Trump: U.S. Will Control Venezuelan Oil Sales After Maduro Capture

The Issue

President Trump announced Tuesday that Venezuela will turn over 30-50 million barrels of oil to the United States for sale at market rates, with proceeds controlled to benefit both countries. He stated that major U.S. oil companies will invest billions to rebuild Venezuela's "badly broken infrastructure" and restore oil production. The announcement came four days after U.S. forces captured President Nicolás Maduro, who now faces narco-terrorism charges in New York.

Trump declared Saturday that the U.S. would "run the country" until a safe transition occurs. Vice President Delcy Rodriguez was sworn in as interim leader in Caracas, but Trump dismissed Nobel Prize-winning opposition leader María Corina Machado—who has widespread democratic support—as lacking sufficient backing. The administration frames the operation as law enforcement executing outstanding warrants, not regime change, yet Trump's statements about controlling oil and running Venezuela suggest deeper involvement.

The oil plan raises immediate questions. Venezuela holds the world's largest proven oil reserves, but production collapsed under Maduro from 3 million barrels daily to under 700,000. Rebuilding requires massive investment in infrastructure destroyed by mismanagement and corruption. Who controls this process—Americans, Venezuelans, or some combination—will determine whether Venezuela recovers as a sovereign democracy or becomes dependent on foreign corporations and governments. The debate extends beyond Venezuela to fundamental questions about intervention, sovereignty, and who has the right to decide a nation's future.

Support Managed Reconstruction

Venezuela needs competent administration to recover

Supporters of U.S. involvement argue that Venezuela's collapse under Maduro was so catastrophic that only capable external administration can rebuild the country. Maduro destroyed Venezuela's economy, gutted its institutions, and corrupted its oil industry. Hoping Venezuelans can immediately self-govern after this devastation is unrealistic. Temporary U.S. management—with Venezuelan partnership—offers the best path to eventual democracy and prosperity.

Arguments for managed reconstruction:

• Technical expertise Venezuela lacks: Rebuilding collapsed oil infrastructure requires engineering expertise, project management, and billions in investment that Venezuela simply doesn't have. U.S. oil companies possess this capability. Without their involvement, Venezuelan oil stays offline for years while the country remains impoverished.
• Preventing renewed corruption: Maduro's regime wasn't an aberration—Venezuela has struggled with corruption for decades. Simply handing control to new Venezuelan leaders risks repeating old patterns. U.S. oversight ensures oil revenues fund reconstruction rather than enriching a new elite. Transparency and accountability require external enforcement.
• Creating conditions for democracy: Genuine democracy requires functioning institutions, rule of law, and economic stability. None exist in Venezuela after Maduro's destruction. U.S. involvement provides stability and resources to build these foundations. Once institutions function, Venezuelans can govern themselves successfully.

This view sees Trump's approach as pragmatic rather than imperial. Venezuela needs help. The U.S. has resources and expertise to provide it. Oil sales fund reconstruction while U.S. companies rebuild production capacity. This isn't theft—it's investment that benefits both nations. Venezuela gets rebuilt infrastructure and restored oil production. The U.S. gets energy supplies and a stable partner.

Critics calling this imperialism ignore that failed states need external support to recover. Iraq and Afghanistan showed that military intervention without competent governance fails. Venezuela requires the opposite: capable administration focused on reconstruction. If managed properly, U.S. involvement could transform Venezuela from narco-state to functioning democracy. The alternative—hoping Venezuela self-organizes after total collapse—means decades of suffering.

Reject Imperial Resource Extraction

Colonial-era resource grabs disguised as humanitarian aid

Critics see Trump's announcement as revealing the true motive for invading Venezuela: seizing control of the world's largest oil reserves. The framing about rebuilding infrastructure and helping Venezuelans is window dressing for old-fashioned imperialism. When Trump says U.S. companies will "fix the infrastructure" and the U.S. will "run the country" while controlling oil revenues, that's not partnership—it's occupation.

Concerns about resource extraction:

• Who profits from Venezuelan oil: Trump says U.S. companies will invest billions, but they'll extract far more in profits over decades. Historical precedent shows foreign oil companies take the lion's share while host nations receive minimal benefit. Venezuela's oil should enrich Venezuelans, not American corporations and shareholders.
• Control equals colonialism: Trump's statement that the U.S. will "run" Venezuela isn't temporary administration—it's declaring Venezuela a protectorate. Dismissing María Corina Machado, who has legitimate democratic support, while imposing U.S.-chosen governance makes clear this isn't about Venezuelan self-determination. It's about installing a compliant government serving U.S. interests.
• Setting precedents for resource wars: If the U.S. can invade countries and seize their natural resources whenever it claims legal or humanitarian justification, that legitimizes resource wars globally. Other nations will follow this precedent. Venezuela's oil makes it a target, just as Iraq's oil influenced that invasion despite official claims about weapons.

Latin America has bitter experience with U.S. interventions framed as helping while actually serving American corporate interests. United Fruit Company in Guatemala, oil companies throughout the region, mining corporations—all wrapped themselves in rhetoric about development while extracting wealth and propping up compliant dictators. Venezuela 2026 follows this playbook precisely.

The moral corruption is claiming to liberate Venezuelans while denying them control over their own resources and government. If the goal were truly humanitarian, the U.S. would support Venezuelan-led reconstruction, provide aid without strings, and defer to democratic Venezuelan leaders like Machado. Instead, Trump announces American control of oil and governance. That's not liberation—it's conquest dressed in humanitarian language.

Center Venezuelan Self-Determination

Venezuelans must decide their own future

This perspective focuses less on American motives and more on a fundamental principle: Venezuelans have the right to determine their own political and economic future. Both Maduro's authoritarianism and American military occupation deny this right. The question isn't whether Maduro was terrible or whether reconstruction needs investment—it's who gets to decide how Venezuela recovers.

Prioritizing Venezuelan agency:

• Democratic legitimacy matters: María Corina Machado and Edmundo González won Venezuela's 2024 election decisively. They earned democratic mandates through years of opposition to Maduro. Why is Trump dismissing them and declaring the U.S. will "run" Venezuela? If the goal is democracy, support democratically-chosen Venezuelan leaders, don't sideline them.
• Long-term dependency risks: Making Venezuela dependent on U.S. companies and U.S.-controlled revenues creates subordination that's hard to escape. Future Venezuelan governments will fear making decisions that displease Washington. True sovereignty means Venezuelans control their resources and make their own choices—even mistakes.
• Who speaks for Venezuela: Many Venezuelans celebrated Maduro's removal. But celebrating the dictator's fall doesn't mean endorsing indefinite American occupation. Venezuelans themselves are divided on what comes next. Those divisions should be resolved through Venezuelan democratic processes, not American diktat.

The path forward should center Venezuelan agency at every step. Support Venezuelan democratic leaders who earned legitimacy fighting Maduro. Provide reconstruction assistance through Venezuelan-controlled institutions rather than U.S. administration. Allow Venezuelans to negotiate with oil companies on terms they choose. Accept that Venezuelan decisions might differ from American preferences.

This isn't naive idealism—it's respecting basic sovereignty and self-determination. Venezuelans aren't children needing foreign guardians. They're people who endured authoritarianism and deserve the chance to build their own democracy. U.S. involvement should support Venezuelan choices, not replace them. The measure of success isn't efficient oil production or favorable contracts for American companies—it's whether Venezuelans genuinely control their future.

Pursue Pragmatic Partnership

Shared interests enable mutually beneficial cooperation

A more pragmatic view sees potential for genuine partnership benefiting both nations if structured properly. Venezuela needs investment and expertise. The U.S. wants energy supplies and regional stability. Rather than framing this as exploitation versus charity, focus on creating arrangements where both parties benefit and Venezuelans maintain meaningful control.

Elements of pragmatic partnership:

• Market-rate transactions, not extraction: Selling Venezuelan oil at market rates with transparent revenue accounting ensures Venezuela receives fair value. The key is Venezuelan oversight of how revenues are spent. Joint U.S.-Venezuelan commissions could allocate funds between reconstruction, social programs, and debt service.
• Time-limited U.S. involvement: Frame American involvement as explicitly temporary—perhaps 2-3 years—with clear milestones for transferring control to Venezuelan institutions. This prevents indefinite occupation while providing stability during reconstruction's critical phase. Venezuelans know the U.S. will leave, creating incentives for genuine partnership.
• Including legitimate Venezuelan leaders: Rather than sidelining Machado and democratic opposition, make them central partners in reconstruction. Their legitimacy and local knowledge are essential. U.S. involvement should support them, not replace them. This builds Venezuelan institutional capacity rather than dependency.

The challenge is structuring arrangements that genuinely serve mutual interests rather than allowing one party to dominate. Venezuela gets rebuilt infrastructure, restored oil production, and revenue to fund recovery. The U.S. gets energy supplies, a stable partner, and reduced migration pressure. Oil companies get profitable contracts but under terms Venezuelans negotiate and approve.

Success requires transparency and accountability on all sides. Venezuela must commit to fighting corruption and building democratic institutions. The U.S. must commit to respecting Venezuelan sovereignty and transferring control on schedule. Oil companies must accept reasonable profit margins rather than extractive contracts. If these commitments hold, Venezuela could emerge as a successful example of reconstruction after state failure. If they don't, it becomes another case of failed intervention leaving deeper problems.

Looking Forward

The fundamental tension is between Venezuela's need for help and Venezuelans' right to self-determination. No one disputes that Venezuela's oil infrastructure is destroyed, its institutions are corrupted, and its people are suffering. The disagreement is whether American control is the solution or another problem. Can temporary U.S. administration genuinely serve Venezuelan interests and transition to Venezuelan sovereignty? Or will "temporary" become permanent and "partnership" become subordination?

What happens in coming weeks will be telling. Will the U.S. genuinely involve democratic Venezuelan leaders like Machado in decision-making? Will there be transparent accounting of oil revenues? Will there be clear timelines for transferring control? Or will we see American companies signing long-term contracts, U.S. officials making unilateral decisions, and indefinite occupation justified by ongoing instability? The former path might vindicate claims about reconstruction. The latter will confirm fears about imperial resource extraction. For Venezuelans who survived Maduro's dictatorship, the stakes couldn't be higher—they fought for the right to govern themselves, not to trade one form of external control for another.

Recent Articles