access to these resources.
The revelation has provoked anger and unease among members of Venezuela’s opposition, who had hoped for genuine political reform following the January abduction of authoritarian leader Nicolás Maduro. Critics characterize the proposed deal as a predatory land grab that contradicts democratic expectations. One prominent opposition figure, speaking on condition of anonymity due to the sensitivity of criticizing US policy, described the initiative as revolting and compared it unfavorably to post-war reconstruction efforts like the Marshall Plan. Instead, they likened the current approach to a rapacious strategy driven by self-interest rather than mutual benefit.
Since the special forces raid in Caracas that removed Maduro from power, Venezuela has been governed by an interim administration led by Delcy Rodríguez, Maduro’s former vice-president and petroleum minister. Key figures from the previous regime, including interior minister Diosdado Cabello, have retained positions of influence despite facing US sanctions and bounties for alleged drug trafficking. Meanwhile, María Corina Machado, the exiled opposition leader whose movement is widely believed to have won the 2024 presidential elections, remains sidelined. This political landscape has fueled skepticism about the legitimacy of any agreements struck by the current interim government.
Legal and economic experts argue that the proposed deal violates Venezuela’s constitution and serves no legitimate interest for the Venezuelan people. Ricardo Hausmann, an exiled former minister and opposition supporter, stated that an illegitimate interim government lacks the authority to strike such unconstitutional deals. Economist Francisco Rodríguez urged the national assembly to reject what he termed a predatory agreement, emphasizing that handing over national wealth under duress is contrary to public interest. Journalist Luz Mely Reyes sarcastically referred to the surrender of natural riches as the deal of the century, highlighting the perceived inequity of the arrangement.
Energy historian Gregory Brew noted that such deals often generate suspicion and rejection when they appear to hand effective control of resources to foreign powers. He drew parallels to early 20th-century arrangements where Anglo-Persian Oil Company secured sweeping rights in Iran through concessions that amounted to bribes, allowing the company to retain virtually all profits from discovered oil. Brew suggested that the current US strategy mirrors these colonial-era practices, aiming to establish dominance over Venezuelan reserves while excluding other potential customers and rival nations.
From a geopolitical perspective, securing control over Venezuelan oil allows the United States to treat these reserves as its own, effectively barring access for competitors such as China and Russia. This approach aligns with what some analysts call the Donroe Doctrine, a 21st-century adaptation of the Monroe Doctrine aimed at reasserting Washington’s influence over Latin America. By locking out other global powers, the US seeks to consolidate its strategic position in the region, though critics argue this comes at the cost of local sovereignty and economic fairness.
As negotiations continue, the outcome remains uncertain. The opposition faces significant challenges in mobilizing against a deal that appears to have high-level support from both Washington and Caracas. However, the strong rhetoric from economists, historians, and political figures suggests that any final agreement will face substantial legal and public resistance. The situation underscores broader tensions between US foreign policy objectives and local democratic aspirations in post-Maduro Venezuela.
Sources behind this briefing
Go to the original reporting
- The Guardian World↗Venezuelan opposition up in arms over reports US wants big stake in oil and gas
