Economy

United States President Donald Trump has called on oil executives to rush back into Venezuela as the White House looks to quickly secure $100bn in investments to revive the country’s ability to fully tap into its expansive reserves of petroleum.

Trump, as he opened the meeting with oil industry executives on Friday, sought to assure them that they need not be sceptical of quickly investing in and, in some cases, returning to the South American country with a history of state asset seizures as well as ongoing US sanctions and the current political uncertainty.

“You have total safety,” Trump told the executives. “You’re dealing with us directly and not dealing with Venezuela at all. We don’t want you to deal with Venezuela.”

Trump added: “Our giant oil companies will be spending at least $100bn of their money, not the government’s money. They don’t need government money. But they need government protection.”

Trump welcomed the oil executives to the White House after US forces earlier on Friday seized their fifth tanker over the past month that has been linked to Venezuelan oil. The action reflected the determination of the US to fully control the exporting, refining and production of Venezuelan petroleum, a sign of the Trump administration’s plans for ongoing involvement in the sector as it seeks commitments from private companies.

“At least 100 Billion Dollars will be invested by BIG OIL, all of whom I will be meeting with today at The White House,” Trump said on Friday in a predawn social media post.

The White House said it invited oil executives from 17 companies, including Chevron, which still operates in Venezuela, as well as ExxonMobil and ConocoPhillips, which both had oil projects in the country that were lost as part of a 2007 nationalisation of private businesses under former President Nicolas Maduro’s predecessor, Hugo Chavez.

“If we look at the commercial constructs and frameworks in place today in Venezuela, today it’s un-investable,” said Darren Woods, ExxonMobil CEO. “And so significant changes have to be made to those commercial frameworks, the legal system, there has to be durable investment protections and there has to be change to the hydrocarbon laws in the country.”

Benjamin Radd, a senior fellow at the UCLA Burkle Center for International Relations, told Al Jazeera that he had “noted the hesitation and less-than-full-throated enthusiasm for re-entering the Venezuelan market”, citing Woods, who told the gathering that the company had its assets there seized twice already.

“The bottom line is that until Trump can outline and provide assurances of a plan towards political stability, it will continue to be a risky endeavour for these oil companies to re-engage Venezuela. And what is there is a regime change in Iran in the days or weeks or months to come, and all of a sudden that re-emerges as a place where Western oil companies can do business? Even though the reserves don’t equal what Venezuela has, the risk is far less, and the infrastructure is more sound,” Radd said.

Other companies invited included Halliburton, Valero, Marathon, Shell, Singapore-based Trafigura, Italy-based Eni and Spain-based Repsol, as well as a vast swath of domestic and international companies with interests ranging from construction to the commodity markets.

Wait and see

Large US oil companies have so far largely refrained from affirming investments in Venezuela, as contracts and guarantees need to be in place. Trump has suggested that the US would help to backstop any investments.

Venezuela’s oil production has slumped below one million barrels per day (bpd). Part of Trump’s challenge to turn that around will be to convince oil companies that his administration has a stable relationship with Venezuela’s interim President Delcy Rodriguez, as well as protections for companies entering the market.

While Rodriguez has publicly denounced Trump and the abduction and ouster of Maduro, the US president has said that to date, Venezuela’s interim leader has been cooperating behind the scenes with his administration.

Most companies are in a wait-and-see mode as they await terms from the Venezuelans, stability and wait to find out how much the US government will actually help, said Rachel Ziemba, an adjunct senior fellow at the Center for a New American Security.

Those like Chevron that are already in there are in a better position to increase investments as they “already have sunk costs”, Ziemba pointed out.

Ziemba said she expects a partial ramp-up in the first half of this year as the volumes that were going to China – Venezuelan oil’s largest buyer – are redirected and sold via the US. “But long-term investments will be slow,” she said as companies wait to find out about US commitments and Venezuelan terms.

Tyson Slocum, director of the consumer advocacy group Public Citizen’s energy programme, criticised the gathering and called the US military’s removal of Maduro “violent imperialism”. Slocum added that Trump’s goal appears to be to “hand billionaires control over Venezuela’s oil”.

So far, the US government has not said how the revenue from the sale of Venezuelan oil will be shared and what percentage of the sales would be given to Caracas.

Ziemba said she was worried that “if funds do not go to Venezuela for basic goods, among other local needs, there will be instability that will deepen the country’s economic crisis“.

In the news conference on Friday, Trump said the US had a formula for distributing payments. UCLA’s Radd said that “if the US can or will guarantee security and stability, it makes sense for it to expect a return on investment in that sense. But then this makes it sound more like a mafia-style ‘racket’ than a government-led operation”, he told Al Jazeera.

Meanwhile, the US and Venezuelan governments said on Friday they were exploring the possibility of restoring diplomatic relations between the two countries, and a delegation from the Trump administration arrived in the South American nation on Friday.

CARACAS, Venezuela — At the White House, President Trump vows American intervention in Venezuela will pour billions of dollars into the country’s infrastructure, revive its once-thriving oil industry and eventually deliver a new age of prosperity to the Latin American nation.

Here at a sprawling street market in the capital, though, utility worker Ana Calderón simply wishes she could afford the ingredients to make a pot of soup.

“Food is incredibly expensive,” says Calderón, noting rapidly rising prices that have celery selling for twice as much as just a few weeks ago and two pounds of meat going for more than $10, or 25 times the country’s monthly minimum wage. “Everything is so expensive.”

Venezuelans digesting news of the United States’ brazen capture of former President Nicolás Maduro are hearing grandiose promises of future economic prowess even as they live through the crippling economic realities of today.

“They know that the outlook has significantly changed but they don’t see it yet on the ground. What they’re seeing is repression. They’re seeing a lot of confusion,” says Luisa Palacios, a Venezuelan-born economist and former oil executive who is a research scholar at the Center on Global Energy Policy at Columbia University. “People are hopeful and expecting that things are going to change but that doesn’t mean that things are going to change right now.”

Whatever hope exists over the possibility of U.S. involvement improving Venezuela’s economy is paired with the crushing daily truths most here live. People typically work two, three or more jobs just to survive, and still cupboards and refrigerators are nearly bare. Children go to bed early to avoid the pang of hunger; parents choose between filling a prescription and buying groceries. An estimated eight in 10 people live in poverty.

It has led millions to flee the country for elsewhere.

Those who remain are concentrated in Venezuela’s cities, including its capital, Caracas, where the street market in the Catia neighborhood once was so busy that shoppers bumped into one another and dodged oncoming traffic. But as prices have climbed in recent days, locals have increasingly stayed away from the market stalls, reducing the chaos to a relative hush.

Neila Roa, carrying her 5-month-old baby, sells packs of cigarettes to passersby, having to monitor daily fluctuations in currency to adjust the price.

“Inflation and more inflation and devaluation,” Roa says. “It’s out of control.”

Roa could not believe the news of Maduro’s capture. Now, she wonders what will come of it. She thinks it would take “a miracle” to fix Venezuela’s economy.

“What we don’t know is whether the change is for better or for worse,” she says. “We’re in a state of uncertainty. We have to see how good it can be, and how much it can contribute to our lives.”

Trump has said the U.S. will distribute some of the proceeds from the sale of Venezuelan oil back to its population. But that commitment so far largely appears to be focused on America’s interests in extracting more oil from Venezuela, selling more U.S.-made goods to the country and repairing the electricity grid.

The White House is hosting a meeting Friday with U.S. oil company executives to discuss Venezuela, which the Trump administration has been pressuring to open its vast-but-struggling oil industry more widely to American investment and know-how. In an interview with the New York Times, Trump acknowledged that reviving the country’s oil industry would take years.

“The oil will take a while,” he said.

Venezuela has the world’s largest proven oil reserves. The country’s economy depends on them.

Maduro’s predecessor, the fiery Hugo Chávez, elected in 1998, expanded social services, including housing and education, thanks to the country’s oil bonanza, which generated revenues estimated at some $981 billion between 1999 and 2011 as crude prices soared. But corruption, a decline in oil production and economic policies led to a crisis that became evident in 2012.

Chávez appointed Maduro as his successor before dying of cancer in 2013. The country’s political, social and economic crisis, entangled with plummeting oil production and prices, marked the entirety of Maduro’s presidency. Millions were pushed into poverty. The middle class virtually disappeared. And more than 7.7 million people left their homeland.

Albert Williams, an economist at Nova Southeastern University, says returning the energy sector to its heyday would have a dramatic spillover effect in a country in which oil is the dominant industry, sparking the opening of restaurants, stores and other businesses. What’s unknown, he says, is whether such a revitalization happens, how long it would take and how a government built by Maduro will adjust to the change in power.

“That’s the billion-dollar question,” Williams says. “But if you improve the oil industry, you improve the country.”

The International Monetary Fund estimates Venezuela’s inflation rate is a staggering 682%, the highest of any country for which it has data. That has sent the cost of food beyond what many can afford.

Many public sector workers survive on roughly $160 per month, while the average private sector employee earned about $237 last year. Venezuela’s monthly minimum wage of 130 bolivars, or $0.40, has not increased since 2022, putting it well below the United Nations’ measure of extreme poverty of $2.15 a day.

The currency crisis led Maduro to declare an “economic emergency” in April.

Usha Haley, a Wichita State University economist who studies emerging markets, says for those hurting the most, there is no immediate sign of change.

“Short-term, most Venezuelans will probably not feel any economic relief,” she says. “A single oil sale will not fix the country’s rampant inflation and currency collapse. Jobs, prices and exchange rates will probably not shift quickly.”

In a country that has seen as much strife as Venezuela has in recent years, locals are accustomed to doing what they have to in order to get through the day, so much so that many utter the same expression

“Resolver,” they say in Spanish, or “figure it out,” shorthand for the jury-rigged nature of life here, in which every transaction, from boarding a bus to buying a child’s medicine, involves a delicate calculation.

Here at the market, the smell of fish, fresh onions and car exhaust combine. Calderon, making her way through, faces freshly skyrocketing prices, saying “the difference is huge,” as the country’s official currency has rapidly declined against its unofficial one, the U.S. dollar.

Unable to afford all the ingredients for her soup, she left with a bunch of celery but no meat.

Cano and Sedensky write for the Associated Press. Sedensky reported from New York. AP writer Josh Boak in Washington contributed to this report.

The United States government has said it aims to control Venezuelan oil sales indefinitely.

“We need to have that leverage and that control of those oil sales to drive the changes that simply must happen in Venezuela,” Energy Secretary Chris Wright said on Wednesday.

His comments come days after US forces abducted Venezuelan leader Nicolas Maduro on Saturday. Since then, the administration of US President Donald Trump has announced a deal under which Venezuela would turn over 30 million to 50 million barrels of sanctioned oil to the US to sell.

That comes against a backdrop of demands that Venezuelan government officials open up access to US oil companies or risk further military action.

On Friday, executives from several major oil companies, including ExxonMobil, ConocoPhillips, and Chevron, are slated to meet with the president to discuss potential investments in Venezuela.

Can the US control Venezuelan oil sales indefinitely?

“The US federal government can absolutely intervene, make demands, capture what it wants, and redirect those barrels accordingly. I don’t know of anything that would meaningfully interfere with the federal government if that’s what it decided to do,” Jeff Krimmel, founder of Krimmel Strategy Group, a Houston, Texas-based energy consulting firm, told Al Jazeera.

There are, however, geopolitical hurdles. The US has less leverage than it did more than two decades ago when the US military and its allies entered Iraq, another oil-rich country. Today, other superpowers could stand in the way in ways they did not in 2003.

“When we went into Iraq, we were living in a unipolar moment as the world’s only great power. That era is over. China is now a great power, and most experts consider it a peer competitor. That means it has ways to hurt the US economy and to push back militarily, including through proxy conflicts, if it chooses to oppose such actions,” Anthony Orlando, professor of finance and law at California State Polytechnic University, Pomona, told Al Jazeera.

China is the largest purchaser of Venezuelan crude, although it only imports about 4 percent of its oil from the South American nation.

“It’s a question of whether they want to draw a line in the sand with the United States and say, ‘You can’t do this, because if we allow it, you’ll keep pushing further,’” Orlando said.

“If you’re a minor power like Venezuela, not China or Russia, you’re a country vulnerable to US intervention. That creates an incentive to align more closely with China or Russia to prevent it from happening, and that’s not a good outcome for the United States,” Orlando continued.

In the days since Maduro’s abduction, members of the Trump administration have also renewed calls to take over Greenland.

How does this compare with Iraq?

The US intervention in Venezuela has been compared to its involvement in Iraq, which began under the administration of former President George W Bush in 2003. At the time, Iraq had the second-largest oil reserves in the world, with 112 billion barrels.

However, production was limited. Prior to the invasion, Iraq produced 1.5 million barrels per day (bpd), rising to 4.5 million bpd by 2018.

While the Iraqi government retained ownership of oil, US companies were often given no-bid contracts to operate there, including ExxonMobil and BP, and the majority of sales went to Asian and European markets.

In 2021, Iraq’s then-President Barham Salih claimed that an estimated $150bn in money stolen through corrupt deals had been “smuggled out of Iraq” since the 2003 US-led invasion.

Unlike during the Bush administration and its aims for Iraq’s oil, the Trump administration has been explicit about the role of oil in its attack on Venezuela.

“The difference between Iraq and this is that [Bush] didn’t keep the oil. We’re going to keep the oil,” Trump said in a conversation with MS Now anchor Joe Scarborough.

Comparatively, in 2002, prior to the US invasion, then-Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld asserted that the operation to take control of post-war reconstruction had “literally nothing to do with oil”.

“When the Bush administration went into Iraq, they claimed it wasn’t about that, even though there was substantial evidence it was a factor. This time it’s more explicit, so it’s clear it will impact oil markets. [But] one lesson from the Iraq war is that it’s easier said than done,” Orlando, the professor, told Al Jazeera.

Will this benefit oil companies?

Analysts argue that investments in Venezuela might not actually benefit oil companies due to rising economic uncertainty, the need for major infrastructure improvements, and the fact that large companies like ExxonMobil and Chevron already have capital programmes planned for the remainder of the decade.

“Either [the companies] will have to take on more debt or issue more equity to raise the capital needed, or they’ll have to divert capital expenditures from other regions into Venezuela. In either scenario, I expect substantial shareholder pushback,” Krimmel, the energy consultant, said.

Increased production will also require infrastructure improvements. Venezuelan oil is dense, which makes it more difficult and expensive to extract compared to oil from Iraq or the US.

Venezuelan oil is often blended with lighter grades from the US. It is comparable in density to Canadian oil, which, despite tensions between Ottawa and Washington, comes from a US ally with more modern extraction infrastructure.

“I don’t think Canada’s going to be too happy about all this,” Orlando said.

However, Chevron, the only US company currently operating in Venezuela, is seeking authorisation from Washington to expand its licence to operate in the country after the US placed restrictions on it last year, the Reuters news agency reported on Thursday, citing unnamed sources.

The US role in energy, particularly oil and gas, has surged in recent years amid the rise of fracking technology. The US is now the largest producer of oil in the world. But recent cuts to alternative energy programmes and increasing energy demands from the artificial intelligence industry have led Republicans to double down on expanding the oil and gas sector.

“There is an oil supply surplus. Even if we were in a supply deficit right now, military action in Venezuela wouldn’t unlock incremental barrels quickly. So even if you were trying to solve a short-term supply deficit, which, to be clear, we do not have, Venezuela wouldn’t be an answer because it would take too long and be too expensive to ramp production up,” Krimmel added.

While Venezuela holds the world’s largest oil reserves, the OPEC member represents only 1 percent of global oil output.

Currently, Chevron is the only US company operating in Venezuela. ExxonMobil and ConocoPhillips operated in Venezuela before Hugo Chavez nationalised the oil sector in 2007, leading to a downturn in production over years of disinvestment and poorly run facilities. In the 1990s, Venezuela produced as much as 3.5 million bpd. That has since fallen due to limited investment, with production averaging 1.1 million bpd last year.

“Venezuela’s infrastructure has deteriorated under both the Chavez and Maduro regimes. While they are extracting oil, returning to production levels from 10 or 20 years ago would require significant investment,” Orlando said.

Trump has ‘greenlit’ bipartisan push to sanction countries that buy Russian energy exports, Lindsey Graham says.

United States President Donald Trump has backed a bill to impose sanctions on countries that buy Russian oil, including China and India, an influential Republican senator has said.

Lindsey Graham, a senator for the US state of South Carolina, said on Wednesday that Trump had “greenlit” the bipartisan bill following a “very productive” meeting.

Graham’s Sanctioning Russia Act, drafted with Democrat Richard Blumenthal, would give Trump the authority to impose a tariff of up to 500 percent on imports from countries doing business with Russia’s energy sector.

“This bill will allow President Trump to punish those countries who buy cheap Russian oil fueling Putin’s war machine,” Graham said in a statement, referring to Russian President Vladimir Putin.

““This bill would give President Trump tremendous leverage against countries like China, India and Brazil to incentivize them to stop buying the cheap Russian oil that provides the financing for Putin’s bloodbath against Ukraine.”

China and Russia continue to be major buyers of Russia’s oil despite US and European sanctions imposed on the Russian energy sector in response to Moscow’s war in Ukraine.

China bought nearly half of Russia’s crude oil exports in November, while India took about 38 percent of exports, according to an analysis by the Centre for Research on Energy and Clean Air. Brazil dramatically ramped up its purchase of subsidised Russian oil after the invasion of Ukraine in 2022, but those imports have fallen substantially in recent months.

The latest US push to increase pressure on Russia comes as Moscow and Kyiv are engaged in Washington-brokered negotiations to bring an end to the nearly four-year war.

On Tuesday, the Trump administration for the first time gave its backing to European proposals for binding security guarantees for Ukraine, including post-war truce monitoring and a European-led multinational force.

Russia, which has repeatedly said that it will not accept any deployment of NATO member countries’ soldiers in Ukraine, has yet to indicate that it would support such security measures.

In his statement on his bill, Graham said the legislation was timely in light of the current situation in Ukraine.

“This will be well-timed, as Ukraine is making concessions for peace and Putin is all talk, continuing to kill the innocent,” he said.

United States President Donald Trump has issued a stern warning to defence contractors that supply the US military, accusing them of profiteering.

In a Truth Social post on Wednesday, he threatened to take action if the companies failed to take specific actions, including capping executive pay, investing in the construction of factories and producing more military equipment at a faster clip.

“MILITARY EQUIPMENT IS NOT BEING MADE FAST ENOUGH,” Trump wrote at one point in his lengthy, 322-word post.

“It must be built now with the Dividends, Stock Buybacks, and Over Compensation of Executives, rather than borrowing from Financial Institutions, or getting the money from your Government.”

Trump singled out the technology company Raytheon as the worst offender, in his eyes.

“I have been informed by the Department of War that Defense Contractor, Raytheon, has been the least responsive to the needs of the Department of War, the slowest in increasing their volume, and the most aggressive spending on their Shareholders rather than the needs and demands of the United States Military,” Trump wrote in a follow-up post.

The president threatened to sever government ties with Raytheon, now known as RTX, which earns billions from its defence contract work.

Just last August, the Department of Defence awarded the firm $50bn – the maximum possible – for a 20-year contract to supply the military with equipment, services and repairs.

“Our Country comes FIRST, and they’re going to have to learn that, the hard way,” Trump warned.

Defence spending fuels a significant portion of the US economy: As of 2024, Defence Department spending represented approximately 2.7 percent of the US gross domestic product (GDP).

Normally, the total defence budget hovers around $1 trillion. But in a Wednesday evening post on Truth Social, Trump announced that he would petition congressional Republicans to boost that amount to a record $1.5 trillion for fiscal year 2027.

“This will allow us to build the ‘Dream Military’ that we have long been entitled to and, more importantly, that will keep us SAFE and SECURE, regardless of foe,” Trump wrote.

Still, Trump’s threats sent stocks for defence contractors plummeting, amid uncertainty over the future of the high-stakes industry.

Since taking office for a second term, Trump has taken an aggressive, hands-on approach to private companies that have ties to national security concerns.

In June, for instance, the Trump administration was awarded a “golden share” in the metal company US Steel, in exchange for giving a green light to its merger with Japan’s Nippon Steel. That share allows the Trump administration to essentially have a veto over any major action US Steel may take to reorganise or dissolve.

Then, in August, the technology firm Intel struck a deal to sell the US government a 10-percent stake in its company, amid pressure from Trump.

The Trump administration has continued to snap up stakes in other private firms, most notably mining companies involved in the production of rare earth minerals and other raw materials used in technology.

It is not yet clear how Trump plans to enforce his demands for the defence contractors he blasted in Wednesday’s social media messages. Nor is it certain that Trump could legally enforce his orders.

But Trump aired a list of grievances against the companies, including that their executives’ pay was simply too large.

“Executive Pay Packages in the Defense Industry are exorbitant and unjustifiable given how slowly these Companies are delivering vital Equipment to our Military, and our Allies,” he wrote at one point.

At another, he called on the private firms to invest in new construction projects, a request he has made across industries, from the pharmaceutical sector to automakers.

“From this moment forward, these Executives must build NEW and MODERN Production Plants, both for delivering and maintaining this important Equipment, and for building the latest Models of future Military Equipment,” Trump said.

“Until they do so, no Executive should be allowed to make in excess of $5 Million Dollars which, as high as it sounds, is a mere fraction of what they are making now.”

He also complained that the defence companies were “far too slow” in offering repairs for their equipment.

Defence contractors are responsible for a range of services and products, from software to training to missiles and tanks. RTX, for example, designed the Patriot Missile, the US’s flagship surface-to-air missile system, and it keeps the US military supplied with spare parts and other updates.

Based in Virginia, the company boasted sales exceeding $80bn in 2024. Just this week, the US Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) awarded RTX a $438m contract to update its radar system.

Still, Trump maintained that too much of that income was going to shareholders, executive pay and stock buybacks, wherein a company purchases its own shares in order to limit their supply and increase their value.

“Defense Contractors are currently issuing massive Dividends to their Shareholders and massive Stock Buybacks, at the expense and detriment of investing in Plants and Equipment,” Trump wrote.

“This situation will no longer be allowed or tolerated!”

The United States says it will control sales of Venezuelan oil “indefinitely” and decide how the proceeds of those sales are used, as President Donald Trump’s administration consolidates control over the South American country after abducting its president.

The US Department of Energy said on Wednesday that it had “begun marketing” Venezuelan oil on global markets and all proceeds from the sales “will first settle in US-controlled accounts at globally recognized banks”.

“These funds will be disbursed for the benefit of the American people and the Venezuelan people at the discretion of the US government,” it said.

“These oil sales begin immediately with the anticipated sale of approximately 30-50 million barrels. They will continue indefinitely.”

The announcement comes just days after the Trump administration abducted Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro on Saturday in what legal experts say was a clear violation of international law.

The US has said it plans to “run” the country and take control of its vast oil reserves, with Trump saying on social media on Tuesday that Caracas would hand between 30 and 50 million barrels of oil over to Washington.

The US actions against Venezuela come amid a months-long pressure campaign by the Trump administration against Maduro, who has been charged in New York with drug trafficking offences that he denies.

That has included a partial US naval blockade against Venezuela and the seizure of several vessels that the Trump administration says were transporting oil to and from the country in violation of US sanctions.

Earlier on Wednesday, US special forces seized two Venezuela-linked vessels – including a Russian-flagged ship in the North Atlantic – for allegedly breaching those sanctions.

The seizures came as senior US officials briefed lawmakers on Capitol Hill about the Trump administration’s plans in Venezuela.

Reporting from Washington, DC, Al Jazeera’s Alan Fisher said most Republicans have backed Trump’s actions while Democrats have raised a slew of questions.

That includes “how long this operation in Venezuela will continue, what it will cost, [whether] any American servicemen actually be deployed on the ground in Venezuela, and what is the Venezuelan reaction,” Fisher explained.

“The Trump administration [is] hoping to get everyone on side before the end of the day,” he added.

Democratic Senator Elizabeth Warren wrote on social media that Wednesday’s briefing was “worse” than imagined.

“Oil company executives seem to know more about Trump’s secret plan to ‘run’ Venezuela than the American people. We need public Senate hearings NOW,” she said.

Three-phased plan

US Secretary of State Marco Rubio told reporters on Wednesday that the Trump administration is pursuing a three-phased plan that begins with the sales of Venezuelan oil.

“That money will then be handled in such a way that we will control how it’s dispersed in a way that benefits the Venezuelan people, not corruption, not the regime,” Rubio said.

The second phase would see US and other companies gain access to the Venezuelan market, and “begin to create the process of reconciliation nationally … so that opposition forces can be amnestied and released from prisons or brought back to the country”.

“And then the third phase, of course, would be one of transition,” Rubio added.

Gregory Brew, a senior analyst on Iran and energy at Eurasia Group, said the US announcement about controlling Venezuelan oil sales hints at “a return to the concessionary system” in place before the 1970s.

Brew explained in a social media post that, under that system, “producer states own the oil but it is Western firms that manage production and marketing, ultimately retain the bulk of the profits”.

A group of United Nations experts also warned that recent statements from Trump and other administration officials about plans to “run” Venezuela and exploit its oil reserves would violate international law.

Specifically, the experts said the US position contravenes “the right of peoples to self-determination and their associated sovereignty over natural resources, cornerstones of international human rights law”.

“Venezuela’s vast natural resources, including the largest proven oil reserves in the world, must not be cynically exploited through thinly veiled pretexts to legitimise military aggression, foreign occupation, or regime-change strategies,” they said.

Political situation unstable

Renata Segura, the Latin America and Caribbean programme director at the International Crisis Group, noted Venezuelan authorities have not commented on the US saying it plans to control sales of the country’s oil.

“And so we have to assume that either [the Venezuelan authorities] have accepted these terms, or that they’re just going to be forced to accept them,” Segura told Al Jazeera.

Venezuelan Vice President Delcy Rodriguez was sworn in as president earlier this week following Maduro’s abduction, stressing on Tuesday that “there is no foreign agent governing Venezuela” despite US claims to “run” the country.

Segura explained, “There’s a lot of debate within the [Venezuelan] regime itself about how to move forward” amid the US pronouncements, stressing the political situation remains far from stable.

“It’s very important what the army might do,” she said.

“The military forces in Venezuela control enormous amounts of power – both economic but also on the streets – and there might be a moment in which they think they’re not going to be on board with this particular arrangement that the United States is presenting.”

The board of Warner Bros Discovery (WBD) has unanimously turned down Paramount Skydance’s latest attempt to acquire the studio, saying its revised $108.4bn hostile bid amounted to a risky leveraged buyout that investors should reject.

In a letter to shareholders on Wednesday, the WBD board said Paramount’s offer hinges on “an extraordinary amount of debt financing” that heightens the risk of closing. It reaffirmed its commitment to streaming giant Netflix’s $82.7bn deal for the film and television studio and other assets.

Some investors, however, pushed back on Warner Bros. Pentwater Capital Management CEO Matthew Halbower said that the media giant’s board had “made an error” by not considering Paramount’s bid.

On CNBC on Wednesday, Halbower called the deal “economically superior”.

Paramount’s financing plan would saddle the smaller Hollywood studio with $87bn in debt once the acquisition closes, making it the largest leveraged buyout in history, the Warner Bros board told shareholders after voting against the $30-per-share cash offer on Tuesday. The letter accompanied a 67-page amended merger filing that laid out its case for rejecting Paramount’s offer.

Paramount deal ‘remains inadequate’

The revised Paramount offer “remains inadequate particularly given the insufficient value it would provide, the lack of certainty in Paramount Skydance ability to complete the offer, and the risks and costs borne by WBD shareholders should Paramount Skydance fail to complete the offer”, the Warner Bros board wrote.

Paramount, which has a market value of about $14bn, proposed to use $40bn in equity, which would be personally guaranteed by Oracle’s billionaire co-founder Larry Ellison, whose son David is Paramount’s CEO, and $54bn in debt to finance the deal.

Its financing plan would further weaken its credit rating, which S&P Global already rates at junk levels, and strain its cash flow – heightening the risk that the deal will not close, the Warner Bros board said. Netflix, which has offered $27.75 a share in cash and stock, has a $400bn market value and investment-grade credit rating.

The decision keeps Warner Bros on track to pursue the deal with Netflix, even after Paramount amended its bid on December 22 to address the earlier concerns about the lack of a personal guarantee from Ellison, who is Paramount’s controlling shareholder.

Paramount and Netflix have been vying to win control of Warner Bros, and with it, its prized film and television studios and its extensive content library. Its lucrative entertainment franchises include  Harry Potter, Game of Thrones, Friends, and the DC Comics universe; as well as coveted classic films such as Casablanca and Citizen Kane.

Netflix applauds

Netflix co-CEOs Ted Sarandos and Greg Peters welcomed Warner Bros’ decision on Wednesday, saying it recognises the streaming giant’s deal “as the superior proposal that will deliver the greatest value to its stockholders, as well as consumers, creators and the broader entertainment industry”.

Warner Bros Chairman Samuel Di Piazza told CNBC that the company was not currently in talks with Paramount but remains open to a transaction with the Ellison-led firm, and both the deals have a path to regulatory approval.

“From our perspective, they’ve got to put something on the table that is compelling,” he said, referring to the Paramount offer.

Wednesday’s filing said Warner Bros’ board met on December 23 to review Paramount’s amended offer and noted some improvements, including Ellison’s personal guarantee and a higher reverse termination fee of $5.8bn, but found “significant costs” associated with Paramount’s bid compared with a Netflix deal.

Warner Bros would be obligated to pay the streaming service a $2.8bn termination fee for abandoning its merger agreement with Netflix, $1.5bn in fees to its lenders and about $350m in additional financing costs. Altogether, Warner Bros said it would incur about $4.7bn in additional costs to terminate its deal with Netflix, or $1.79 per share.

The board repeated some concerns it had laid out on December 17, such as that Paramount would impose operating restrictions on the studio that would harm its business and competitive position, including barring the planned spin-out of the company’s cable television networks into a separate public company, Discovery Global.

Paramount offered “insufficient compensation” for the damage done to the studio’s business, if the Paramount deal failed to close, Warner Bros said.

Paramount “repeatedly failed to submit the best proposal” to Warner Bros shareholders, the board wrote, “despite clear direction” on the deficiencies in its bid and potential solutions.

The jockeying for Warner Bros has become Hollywood’s most closely watched takeover battle, as studios race to scale up amid intensifying competition from streaming platforms and volatile theatrical revenues.

While Netflix’s offer has a lower headline value, analysts have said it presents a clearer financing structure and fewer execution risks than Paramount’s bid for the entire company, including its cable TV business.

“WBD does not want to sell to Paramount, so it will keep rejecting Paramount as long as it is able to,” said Ross Benes, an analyst at eMarketer.

“But this process is not over … Paramount will have opportunity to make further attempts.”

Harris Oakmark, Warner Bros’ fifth-largest investor, previously told Reuters that Paramount’s revised offer was not “sufficient”, noting it was not enough to cover the breakup fee.

Paramount has argued its bid would face fewer regulatory obstacles, but a combined Paramount-Warner Bros entity would create a formidable competitor to industry leader Disney and merge two major television operators and two streaming services.

The valuation of Warner Bros’ planned Discovery Global spin-off, which includes cable television networks CNN, TNT Sports and the Discovery+ streaming service, is seen as a major sticking point. Analysts peg the cable channels’ value at up to $4 per share, while Paramount has suggested just $1.

Lawmakers from both parties have raised concerns about further consolidation in the media industry, and US President Donald Trump has said he plans to weigh in on the landmark acquisition.

On Wall Street, Warner Bros Discovery is up 0.3 percent in midday trading amid the news of the rejected bid. Netflix is also up 0.3. Meanwhile, Paramount is down 0.1 percent.

Caracas, Venezuela – The normally noisy capital of Caracas was eerily quiet on Monday, two days after the United States bombed the city and abducted Venezuela’s leader, Nicolas Maduro.

But many “caraqueños” nevertheless ventured out to buy food and other necessities, albeit at marked-up prices.

The tense atmosphere on Caracas’s streets was yet another sign of the uncertainty facing everyday Venezuelans, as they face the looming threat of further US intervention.

Local authorities have called for regular economic activity to continue in Venezuela. But some stores nevertheless remained closed, while households stocked up on basic supplies in case of shortages.

At Caracas’s central market, Quinta Crespo, many shopkeepers had shuttered their businesses for fear of unrest and looting.

Lines of 10 or more people often stretched outside the stores that remained open, despite the midday sun. Officers from the Bolivarian National Police patrolled outside to keep the queues calm.

Shoppers told Al Jazeera they were buying non-perishables, like corn flour, rice and canned goods, in case the security situation deteriorated in the capital.

“I’m looking for basic necessities, given the situation the country is going through,” said Carlos Godoy, 45, who lives in the western Caricuao district of Caracas. “We are waiting to see what happens. We are all in suspense, in uncertainty.”

Among the most expensive products Godoy saw on his shopping trip was powdered milk, which he said is selling for $16 per kilogram.

Another shopper, Betzerpa Ramírez, said she felt calm, despite the early-morning attack on Saturday. While she felt no need to hoard food items, she did note that prices for some goods have increased.

“Hygiene items are more expensive, even more than food,” she said.

Alexandra Arismendi, who works in a mobile phone shop at the Sambil mall in one of Caracas’s busiest shopping districts, expressed frustration with some of the recent price spikes.

The price of eggs, she said, was “exaggerated”.

“Prices are high,” she said. “A carton of eggs is selling for $10, which is beyond normal.”

Her colleague at the mobile shop, 23-year old María Gabriela, lamented the slump in sales, as shoppers stay indoors for fear of further unrest.

The normally bustling mall had largely emptied of its usual crowds. Gabriela herself was hesitant to show up for work. She travelled by taxi to avoid public transport.

“We thought people would be looking for chargers or power banks [for possible power failures], but they have been looking for other things,” Gabriela said.

“There has been no usual activity. It has been one of the strangest days in recent months.”

Venezuelans have become accustomed to volatile price increases and supply shortages over the past decade. Experts often blame government corruption, mismanagement and US sanctions for destabilising Venezuela’s economy.

During Maduro’s presidency, oil prices plummeted, sending Venezuela’s petroleum-heavy economy into free fall.

By 2018, inflation hit more than 130,000 percent, according to the country’s central bank. The COVID-19 pandemic also dealt the economy a wallop, leading to shortages of food and health supplies.

Maduro’s government has not published inflation statistics since he claimed victory in 2024’s disputed presidential election.

It remains unclear to what degree normalcy will return to Venezuela after the US attack on Saturday.

Early that morning, the administration of US President Donald Trump launched munitions against military installations in the states of Caracas, Aragua, Miranda and La Guaira.

At least 80 people died in the attack, according to an anonymous Venezuelan official quoted in The New York Times.

The US military offensive was over in a matter of hours. But Trump has warned he could authorise a “second wave” of attacks, should his demands for Venezuela not be fulfilled.

The Venezuelan government has also declared a state of emergency to “immediately begin the national search and capture of everyone involved in the promotion or support for the armed attack by the United States”.

It has maintained that Maduro remains the leader of Venezuela, despite his abduction to the US.

To Arismendi, the tension in Venezuela has not yet reached the level seen after the 2024 election, when thousands of protesters took to the streets.

“I feel that there was more tension around the elections,” said Arismendi. “Thank God we’re not at that level right now, but I feel like we’re not that far off either.”

BREAKINGBREAKING,

US president says oil will be sold at market prices and that he will control resulting revenues.

United States President Donald Trump has announced that Venezuela will turn over between 30 and 50 million barrels of sanctioned oil.

“This Oil will be sold at its Market Price, and that money will be controlled by me, as President of the United States of America, to ensure it is used to benefit the people of Venezuela and the United States!” Trump said on his platform Truth Social on Tuesday.

“I have asked Energy Secretary Chris Wright to execute this plan, immediately. It will be taken by storage ships, and brought directly to unloading docks in the United States.”

More to follow…

Tehran, Iran – Bolder protests are being recorded across Iran amid an increasing deployment of armed security officers as the government’s efforts to contain an unravelling economic situation fall flat.

Footage circulating online showed huge protests on Tuesday night in the city of Abdanan, in the central province of Ilam, where several major demonstrations have taken place over the past week.

Thousands of people, from children accompanied by parents to the elderly, were filmed walking and chanting in the streets of the small city while helicopters flew overhead. The protesters appeared to have vastly outnumbered the security personnel deployed to contain them.

In the city of Ilam, the province’s capital, videos showed security forces storming the Imam Khomeini Hospital to root out and arrest protesters, something rights group Amnesty International said violates international law and again shows “how far the Iranian authorities are willing to go to crush dissent”.

The hospital became a target after protests in the county of Malekshahi earlier this week, where multiple demonstrators were shot dead while gathering at the entrance of a military base. Some wounded protesters were taken to the hospital.

Several graphic videos from the scene of the shooting circulating online showed people being sprayed with live fire and falling to the ground as they fled from the gate. The local governor said the shooting is under investigation.

State-linked media confirmed that at least three people were killed. They also announced on Tuesday that a police officer was shot dead after armed clashes took place in the aftermath of funeral processions for the dead protesters.

In Tehran, numerous videos showed traders and business owners at the Grand Bazaar, who closed down their shops, clashing with security forces in riot gear with batons and using tear gas.

People could be heard chanting “freedom” in the bazaar and shouting “dishonourable” at police officers. “Execute me if you want, I’m not a rioter,” one man shouted when pressured by security forces, to cheers and clapping from the crowd.

‘Show no mercy’

Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei said, in his first reaction to the protests this week, that rioters must be “put in their place”.

Meanwhile, Chief Justice Gholamhossein Mohseni-Ejei said, “We will show no mercy to rioters this time.”

The situation was similarly tense in adjacent streets and neighbourhoods, where the protests were originally started by shopkeepers on December 28. Multiple other major shopping areas in Tehran saw huge strikes and protests on Tuesday, including Yaftabad, where police were met with shouted slogans, “Neither Gaza nor Lebanon; my life for Iran”.

Iran’s government has been accused of providing support for armed groups in Gaza and Lebanon.

More clashes were recorded around the Sina Hospital in downtown Tehran, but the Tehran University of Medical Science said in a statement that the tear gas canisters filmed inside the hospital compound were not thrown by security forces.

Demonstrations also occurred in Lorestan and Kermanshah in the west; Mashhad in the northeast; Qazvin, south of the capital; the city of Shahrekord in Chaharmahal and Bakhtiari to the southwest; and the city of Hamedan, where a woman was filmed braving a police water cannon in the winter cold.

A foreign-based human rights monitor opposed to the theocratic establishment in Iran claimed at least 35 people have been killed in the protests so far. The Iranian state has not announced casualty figures, and Al Jazeera could not independently verify any.

Cooking oil triples in price

The country continues to have one of the highest inflation rates in the world, especially when it comes to the rampant increases in prices of essential food items.

The government of moderate President Masoud Pezeshkian says it is implementing plans to make sure the economic situation is contained, but a rapid decline continues to unfold.

The country’s embattled currency, the rial, was priced at more than 1.47 million to the US dollar in the open market in Tehran on Tuesday, marking yet another new all-time low that showed a lack of public and investor trust.

The price of cooking oil has experienced by far the sharpest price surge this week, more than tripling and falling further out of reach of the decimated Iranian middle class, which has seen its purchasing power dwindle since 2018, when the US unilaterally abandoned a 2015 nuclear deal and reimposed harsh sanctions.

The development comes after Pezeshkian presented a budget for the upcoming Iranian calendar year, starting in late March, that eliminated a subsidised currency rate used for certain imports, including foodstuffs.

Some economists have welcomed the rationale behind the move, which is to eliminate the rent-distributing subsidised currency rate in an attempt to combat corruption, particularly since the cheaper currency has only been abused and has failed to curb food prices.

The move was expected to lead to increased prices in the short term and face pushback from interest groups within the establishment that have benefitted from the cheap currency for years. But the oil price jump was very sudden, prompting the government to announce official prices of its own, though it remains to be seen whether the market will listen.

Using the resources to be freed from eliminating the cheaper subsidised currency, the government has offered to allocate online credits, each amounting to 10 million rials ($7 at the current exchange rate), to help people buy food.

Two renowned singers, Homayoun Shajarian and Alireza Ghorbani, joined the ranks of many people and celebrities online who said they would stop their professional activities, including scheduled concerts, in solemn observance and support for the protests.

“How can our officials lay down their heads and sleep?” asked Ali Daei, a legend of Iranian football and a respected national figure among the people, in a video interview released on Tuesday that is going viral.

“Perhaps many of them are not even Iranians, since they don’t feel sympathy for the Iranian nation.”

The United States Supreme Court is expected to rule on a case about the legality of President Donald Trump’s tariffs.

The high court on Tuesday added a non-argument/conference date on its website, indicating that it could release its ruling, although the court does not announce ahead of time which rulings it intends to issue.

The challenge to Trump’s tariffs has been one of the most closely watched cases on the court’s docket amid the broader impact on the global economy.

In a social media post on Friday, Trump said such a ruling would be a “terrible blow” to the US.

“Because of Tariffs, our Country is financially, AND FROM A NATIONAL SECURITY STANDPOINT, FAR STRONGER AND MORE RESPECTED THAN EVER BEFORE,” Trump said in another post on Monday.

However, data on this is mixed. The US gross domestic product (GDP) grew by 4.3 percent in the third quarter of 2025, marking the biggest increase in two years. Meanwhile, US job growth has slowed, with sectors heavily exposed to tariffs seeing little to no job growth.

“Jobs in sectors with higher import exposure grew more slowly than jobs in sectors with lower import exposure, suggesting tariffs may have weighed on employment,” Johannes Matschke, senior economist for the Kansas City branch of the Federal Reserve, said in an analysis in December.

Legal arguments

Trump invoked the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) in February 2025 on goods imported from individual countries to address, what he called, a national emergency related to US trade deficits.

Arguments challenging the legality of the decision began in November. At the time, the court’s liberal and some conservative justices had doubts about the legality of using the 1977 act.

Justice Neil Gorsuch, whom Trump appointed during his first term, was among those sceptical.

“Congress, as a practical matter, can’t get this power back once it’s handed it over to the president,” Gorsuch said at the time.

Chief Justice John Roberts told Solicitor General D John Sauer, who argued on behalf of the administration, that imposing tariffs and taxes “has always been the core power of Congress”.

The act grants broad executive authority to wield economic power in the case of a national emergency.

The matter reached the Supreme Court after the lower courts ruled against the Trump administration, finding that the use of the law exceeded the administration’s authority.

Among the courts that ruled against the White House was the Court of International Trade. In May, the New York court said that Congress, and not the executive branch, has “exclusive authority to regulate commerce”. This decision was upheld in a Washington, DC, appeals court in August.

Legal experts believe it is likely that the high court will uphold lower court decisions.

“My sense is that, given the different justices’ concerns, the Supreme Court will decide that IEEPA does not provide the ability for the Trump administration to adopt the tariffs,” Greg Shaffer, a law professor at Georgetown University, told Al Jazeera.

If the Trump administration were to lose the case, the US would need to refund some of the tariffs.

“It [ruling against the administration] would mean that those who paid tariffs that were imposed illegally would have to be reimbursed. I would think that that would be the outcome,” Shaffer added.

In September, Secretary of the Treasury Scott Bessent said on NBC’s Meet the Press that the US would “have to give a refund on about half the tariffs”.

The Trump administration has said that if the Supreme Court does not rule in its favour, it will use other statutes to push through tariffs.

The administration of United States President Donald Trump is planning to meet with executives from US oil companies later this week to discuss boosting Venezuelan oil production after US forces abducted its leader, Nicolas Maduro, the Reuters news agency has reported, citing unnamed sources.

The meetings are crucial to the administration’s hopes of getting top US oil companies back into the South American nation after its government, nearly two decades ago, took control of US-led energy operations there, the Reuters news agency report said on Monday.

The three biggest US oil companies – Exxon Mobil, ConocoPhillips and Chevron – have not yet had any conversations with the Trump administration about Maduro’s ouster, according to four oil industry executives familiar with the matter, contradicting Trump’s statements over the weekend that he had already held meetings with “all” the US oil companies, both before and since Maduro was abducted.

“Nobody in those three companies has had conversations with the White House about operating in Venezuela, pre-removal or post-removal, to this point,” one of the sources said on Monday.

The upcoming meetings will be crucial to the administration’s hopes to boost crude oil production and exports from Venezuela, a former OPEC nation that sits atop the world’s largest reserves, and whose crude oil can be refined by specially designed US refineries. Achieving that goal will require years of work and billions of dollars of investment, analysts say.

It is unclear what executives will be attending the upcoming meetings, and whether oil companies will be attending individually or collectively.

The White House did not comment on the meetings, but said it believed the US oil industry was ready to flood into Venezuela.

“All of our oil companies are ready and willing to make big investments in Venezuela that will rebuild their oil infrastructure, which was destroyed by the illegitimate Maduro regime,” said White House spokesperson Taylor Rogers.

Exxon, Chevron and ConocoPhillips did not immediately respond to requests for comment from Reuters.

One oil industry executive told Reuters the companies would be reluctant to talk about potential Venezuela operations in group settings with the White House, citing antitrust concerns that limit collective discussions among competitors about investment plans, timing and production levels.

Political risks, low oil prices

US forces on Saturday conducted a raid on Venezuela’s capital, arresting Maduro in the dead of night and sending him back to the US to face narcoterrorism charges.

Hours after Maduro’s abduction, Trump said he expects the biggest US oil companies to spend billions of dollars boosting Venezuela’s oil production, after it dropped to about a third of its peak over the past two decades due to underinvestment and sanctions.

But those plans will be hindered by a lack of infrastructure, along with deep uncertainty over the country’s political future, legal framework and long-term US policy, according to industry analysts.

“While the Trump administration has suggested large US oil companies will go into Venezuela and spend billions to fix infrastructure, we believe political and other risks, along with current relatively low oil prices, could prevent this from happening anytime soon,” wrote Neal Dingmann of William Blair in a note.

Material change to Venezuelan production will take a lot of time and millions of dollars of infrastructure improvement, he said.

And any investment in Venezuelan infrastructure right now would take place in a weakened global energy market. Crude prices in the US are down by 20 percent compared with last year. The price for a barrel of benchmark US crude has not been above $70 since June, and has not touched $80 per barrel since June of 2024.

A barrel of oil cost more than $130 in the leadup to the US housing crisis in 2008.

Chevron is the only US major currently operating in Venezuela’s oil fields.

Exxon and ConocoPhillips, meanwhile, had storied histories in the country before their projects were nationalised nearly two decades ago by former Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez.

Conoco has been seeking billions of dollars in restitution for the takeover of three oil projects in Venezuela under Chavez. Exxon was involved in lengthy arbitration cases against Venezuela after it exited the country in 2007.

Chevron, which exports about 150,000 barrels per day of crude from Venezuela to the US Gulf Coast, meanwhile, has had to carefully manoeuvre with the Trump administration in an effort to maintain its presence in the country in recent years.

A US embargo on Venezuelan oil remained in full effect, Trump has said.

The S&P 500 energy index rose to its highest since March 2025, with heavyweights Exxon Mobil rising by 2.2 percent and Chevron jumping by 5.1 percent.

United States President Donald Trump has promised to “take back” Venezuela’s oil reserves and unleash them onto the global market after abducting Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro.

But exploiting the Latin American country’s vast reserves would face a host of big hurdles, from decrepit infrastructure and legal obstacles to leadership uncertainty in Caracas and an excess supply of oil in the global market, experts say.

Venezuela possesses the world’s largest known oil reserves – estimated to be some 303 billion barrels – but currently produces only a tiny fraction of global output. Its estimated output was 860,000 barrels per day (bpd) in November, less than 1 percent of the world’s total, compared with 3.7 million bpd during peak production in 1970.

The oil sector’s decline has been blamed on the combined effects of US sanctions and years of underinvestment, mismanagement and corruption under Maduro and his left-wing predecessor, Hugo Chavez.

While the Trump administration could boost supply in the short term by lifting sanctions, restoring Venezuela’s output to anything near peak levels would require huge investment and likely take years, according to energy analysts.

‘Venezuela’s oil infrastructure is in poor shape’

Oil prices moved only slightly in trading on Monday amid market expectations that output would remain largely unchanged for the foreseeable future.

“Venezuela’s oil infrastructure is in poor shape overall, due to lack of maintenance for both equipment and oilfield wells,” Scott Montgomery, a global energy expert at the University of Washington, told Al Jazeera.

“The state oil company, PDVSA, is well known to suffer from corruption and lack of expertise – many well-trained people have left the country to work elsewhere – and has been unable to invest in the country’s petroleum sector,” Montgomery added.

Thomas O’Donnell, an energy and geopolitical analyst based in Berlin, Germany, estimated that Venezuela could return to peak production in five to seven years in the “absolute best” circumstances, including a peaceful transfer of power.

“Longer term, if things are sorted out, yes, Venezuela can become one of the world’s biggest producers of oil. As far as how long that takes, that has all to do with the transition and what is put in place to manage that – both the country’s security and also to manage the investments,” O’Donnell told Al Jazeera.

Mixed messaging from Trump administration

Trump’s administration has provided conflicting messages on Washington’s exact plans for Venezuela and its oil reserves.

On Saturday, Trump said the US would “run” Venezuela and that US oil companies were ready to invest billions of dollars to build up the country’s dilapidated infrastructure and “get the oil flowing”.

In interviews with US media on Sunday, US Secretary of State Marco Rubio sought to downplay Trump’s remarks about controlling the country, saying the president was referring to “running policy” and his plans related to spurring private investment, “not securing the oilfields”.

Trump later on Sunday said Washington was “in charge” of the country and was “dealing with” members of the acting administration without providing details.

Under international law, the US has no claim of ownership over Venezuela’s oil reserves, as sovereign states possess the right to control and use their natural resources under the United Nations-endorsed Principle of Permanent Sovereignty over Natural Resources.

Foreign investors, however, can claim compensation when authorities seize their assets.

ExxonMobil and ConocoPhillips were awarded $1.6bn and $8.7bn, respectively, in international arbitration following the Chavez government’s 2007 nationalisation of the oil sector. Caracas did not pay out in either case.

US oil giants, including Chevron, ExxonMobil, and ConocoPhillips, have not commented directly on Trump’s claims about planned investments in Venezuela.

Chevron is the only large US oil company currently operating in Venezuela, the result of an exemption to US sanctions first granted by the administration of former President Joe Biden.

Consultancy Rystad Energy, based in Oslo, Norway, has estimated that Venezuela’s oil sector would need about $110bn in capital investment to return to its mid-2010s output of about 2 million bpd.

Patrick De Haan, an analyst at energy price tracker GasBuddy, said companies may be reluctant to commit to large investments in the country when global oil prices are hovering around $60 a barrel due to a glut of supply.

“It will take a longer amount of time than many likely realise. Oil companies in a low-priced environment of today would likely be cautious investing billions with oil prices already low,” De Haan told Al Jazeera.

“In addition, Trump seizing Maduro could lead to loyalists sabotaging efforts to increase output. A lot would have to go right to yield the most optimistic timelines.”

US companies are likely to carefully weigh political developments in Venezuela following their experiences with the Chavez government’s expropriation of their assets.

“Oil companies are not likely to rush into a situation where the state is in turmoil, security is lacking, and no clear path forward for political stability exists,” the University of Washington’s Montgomery said.

Maduro due in court in New York

Interim President Delcy Rodriguez, who was Maduro’s deputy, is now leading the country following a ruling by Venezuela’s Supreme Court.

Maduro is scheduled to appear in a New York court on Monday to face charges related to alleged drug trafficking and working with criminal gangs.

Venezuela’s government has condemned the Trump administration over Saturday’s bombing and overthrow of Maduro, labelling his capture a “cowardly kidnapping”.

Russia, China, Iran and Brazil, among other countries, have accused Washington of violating international law, while nations including Israel, Argentina and Greece have welcomed Maduro’s forced removal.

OPEC, which sets limits on production for its 12 members, including Venezuela, is another factor in the Latin American country’s potential oil output.

“Venezuela is a member of OPEC, and like many countries, may become more actively subject to quotas if output climbs,” De Haan said.

Phil Flynn, a market analyst at the Price Futures Group, said reviving Venezuela’s oil production would face “significant challenges”, but he was more bullish about the near-term prospects than other analysts.

He said the market could conceivably see a couple of hundred thousand more barrels a day coming online in the coming months.

“We’ve not had a free Venezuela, and sometimes the US energy industry has the capability to do a lot more than people give them credit for,” Flynn told Al Jazeera.

WASHINGTON — The Trump administration on Tuesday weakened one of the nation’s most aggressive efforts to combat climate change, releasing new fuel efficiency standards for cars and trucks that handed a victory to the oil and gas industry.

The new rule, from the Environmental Protection Agency and Transportation Department, will almost immediately be plunged into litigation as environmental groups and states with stricter standards, led by California, plan to challenge it.

“We intend to make sure the backsliding doesn’t reach California’s doorstep,” California Atty. Gen. Xavier Becerra said Tuesday in announcing the state’s plan to go to court to defend its tougher standards.

If the administration’s policy survives those fights, it would spare automakers from having to meet ambitious gas mileage and emissions requirements put in place in 2012 under President Obama. It is among the biggest steps the administration has taken to reverse an existing environmental policy.

The final rule is a dialed-down version of the one the administration originally planned. Instead of proposing zero improvements in fuel efficiency in coming years, it would require automakers to increase fuel economy across their fleets by 1.5% a year, with a goal of achieving an average of about 40 miles per gallon by 2026. That’s still a major departure from current rules, which mandate annual increases of 5%, reaching an average of 54 mpg by 2025.

Nearly 900 million more tons of carbon dioxide are expected to be released under the new rule than under the Obama-era standards, a result of less efficient cars burning an additional 78 billion gallons of fuel.

“We are delivering on President Trump’s promise to correct the current fuel economy and greenhouse gas emissions standards,” EPA Administrator Andrew Wheeler said in a statement. The administration’s plan, he said, “strikes the right regulatory balance that protects our environment and sets reasonable targets for the auto industry.”

Environmentalists and public health advocates said the change would likely contribute to thousands of premature deaths and asthma attacks. They criticized the decision to make the new standards final in the midst of a global pandemic, arguing that the rollback would damage public health at a time when thousands of people are gravely ill and the nation’s economy is in tatters.

But after repeatedly postponing the release of the new rule as it scrambled to justify the change, the administration faced deadlines that may have forced its hand.

For one, the longer the government delayed the new rule, the less effect it would have. Although Trump had initially announced that the new standards would affect vehicles in model year 2020, those cars were built under the Obama-era stringent fuel efficiency standards and are already on the road.

Unless the administration finalized its rollback by April 1, it was in danger of missing the deadline to apply the new standards to the 2022 model year.

Additionally, under the Congressional Review Act, new rules issued after May 19 could be invalidated by the next Congress.

The new standards will apply nationwide. Although California has historically set its own tougher car pollution rules, the Trump administration last year moved to strip the state of that authority. California and many of the other states that have adopted its clean-car standards have sued the administration over this change, and that issue likely won’t be resolved until next year at the earliest.

Just hours after the administration unveiled the final rule Tuesday, Mary Nichols, chairwoman of the California Air Resources Board, disclosed that Volvo was in talks with the state to reach a voluntary emissions agreement. Four other automakers — Ford, Honda, Volkswagen and BMW — have already made a deal with the state that would preserve emissions standards that are not as tough as the Obama standards, but are significantly more ambitious than Trump’s proposal.

The change in fuel-economy standards has been in development since the early days of the administration, when two lobbying groups representing automakers asked then-EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt to relax the Obama-era standards.

The administration’s original proposal would have frozen fuel-economy standards at this year’s levels. That met a furious response from officials in California and several other states as well as unexpected resistance from some auto companies, which worried the administration was going overboard and dragging them into years of court battles with states.

Karl Brauer, an analyst for the research firm Cox Automotive, said that Trump’s rule had put automakers in an impossible position. If they opposed the rollback, their investors would be unhappy. If they endorsed it, they would be branded as anti-environment.

The rollback will likely make it easier to sell cars by making them cheaper, he said, but automakers are concerned it may not survive legal scrutiny or the next election.

“I think automakers will feel a lot of uncertainty until Nov. 3,” Brauer said.

“The auto industry has consistently called for year-over-year increases in fuel efficiency,” said John Bozzella, president of the Alliance for Automotive Innovation, a trade group that lobbies on behalf of the world’s largest car companies. “Looking to the future, we need policies that support a customer-friendly shift toward these electrified and other highly efficient technologies.”

Trump has boasted that his plan would save lives, improve the economy and lower the cost of new cars.

In a phone call with reporters on Tuesday, senior EPA and National Highway Traffic Safety Administration officials said their analysis showed that lowering the cost of a new car would allow more Americans to replace aging vehicles with newer, safer ones. That turnover in the nation’s fleet would prevent more than 3,300 traffic fatalities, according to the government’s projections, as well as 46,000 post-crash injuries.

They also emphasized the rollback’s estimated cost savings for automakers — as much as $100 billion over the lifetime of the vehicles built under the new rule.

But while administration officials said the change would help drivers and the environment, the government’s analysis was not as optimistic.

Its estimates showed that while loosening fuel-economy standards could shave about $1,000 off the price of a new car, drivers would have to buy more gas than they would have under the current rule.

David Friedman, vice president of advocacy for Consumer Reports, said his group’s projections show that each vehicle sold under the Trump rule will cost its owner on average $2,100 more, even if gas prices continue to fall.

Automakers and their suppliers could also suffer. The government’s analysis shows that American car companies could experience a loss of thousands of jobs by making dirtier cars that would be locked out of many overseas markets.

The change is also expected to result in significantly more greenhouse gas emissions, which trap the sun’s heat, worsening the effects of climate change. Hotter temperatures contribute to more smog, which can damage the lungs and cause other serious health problems.

“Of all the bad things President Trump has done to the environment, this is the worst,” said Dan Becker, head of the Safe Climate Campaign, a Washington-based consumer advocacy group. “He is rolling back the biggest single step any nation has taken to fight global warming, cut oil use and save money at the pump.”

In a February report to Wheeler, the agency’s science advisory board warned that the technical analysis underpinning the government’s draft proposal was so flawed that it had possibly led the EPA to the wrong conclusion.

“In other words,” the board wrote, “the standards in the 2012 rule might provide a better outcome for society than the proposed revision.”

Phillips reported from Washington and Mitchell from Los Angeles.

Decline in sales comes amid outrage of Elon Musk’s political forays, end in US electric vehicle tax breaks.

Tesla has lost its place as the top global seller of electric vehicles to Chinese company BYD, capping a year defined by outrage over CEO Elon Musk’s political manoeuvring and the end of United States tax breaks for customers.

The company revealed on Friday that it had sold 1.64 million vehicles in 2025, compared with BYD’s 2.26 million vehicles. The sales represented a 9 percent decline for Tesla from a year earlier.

Tesla, founded in 2003, had for years far outpaced traditional automakers in its development and sale of electric vehicles. However, the market has become increasingly crowded with competitors, with China’s electric vehicle market bounding ahead.

Musk’s embrace of US President Donald Trump in 2024 and subsequent spearheading of a controversial “government efficiency” panel (DOGE) behind widespread layoffs of federal workers has also proved polarising. The political foray prompted protests at Tesla facilities and slumps in sales.

The company’s fourth quarter sales totaled 418,227, falling short of the much-reduced 440,000 target that analysts recently polled by FactSet, an investment research firm, had expected.

Musk left DOGE in May, in what was largely viewed as an effort to reassure investors.

Tesla was also hard hit by the expiration of a $7,500 tax credit for electric vehicle purchases that was phased out by the Trump administration at the end of September. Trump’s opposition to electric vehicles has contributed to a strained relationship with Musk.

Despite the downward trends in sales, investors have generally remained optimistic about Tesla and Musk’s ambitious plans to make the company a leader in driverless robotaxi services and humanoid robots for homes.

Reflecting that optimism, Tesla stock finished 2025 up about 11 percent.

Tesla has also recently introduced two less expensive electric vehicle models, the Model Y and Model 3, meant to compete with cheaper Chinese models for sale in Europe and Asia.

Musk entered 2026 as the wealthiest person in the world.

It is widely believed that the public offering of his rocket company, SpaceX, set for later this year, could make the 54-year-old the world’s first trillionaire.

In November, Tesla’s directors awarded Musk a potentially historic pay package of nearly $1 trillion if ambitious performance targets were met.

Musk scored another huge win in December,when the Delaware Supreme Court reversed a lower court’s ruling, awarding him a $55bn pay package that had been paused since 2018.

Conversely, Tesla is at risk of temporarily losing its licence to sell cars in California after a judge there ruled it had misled customers about the safety of its driverless taxis.

Sina Azodi, a professor at George Washington University, discusses escalating protests in Iran and how sanctions and corruption are deepening the country’s economic crisis.

As of December 2025, new laws came into effect making Hainan a separate customs zone and consolidating a favorable regulatory environment in the southernmost province of China.

The move contrasts with the current global trend of protectionism, as many countries move to tighten trade rules and investment controls.

Hainan is now effectively the world’s largest free trade port by area. Encompassing over 35,000 square kilometers, it is roughly fifty times bigger than Singapore and even slightly bigger than Belgium.

China is attempting to offer a solution for the “growing uncertainties in the global economy” and trying to replicate the success of Singapore, with a free trade port the size of a European nation.

According to the state-run Xinhua news agency, the launch of “special customs operations” is not merely a policy tweak but a fundamental restructuring of how the island province interacts with international markets.

The unique framework, instituted by the Chinese Communist Party, could make Hainan the most business-friendly jurisdiction in the world.

This is not the first time the state-led economy, described as a socialist market economy, takes a page from the capitalist playbook to boost its global dominance.

Special economic zones (SEZs) have been successfully implemented in China since the late 1970s, as part of the country’s economic open-door policy. These SEZs allow Beijing to experiment with capitalist mechanisms, in limited areas, while maintaining broader state control over the economy.

In 2020, the CCP unveiled a comprehensive plan to shift Hainan from a mere special economic zone to a strategic hub designed to rival Hong Kong, Singapore and Dubai.

Creating a completely separate trade and investment system for the province was the objective until the end of 2025. Going forward, the party projects that Hainan will reach “institutional maturity” by 2035 and achieve a “strong global influence” by the middle of the century.

First line open, second line controlled

The province comprises Hainan Island and various smaller islands in the South China Sea, and now operates under a “two-line” customs system designed for greater openness while maintaining domestic security.

The first line marks the boundary between Hainan and the global economy, where most trade barriers have been removed. Under the new legislation, the majority of goods can enter the province freely, with a significantly expanded list of zero-tariff imports covering raw materials, equipment and consumer products.

The second line functions as a filter between Hainan and mainland China. There, standard customs rules apply, with goods subject to tariffs and controls intended to protect domestic markets.

However, the system creates a powerful incentive for manufacturers. Goods entering Hainan that achieve at least 30% added value within the province can enter mainland China duty-free, a policy designed to encourage additional production on the islands rather than using it solely as a transit hub.

For example, Australian beef can be imported into Hainan duty-free. Then, if the beef is sliced and packaged for China-destined hotpot products on the island province itself, it can enter mainland Chinese supermarkets with the same exemptions.

China’s strategic gateway

The scope of the CCP’s plans for Hainan extends well beyond customs arrangements.

The province applies a flat corporate tax rate of 15%, lower than those in Hong Kong (16.5%), Singapore (17%) and mainland China (25%).

Hainan is now also operating under a distinct regulatory framework in several other areas, which differs significantly from regulation on the mainland.

For instance, if a pharmaceutical product or medical device is approved by one of many regulatory agencies anywhere in the world, it can be used on the island province despite being banned on the mainland.

Similarly, companies registered in Hainan can apply for broader internet access, allowing them to bypass the so-called “Great Firewall of China”, a system of laws and technologies enforced by the CCP to control online activity nationwide.

Foreign companies can also open special bank accounts in Hainan, with capital flows exempt from mainland foreign-exchange controls, while foreign universities are permitted to establish campuses without a Chinese partner.

Visa-free entry to the province has also been expanded from 59 to 86 countries, now including the United States, Germany and Australia, as well as several countries in the Middle East and South America.

Visitors can stay for up to 30 days without a visa for business, medical treatment or tourism, as the authorities also promote the island province as a major travel destination.

Amid rising tensions in the global economy, Hainan serves as China’s “pressure valve” offering a low-tax, zero-tariff, high-access gateway to Asia-Pacific markets.

Legislation signed by President Serdar Berdimuhamedov establishes a licensing scheme overseen by country’s central bank.

Turkmenistan, one of the world’s most isolated nations, has officially legalised mining and exchanging cryptocurrency in a major shift for the country’s tightly controlled, gas-dependent economy.

President Serdar Berdimuhamedov signed the legislation on Thursday, regulating virtual assets under civil law and establishing a licensing scheme for cryptocurrency exchanges overseen by the country’s central bank.

However, digital currencies will still not be recognised as a means of payment, currency or security.

Turkmenistan, a former Soviet country in Central Asia, relies heavily on the export of its vast natural gas reserves to support its economy.

China is the country’s main importer of gas, and Turkmenistan is currently working on a pipeline to supply gas to Afghanistan, Pakistan and India.

Turkmenistan has been taking steps to digitalise government functions as well as its economy.

In April, it adopted a law introducing electronic visas aimed at simplifying entry for foreigners.

After gaining independence in 1991, the tightly governed nation typically placed strict entry requirements on would-be visitors, with many visa applications turned down for unclear reasons.

A mostly desert country of seven million people with the world’s fourth-largest natural gas reserves, Turkmenistan declared itself officially neutral in 1995 under its first president, Saparmurat Niyazov, who spurned both Western and Russian influence.

Until his death in 2006, Niyazov maintained tight control over politics, a policy of isolationism from the outside world, and an economy heavily based on natural gas exports.

Since succeeding his father as president in 2022, Berdymukhamedov has signalled some opening.

In December, he hinted at possible political reforms ahead of a meeting with Russian President Vladimir Putin, Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan and Iran’s Masoud Pezeshkian.

“We are carrying out extensive work aimed at transforming our neutral country into a powerful, democratic, and rule-of-law state where citizens live happy lives,” Berdymukhamedov said in the article, without giving further details.

While Turkmenistan’s internet remains tightly regulated and controlled by the government, curbs on social media have been eased, and the government has pledged to open new air transport links and liberalise its visa system.

Still, the country is ranked by the Committee to Protect Journalists as one of the worst in the world for independent media.

Kyrgyzstan, another former Soviet Central Asian republic, has also positioned itself as a regional leader in the sector, launching a national stablecoin in partnership with cryptocurrency exchange Binance.

The move opens key assets to private investment and comes as Petroperu faces mounting losses and debt.

Peru’s government has approved an emergency decree allowing private investment in parts of the state-owned oil company Petroperu, as authorities move to stabilise a firm weighed down by mounting losses and debt.

President Jose Jeri announced the decision shortly before the beginning of the new year.

The measure permits the reorganisation of Petroperu into one or more asset units, opening the door to private participation in key operations. That includes those at the flagship Talara refinery, which recently underwent a $6.5bn upgrade.

Beyond the refinery, Petroperu operates or holds concessions for six crude oil blocks with limited production, alongside a nationwide fuel distribution and marketing network.

In a statement, Peru’s Ministry of Energy and Mines said the decree seeks to “ensure compliance with financial obligations through technical management of its assets, laying the foundation for Petroperu to become a self-sustaining company”.

The ministry said the company’s financial position “is particularly sensitive”, citing accumulated losses of $479m between January and October 2025, as well as debts to suppliers totalling $764m through December.

Those figures come on top of reported losses of $774m in the previous year.

Petroperu’s financial strain has been compounded by debt linked to the Talara refinery modernisation, which ultimately cost double its original estimate and led to the company losing its investment-grade credit rating in 2022.

Since then, the government has repeatedly stepped in to support the firm, providing about $5.3bn in financing between 2022 and 2024.

The company, which is seen as crucial to Peru’s energy security, has also faced environmental scrutiny.

Authorities declared an “environmental emergency” and launched an investigation following an oil spill along a stretch of the country’s northern coastline in 2024, affecting an estimated 47 to 229 hectares (about 116 to 566 acres).

The Petroperu restructuring effort comes amid persistent political instability in Peru. Several presidents have failed to complete full terms in recent years, including Dina Boluarte, who was impeached by Congress in October.

Her successor, Jeri, has struggled to steady leadership at Petroperu, appointing three board chairs in just three months.

The move comes as Peru faces continuing political volatility, economic uncertainty and public pressure for stronger oversight of state institutions.

Thousands of people in Iran have been protesting as a dire economic crisis takes a heavy toll on their daily livelihood.

From a sharp fall in the currency’s value to a steep rise in inflation, Iran’s economy has reached what many describe as a breaking point.

This time, the government has adopted a different approach as protests continue, calling for a dialogue mechanism.

But as the country reels from longstanding sanctions, what does the leadership have to offer?

And what would the consequences be if the protests escalate?

Presenter: James Bays

Guests:

Ali Akbar Dareini – Researcher at the Center for Strategic Studies

Marzie Khalilian – Political analyst and academic researcher

Stephen Zunes – Professor of politics and founding chair of Middle Eastern studies at the University of San Francisco

Move comes nearly two decades after the Balkan country entered the EU as hope for stability clashes with fear of rising prices.

Bulgaria has officially adopted the euro, becoming the 21st country to join the single currency nearly two decades after entering the European Union, a move that has led to both celebration and anxiety.

At midnight on Wednesday (22:00 GMT), the Balkan country abandoned the lev, its national currency since the late 19th century.

Images of Bulgarian euro coins lit up the central bank’s headquarters in Sofia as crowds gathered in freezing temperatures to mark the new year.

“I warmly welcome Bulgaria to the euro family,” said Christine Lagarde, the president of the European Central Bank.

Some residents welcomed the change with optimism. “Great! It works!” said Dimitar, 43, speaking to The Associated Press after withdrawing 100 euros from a cash machine shortly after midnight.

Successive Bulgarian governments have backed euro adoption, arguing it would strengthen the country’s fragile economy, anchor it more firmly within Western institutions and shield it from what officials describe as Russian influence. Bulgaria, with a population of about 6.4 million, remains the poorest member of the EU.

Divided public

Yet public opinion has long remained split. Many Bulgarians fear the euro will drive up prices while wages stagnate, worsening living standards in a country already struggling with political instability.

In a televised address before midnight, President Rumen Radev described the euro as the “final step” in Bulgaria’s integration into the EU.

However, he criticised the absence of a public referendum on the decision.

“This refusal was one of the dramatic symptoms of the deep divide between the political class and the people, confirmed by mass demonstrations across the country,” Radev said.

Bulgaria recently plunged into further uncertainty after anticorruption protests toppled a conservative-led government in December, pushing the country towards its eighth election in five years.

“People are afraid that prices will rise, while salaries will remain the same,” a woman in her 40s told the AFP news agency in Sofia.

At city markets, vendors listed prices in both levs and euros. Not everyone was worried.

“The whole of Europe has managed with the euro, we’ll manage too,” retiree Vlad said.

The most potent attack ad of Donald Trump’s comeback campaign seemingly ran on a loop during the final weeks before the 2024 election. Assailing rights for transgender people, its punch line indeed delivered a punch: “Kamala Harris is for they/them. President Trump is for you.”

2025: Promise broken. Back in office, the president has shown that the only pronouns he really recognizes are the first-person kind: me, myself and I.

A year into Trump 2.0, those self-regarding pronouns are now firmly affixed as the bywords of his presidency, on matters major and mundane. They might as well be mounted in gold in the Oval Office, in fonts so large as to not get lost amid all the bling he’s installed there. Asked in October just who was to be honored by Trump’s planned Arc de Triomph-like monument near Arlington Cemetery, the president was quick: “Me.”

To an extent that’s shocked even critics long convinced of his sociopathic narcissism, Trump has fashioned a government that’s of Trump, by Trump and for Trump. “I run the country and the world,” he boasted in April. Trump thinks “there’s nothing he can’t do. Nothing, zero, nothing,” his White House chief of staff, Susie Wiles, told Vanity Fair, as reported in two articles last month that signaled her own unease with Trump’s ongoing vengeance against his political enemies; his clemency for even the most violent rioters of Jan. 6, 2021; the pain of his erratic tariffs, too-cruel migrant roundups and tragic shutdown of USAID’s humanitarian aid; his stonewalling of the Jeffrey Epstein files that candidate Trump promised to release; and the foibles of his slavish Cabinet.

If Trump strutted as the center of the universe in 2025 — unchecked by advisors like Wiles or by a cowed Republican-controlled Congress, the Supreme Court and corporate chieftains — buckle up for 2026. It marks the 250th birthday of America’s independence, and our self-appointed master of ceremonies is focused on the festivities that he’ll star in not only on July 4th but all year long. One of his first acts as president was to create a White House task force with himself as chair, of course, to plan semiquincentennial events, ignoring an eight-year-old commission created by Congress for that purpose. Coming soon: A (possibly illegal) commemorative $1 coin with Trump’s image from the U.S. Mint.

Never mind that 2026 starts with a big spike in health insurance costs for tens of millions of Americans, including many Trump voters. The president who campaigned on bringing down the costs of living has stood in the way of a legislative remedy to the Dec. 31 expiration of healthcare premium subsidies, repeatedly mouthing his years-old promise that he’ll propose a cheaper alternative within weeks.

But here’s how 2026 will end: with midterm elections in November that loom as a referendum on whether the Trump Republican Party should keep control of Congress. The early betting is that no, it won’t. Especially after another year of Trump grandstanding, and his party’s genuflecting.

In good times, Trump’s garish self-regard might be tolerable to voters, even comical. But these aren’t good times, hardly the “golden age” Trump announced in his inaugural address last January — except for him and the wealthy hangers-on at his seemingly endless round of parties in the White House and at Mar-a-Lago. The Gatsby-themed Halloween party at Trump’s Florida resort was especially rich, pun intended, coming as it did hours before federal food aid for 42 million Americans expired amid a government shutdown he’d done nothing to avert.

Days later, voters gave a shellacking to Republicans in various states’ 2025 off-year elections, which is a good omen for the same result nationwide in 2026. There are other signs. On Tuesday, a new Gallup poll showed three out of four Americans were dissatisfied with “the way things are going in the United States.” Trump’s approval rating was just 36% in Gallup’s poll in early December, his lowest reading of the past year, and nearly equal to his all-time low after the Jan. 6 insurrection. Averages of various polls show Trump with negative ratings on his handling of immigration, the economy, trade and tariffs, and inflation — all issues that helped get him reelected.

But go ahead, Mr. President. Keep talking about how great you are. You’re a legend in your own time and mind.

Trump’s tone-deafness has become the great mystery of U.S. politics, for both parties, especially considering that he slammed President Biden for bragging about the economy’s post-pandemic recovery when Americans weren’t feeling it.

As Americans struggle to buy a home or to afford its upkeep, Trump has gilded the People’s House (see the New York Times’ recent 3-D recreation of the Oval Office for full, nauseating effect) and transformed the bathroom adjoining the Lincoln Bedroom in marble and gold. Having demolished the East Wing to make way for a gargantuan ballroom where Marie Antoinette would be at home, financed by favor-seeking billionaires and corporations, Trump told reporters on Tuesday that it would have to be bigger than he’d first planned because “we’re gonna do the inauguration” there.

What? The man who’s supposed to be leaving office on Jan. 20, 2029, is picking the new location for the next presidential inauguration? Hmmm.

Even before he’s been in office a year, Trump has put his brand on two Washington buildings, including the nation’s 60-year-old cultural center named by law as a memorial to an assassinated president. The Kennedy Center (no, I will not call it by Trump’s name) will have marble armrests; Trump took to social media on the day after Christmas to show off samples. Meanwhile, he’s refurbishing a royal jet from Qatar, a “palace in the sky.”

Trading on his power in unprecedented ways, Trump was a “crypto billionaire” by May, the Wall Street Journal reported, and in August the New Yorker estimated that he’d profited in office by at least $3.4 billion through crypto and licensing deals.

No, Trump is not for you. He’s for he/him.

Bluesky: @jackiecalmes
Threads: @jkcalmes
X: @jackiekcalmes