America’s second-largest oil company is preparing to deepen its presence in a country most of its rivals abandoned two decades ago.
An unnamed US official briefed reporters and said Chevron executives would appear alongside US Energy Secretary Chris Wright in Venezuela to unveil fresh investment, which would be the first corporate move to follow the agreement that just cleared Venezuela’s National Assembly.
Wright landed in Caracas late on Tuesday after the Venezuelan vote, with the signing set for Wednesday.
Chevron is the only major American producer to have stayed in Venezuela since Hugo Chávez completed the nationalisation of the industry in 2007, a move that drove Exxon and ConocoPhillips out.
Speaking in Spanish for an interview posted online on Tuesday, US Secretary of State Marco Rubio described the arrangement in blunt terms.
“Essentially, this is now an agreement with the US government, specifically involving the Defense Department, which holds a special account allowing it to take possession of a certain percentage of these assets,” Rubio said, adding that American backing would help the company attract the private investment needed to develop the fields.
The “vast majority” of the 17 fields had been in Chinese and Russian hands, Rubio pointed out as the White House has also cast the agreement as a reassertion of the Monroe Doctrine.
Those fields come with 100-year rights for North American Blue Energy Partners and hold 65 billion barrels. A new company will be created in which the US Department of War’s Office of Strategic Capital takes a 35% stake, with the US State Department entitled to buy 20% of output at production cost.
US citizens must form a majority of the board, and Washington holds a veto over appointments.
Venezuelan lawmakers approved the agreement by a show of hands, though some opposition members abstained, saying they had not seen the terms.
“We need and are obliged to know what is written in the fine print,” said opposition lawmaker Luis Emilio Rondón.
“Who benefits from this oil if it stays underground?” argued the National Assembly chief Jorge Rodríguez in return.
NABEP is owned by Alejandro Betancourt, who has faced investigations over alleged money laundering in Spain and Switzerland without charges being filed and has been accused of involvement in a corruption scheme at state producer PDVSA.
An unnamed US official called him a “proven operator” while conceding that geopolitics sometimes means dealing with imperfect figures.
“I’m not nominating anyone for sainthood here,” the official said. “What I am telling you is that this is a person that, in the past, has been helpful to the United States government.”
Analysts remain sceptical that output can be revived quickly, with estimates ranging from one to ten years before new barrels reach the market. Washington is not investing money in the venture, officials say, arguing its backing alone will attract the capital needed.
US President Donald Trump suggested on Monday that others would follow Chevron.
“We have Exxon going in, we have Chevron going in. We have our big oil companies going in,” Trump stated.
However, Exxon’s position appears unchanged as a spokesman said on Tuesday that “nothing has changed” after CEO Darren Woods also called Venezuela “uninvestable” earlier this year.
For the US administration, the urgency is domestic.
US President Donald Trump just met oil executives at the White House on Tuesday as petrol prices climbed because of new US strikes on Iranian targets near the Strait of Hormuz, posting afterwards that “we are unleashing American Energy Dominance!”
Cheaper fuel is a priority before November’s midterm elections, in which Republicans could lose control of both the House and the Senate.
Additional sources • AP
Beijing must deliver “concrete results” by October or face “harsher measures”, EU Trade Commissioner Maroš Šefčovič has warned in an exclusive interview with Euronews, as Brussels sets an October deadline to rein in China’s record trade surplus with the bloc.
With talks already underway, Šefčovič said the stakes go well beyond trade, with the future of European industry at play. The next two weeks are set to be crucial, with a video call between the EU’s trade chief and his Chinese counterpart, Wang Wentao, planned for mid-September, as both sides work towards the October deadline.
“This is super political,” he told Euronews, stressing that European leaders want to see results by October. Earlier this week, Commission President Ursula von der Leyen told a business forum in France that dialogue only works if it brings results.
If dialogue does not deliver results, the EU could resort to defensive instruments.
While Šefčovič did not go into detail about what retaliatory measures could look like, he said Brussels is looking to finalise a “diversification instrument” designed with China in mind. He also said the EU is now far more united in its objectives for the negotiations.
“They [EU27] want to see the direction of travel. They want to even have a concept for the solution of this issue, a pilot scheme,” Šefčovič said.
“I’m trying to do it through these negotiations, but they have to bring us very concrete results. Otherwise, of course, there will be a strong political movement to push for, I would say, harsher measures.”
Šefčovič will travel to China in October, ahead of an EU leaders’ summit in Brussels where the issue is expected to be high on the agenda.
All EU countries now run a trade deficit with China.
Brussels and Beijing have been on the verge of a trade war in recent months following the Commission’s introduction of several measures restricting Chinese companies’ access to the EU market and threats of retaliation from China.
A group of EU officials were in Beijing in recent days, as first reported by Euronews, to push forward the talks. They are expected to return to Europe on Thursday for a debrief.
Despite the sensitive discussions with Beijing, the Commission has already launched several probes into Chinese products over the summer over alleged unfair trade practices. Von der Leyen said the investigations were being stepped up “significantly”.
As pressure mounts ahead of the October deadline, Šefčovič said securing better access for European companies in China would not happen overnight, but stressed that the outline of a deal would be needed to move into a second phase of implementation talks.
“It’s an issue which would require clearly more time than until October,” Šefčovič said. “But what I think it’s very important for us to have by October [is] some kind of proof of concept.”
He added that EU leaders expect the Commission to bring solutions to rebalance the trade relationship, particularly in areas considered “sensitive”, such as “cars, medical devices, agri-food products”.
“We have now unprecedented intensity of our negotiations. I think we never talked to our Chinese counterparts as frequently, as intensely than right now.”
Dell’s management highlights persistent shortages, especially in DRAM and NAND, as limiting supply, with additional constraints in CPUs, optics, and other components. Supply issues are cited as the primary limiter to fulfilling record AI and infrastructure demand.
Erin Piacenti, 32, died following an unprovoked attack in Midtown Manhattan on Monday, police said.
NEW YORK—Erin Piacenti, a 32-year-old Bank of America vice president, was killed Monday in a Times Square stabbing that left another person injured.
“We are shocked and deeply saddened by the tragic loss of our colleague. She was a valued teammate who will be greatly missed. Our hearts go out to her family and all of her loved ones,” the Charlotte, North Carolina-based bank said in a statement to Global Finance on Tuesday.
The alleged perpetrator reportedly charged at NYPD officers and was fatally shot moments later. A second victim remains hospitalized but in stable condition.
Piacenti began her career as a legal intern with Major League Baseball before taking M&A roles at Morgan Stanley and law firm Davis Polk & Wardwell, respectively. She joined Bank of America’s business selection and conflicts unit in 2025, per her LinkedIn profile.
New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani addressed the incident during a press briefing Monday: “I want to thank the NYPD officers who stepped in and prevented a horrific attack from becoming even worse. This is what the men and women of this department do every single day to keep our city safe.”
NYPD Commissioner Jessica Tisch stated that the unprovoked attack began near West 41st Street and 7th Avenue when a woman pulled two knives from a Target bag. Responding NYPD officers first deployed a Taser and fired their weapons at the alleged perpetrator, fatally wounding the alleged attacker.
Both victims and the suspect were transported to Bellevue Hospital.
Piacenti is reportedly from Chester, New Jersey.
Though violent crime is at historically low levels in New York City, another fatal stabbing occurred around the same area back in May.
Monday’s attack is the latest high-profile attack involving financial executives and corporate leaders in Midtown Manhattan over the past two years.
In July 2025, Blackstone Inc. executive Wesley LePatner was among four people killed in a shooting at the firm’s office on Park Avenue.
Before that, in December 2024, UnitedHealth CEO Brian Thompson was shot and killed outside the New York Hilton Midtown.
Anthony Noto covers corporate finance and private credit. Contact him at anoto@gfmag.com
SACRAMENTO — California lawmakers passed laws that would ensure insurance companies provide better coverage for smoke-damaged homes and financing for upgrades protecting residences from future fire damage.
The measures were among a slew of bills approved during the 2026 legislative session to deal with the continuing aftermath of the devastating 2025 Los Angeles area fires.
The Eaton and Palisades fires, which destroyed more than 16,000 structures and killed 31, were two of the deadliest and most destructive fires in state history. Like with catastrophic fires before them, tragedy spurred action.
Much of the focus on wildfire issues by Gov. Gavin Newsom and California lawmakers in the waning days of the legislative session focused on a proposal to shift liability away from utilities whose equipment ignites wildfires.
The complex, high-stakes policy debate attempted to address the needs and financial risks faced by the utilities, their customers and insurance companies following the catastrophic wildfires that have plagued California in recent years, but a proposed compromise recently pieced together by lawmakers and the governor fell through Tuesday.
However, lawmakers did pass several bills this year to help fire victims navigate burdensome insurance requirements in the aftermath of a disaster and increase prevention efforts. All head to Newsom for his consideration.
Two complementary bills approved Monday ensure homes that survive a wildfire but are contaminated by the onslaught of smoke are properly remediated before residents move back in.
The bills were prompted by the 2025 Eaton fire, which left thousands of homes contaminated with lead, some at levels hundreds of times what the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency considers safe. Homeowners routinely reported that their insurance companies refused or delayed claims, advocated for cleaning methods that experts deemed insufficient and pushed residents to move back before testing showed their homes were safe.
The first bill, AB 1642, would direct the Department of Toxic Substances Control to create scientific standards for what constitutes a safe home and provide guidance on how to properly remediate homes. The second, AB 1795, would require insurers to abide by those standards in the claims process and do so in a timely manner.
The companion laws only take effect if Newsom signs both.
The two bills originally conflicted with one another. The scientific standards bill was supported by many Eaton fire survivors from the get-go. However, the insurance bill — born out of a Department of Insurance task force — was widely criticized by survivors for leaving insurance companies wiggle room to deny claims and placing a burden on homeowners to prove their home was in fact contaminated by a fire.
In an eleventh-hour sprint of “sleepless nights,” “five-hour Zooms” and intervention from the governor’s office, advocates won additional protections for fire survivors in the insurance bill and brought the two into harmony, said Dawn Fanning, managing director at the smoke-damaged home advocacy group Eaton Fire Residents United.
“It took a lot of work to get here, and we’re really happy where we landed,” Fanning said.
After the Eaton fire, “it was the Wild West, trying to scramble to find answers,” she said. “If these laws were in place, so many thousands of people would be back home by now.”
Separate legislation by Sen. Benjamin Allen (D-Santa Monica), who is in a hotly contested race for California Insurance Commissioner, seeks to give homeowners more notice and options before being dropped by their insurer, a problem homeowners increasingly face as wildfires have become more frequent and destructive.
Many nonrenewal notices sent by insurance companies include vague reasoning, Allen said during a May hearing on the bill, SB 1301. His legislation would require specific information so property owners can have a chance to mitigate problems and keep their insurance.
Another bill from Allen, who represents the Palisades area that burned in 2025, would create a new loan program to help property owners mitigate fire risks through home hardening, or installing fire-resistant materials on the outside of a structure.
“It can sometimes cost tens of thousands of dollars for homeowners and there’s simply not a lot of financing for this kind of work. There’s not a market for that,” Allen said during an April hearing.
The program is expected to help fund 1,000 projects in its first year and up to 2,400 within five years, according to a bill analysis.
A budget bill approved Tuesday morning also includes $25 million for home hardening grants, rebates or loans to be distributed through a separate program to be created by the Governor’s Office of Emergency Services. It would cap assistance at $25,000 per homeowner or property.
But other proposals to provide financial incentives for home hardening did not pass, including bills by Assemblymember Steve Bennett (D-Ventura) to exclude home hardening upgrades from property tax reassessment and to require insurance companies to provide two quotes to inquiring homeowners: one for the property as is, and another for if it met full home-hardening certification by the state.
Another bill on Newsom’s desk seeks to get restitution for victims of utility-caused wildfires who in some cases have waited more than a decade, said Assemblymember Joe Patterson (R-Rocklin).
In 2019, the state established a wildfire fund paid by utility companies that reimburses claims stemming from wildfires caused by the companies’ equipment. But the fund was not retroactive, and some people who suffered losses before its creation are still waiting to be paid.
Patterson’s bill requires the California Public Utilities Commission to determine how much is still owed to those victims, including for losses from the deadly Camp fire that was sparked by a PG&E power line and destroyed the town of Paradise in 2018.
“For years, wildfire survivors have been forced to wait for answers while restitution shortfalls remain unresolved,” Patterson said in a statement after the bill passed. “AB 2700 is about doing what is right for wildfire survivors who have waited far too long to be made whole.”
Borrowing costs across some of Europe’s biggest economies have surged to their highest levels in more than 15 years, as a renewed sell-off in global bond markets gathers pace.
The global bond rout pushed Germany’s benchmark borrowing costs to a 15-year high on Tuesday, with France, Italy and the Netherlands all seeing similarly steep rises.
Germany’s 10-year Bund climbed above 3.36% on Tuesday, according to Trading Economics. Later, the yield went down a bit and traded at around 3.34%.
Bond yields move inversely to prices. When investors sell bonds, prices fall, and because a bond’s fixed interest payment becomes worth more relative to that lower price, the effective yield rises.
In short — the more bonds get sold, the more it costs governments to borrow.
Sovereign debt came under renewed pressure as rising oil prices and increasingly hawkish signals from major central banks reinforced bets that interest rates will stay higher for longer.
The yield on Germany’s 30-year Bund surged above 3.84%, also its highest level since 2011. The French 10-year OAT yield rose to its highest level since November 2008, trading slightly above 4.215% at around 10.45 CEST on Tuesday. The equivalent Italian yield was trading slightly lower at 4.188 at the same time.
At the same time, the Dutch 10-year government bond yield increased to 3.43%, its highest level since May 2011. Spain’s 10-year yield climbed above 3.80%, its highest level since November 2023.
Investors are concerned that rising energy prices will fuel inflation around the world, potentially prompting interest-rate increases by central banks in the US, Japan and the eurozone, among others.
These concerns were reinforced in the eurozone on Tuesday morning, as the latest flash inflation data from Eurostat showed that energy prices were 14.3% higher than a year earlier. This helped push eurozone inflation to 3.3% in August, up from 2.9% in July. This is significantly above the ECB’s 2% target.
The central bank is due to hold its next monetary policy meeting next week, and most investors are betting on a 25-basis-point rate hike.
Leo Barincou, senior economist at Oxford Economics, said: “With inflation still accelerating, the ECB is all but certain to hike at next week’s meeting, in line with our expectations.”
Looking at the largest European economies, analysts say Germany’s Bund has moved largely in line with global benchmarks, while France faces an additional risk premium because of its political and fiscal outlook.
French 10-year borrowing costs have exceeded Italy’s for much of the summer, as France increasingly replaces Italy as the main focus of European debt concerns.
According to the IMF, France’s gross government debt is projected to reach 118.4% of GDP this year and 120.5% in 2027. France currently has the third-highest debt-to-GDP ratio in the EU, after Greece and Italy.
The Banque de France expects the budget deficit to reach 5.2% of GDP this year. Difficult budget negotiations ahead of the 2027 presidential election have raised doubts about the government’s ability to reverse this trend.
Robert Timper, BCA’s chief fixed-income strategist, previously told Euronews Business: “We have held the view for some time that France is the country in the euro area with the most unsustainable fiscal outlook, and its borrowing cost should reflect that.”
“To get back to a sustainable fiscal path, France needs to do substantial reforms, which will be unpopular as they will curtail welfare spending,” Timper said. “A large political majority is therefore necessary for such reforms, or a bond market riot will force reforms.”
Expectations of persistently high inflation and rising borrowing costs also pushed the yield on 10-year US Treasuries to its highest level since January 2025. The yield on the 10-year Treasury was trading at around 4.78% on Tuesday.
In the US, higher energy prices have added to already stubborn inflation, which remains well above the Federal Reserve’s 2% target. Inflation has weighed on household spending and consumer confidence, complicating the Fed’s decisions on interest rates.
According to Bloomberg, traders raised the probability of a September US rate hike to about 70%, extending a repricing that began last week when Federal Reserve Chair Kevin Warsh doubled down on a pledge to tame inflation.
The sell-off also spread to Asia, where Japan’s benchmark 10-year government bond yield reached 3.00% for the first time since 1996.
Government bonds have traditionally been seen as safe-haven assets during periods of uncertainty.
That role is being tested as investors become increasingly concerned that global conflicts and higher energy prices could produce a prolonged period of stagflation — a combination of high inflation and weak or zero economic growth.
Shares in fast-fashion giant Shein fell as much as 10% on their trading debut on Hong Kong’s stock market on Tuesday, before recovering some of their losses, following years of delay to the company’s plans to list publicly and regulatory setbacks in Europe and in the US.
Shein’s initial public offering opened on 24 August, with the final share price set a week later on 31 August. Trading began the following day, on Tuesday.
The gap reflects standard IPO process, as investors placed their orders over about a week, the banks running the deal then fixed the final price and decided who got shares, and trading opened a few business days later once the exchange gave the final go-ahead.
The listing marks the end of a long search for a stock market willing to take Shein after plans to list in New York and London stalled amid scrutiny over its Chinese supply chains, forcing the company to turn to Hong Kong instead.
New US and EU tariffs on low-cost parcels from China, along with rising shipping costs from the war in Iran, have contributed to Shein’s swing from a $395 million (€340mn) profit to a $99 million (€85mn) loss in the first quarter of this year.
Shein raised about $1.7 billion (€1.46bn), pricing shares at HK$48.56 (€5.33) each, in one of the city’s biggest share sales this year.
“Shein’s Hong Kong listing marks a new starting point,” said Leigh Gui, Shein’s chief financial officer, in a short speech at its listing ceremony.
But in early trading, the shares fell to below HK$44 (€4.83) before losses narrowed.
Shein has built its appeal to customers on ultra-fast, affordable fashion, delivered from China to the West within days.
However, the end of “de minimis” tariff exemptions in the US and the European Union has raised duties on low-value parcels from China, including Shein’s products. Higher logistics costs, driven partly by the war in Iran, have also squeezed the company’s low-price business model and profitability.
Tariff costs have forced Shein to raise prices, “cutting into its main advantage,” said Jacob Cooke, CEO of WPIC Marketing + Technologies.
Shein, pronounced “she-in,” earlier explored listing its shares in New York and London, and moved its headquarters from China to Singapore in 2021.
But increasingly strict scrutiny by Beijing and by regulators in the US and Europe led it to embrace its Chinese roots and switch to a Hong Kong listing.
Launched in 2012 in China, much of Shein’s operations were in the southern province of Guangdong before it moved its corporate headquarters out of the country.
“Guangdong is Shein’s roots, and the starting point of our journey,” founder Sky Xu said in a speech in February.
Pivoting its focus back to China also highlighted the advantages Shein derives from a supply chain system that “only exists” in Guangdong, said William Ma of GROW Investment Group, referring to its small-batch, fast-response manufacturing model.
Shein has hit other roadblocks in expanding in Europe. In February, the EU launched a probe into the company with a focus on “illegal” products, including alleged child sexual abuse material.
In May, Shein acquired San Francisco-based eco-friendly clothing retailer Everlane, a move some analysts said was not the best fit.
The company’s market value was roughly $27 billion (€23.2bn) as it listed in Hong Kong, a fraction of its peak valuation a few years ago.
“Shein has probably missed its golden listing window due to the shift of momentum toward AI and tariffs, which can affect valuations and profitability,” said Gary Ng, a senior economist for Asia Pacific at French bank Natixis.
Still, Shein’s listing is welcome news for Hong Kong, as the Chinese territory makes increasing efforts to hold onto its role as a global financial hub following a downturn in 2023.
Hong Kong’s stock exchange has had a strong year for IPOs, raising more than $40 billion (€34.4bn) so far.
There is also a backlog of companies seeking to list there, said Lorraine Tan at investment research firm Morningstar.
Exxon 'going in' to Venezuela, Trump says in touting oil deals
Source link
GCShutter/E+ via Getty Images
GrafTech International (EAF) up 5.3% post-market Monday after saying it plans to permanently close its graphite electrode manufacturing facility in Monterrey, Mexico, winding down operations in phases before expecting to end production in Q2 2027.
The company said the planned closure is intended
imaginima/iStock via Getty Images
TXNM Energy (TXNM) down 1.3% post-market after saying it commenced an underwritten public offering of $400M common shares, pursuant to an effective shelf registration statement on Form S-3 that has been filed with the SEC.
The company said it plans to use the proceeds from the offering to repay borrowings under its $400M term loan agreement.
Wells Fargo is acting as the sole book-running manager for the offering.
Late on Friday night, Donald Trump announced what he called “the biggest oil deal in world history.” Under the terms described publicly so far, the US would obtain a controlling interest in a new venture involving 17 Venezuelan oil fields containing more than 65 billion barrels of proven reserves, with an effective 55 percent share of production and preferential access to crude at cost. The Trump administration says the arrangement could mobilize around $100 billion in private investment and eventually generate more than $200 billion in Venezuelan tax revenues. Much about the deal, including its precise legal structure, remains unclear.
There is nothing inherently objectionable about American companies making money from Venezuelan oil. Venezuela desperately needs foreign capital, technology and markets. PDVSA cannot rebuild the industry on its own, and reconnecting Venezuela to the American energy system would be preferable to another generation of dependence on Russia, China or Iran.
The problem is not that Washington wants investment. The problem is that it seems determined to make that investment possible without first solving the political and institutional problem that made Venezuela uninvestable in the first place.
The original expectation after Nicolás Maduro’s removal seemed straightforward enough. American oil majors would pour tens of billions of dollars into the country and restore production. Nine days after Maduro was captured, Trump gathered oil executives at the White House and invited them back to Venezuela. ExxonMobil CEO Darren Woods responded with an inconvenient assessment: under the existing legal and commercial conditions, the country remained “uninvestable.” ConocoPhillips was interested but similarly cautious. Chevron, which never fully left, has continued expanding and is now preparing another significant restructuring of its Venezuelan operations. So far, the broad stampede of supermajors Washington appeared to expect has not come.
So Washington widened the search. Delcy Rodríguez traveled to India in June to court energy investment and deepen ties with Reliance and other Indian companies, in a trip conducted with remarkably explicit American encouragement. India had once again become a major buyer of Venezuelan crude, and Asian capital offered another potential source of the money Venezuela needed.
Under the conditions we have been apprised of so far, it is difficult to imagine a future democratic Venezuelan government simply accepting an arrangement of this magnitude as a fait accompli.
At the same time came operators with a different tolerance for Venezuelan risk. Hunt Overseas Oil and Crossover Energy signed preliminary agreements to develop projects in the Orinoco Belt. Smaller American firms have explored opportunities that Exxon and Conoco have so far declined to pursue. SLB, an oilfield-services company rather than a producer, has now been brought in to reconstruct and analyze PDVSA’s degraded reservoir data, the sort of basic technical infrastructure that should tell us something about how much of an oil industry still needs to be rebuilt.
And then there are the intermediaries. Bloomberg recently reported that Alejandro Betancourt, who rose spectacularly during the Chávez years, emerged as an important facilitator for Washington’s effort to bring smaller American companies into Venezuela. His usefulness is not difficult to understand. Companies entering a market where formal institutions remain weak need people who know the terrain, the networks, the officials and the informal rules through which business actually gets done.
Betancourt has denied past allegations of wrongdoing and has not been charged with a crime, but his return as an influential gatekeeper hardly advertises the arrival of a transparent, rules-based Venezuelan economy.
Now comes the ultimate recalculation. If investors are still reluctant to absorb Venezuelan political risk, the US government may absorb some of it itself.
That is what makes Friday’s announcement so revealing. Washington began the year with the proposition that political change would make Venezuela attractive to capital. Now, the Trump government appears increasingly willing to create more and more elaborate mechanisms to insulate investors from risk rather than address the conditions that make the country risky in the first place. At every stage, it has changed the investor, the financing, the intermediary or the allocation of risk. The one variable it has been remarkably reluctant to change is the Venezuelan government.
There is also the small matter of Venezuelan law.
The Constitution establishes that hydrocarbon deposits belong to the Republic and are inalienable. It also requires National Assembly approval for public-interest contracts involving foreign states, foreign official entities, or companies not domiciled in Venezuela. Delcy’s reform of the hydrocarbons law has undeniably widened the space for private operators, granting companies much greater control over production and commercialization. But nothing disclosed so far explains how an arrangement giving the US government a controlling economic position over 17 fields, reportedly with rights potentially stretching for a quarter of a century, has obtained the constitutional authorization necessary to bind Venezuela over anything resembling that period. Reuters itself notes that the legal and financial structure remains unclear and that the proposal faces constitutional questions.
Delcy’s strategy is to survive Trump himself, so that the next American administration treats her as the person guaranteeing oil production, investment contracts and political stability.
Perhaps those questions will eventually receive convincing answers. Perhaps the current National Assembly will be asked to provide whatever approvals the agreement requires. But under the conditions we have been apprised of so far, it is difficult to imagine a future democratic Venezuelan government simply accepting an arrangement of this magnitude as a fait accompli. At a minimum, it would have every reason to subject the contracts to comprehensive legal review and democratic ratification; significant portions could well have to be renegotiated.
That produces a remarkable contradiction. An agreement supposedly designed to provide investors with certainty may create its own enormous source of political risk.
A future government could inherit century-long commitments negotiated by an unelected predecessor whose authority it contests, with the US itself financially invested in preserving those commitments. Venezuela’s first genuinely democratic administration would then begin its life choosing between endorsing decisions it never authorized or entering an immediate dispute with Washington.
There is a perfectly respectable argument for what the Trump administration is attempting. Venezuela cannot place reconstruction on hold indefinitely while it builds pristine institutions. Oil infrastructure continues to deteriorate. Investment can create jobs, revenue, and constituencies interested in stability. Delcy controls the ministries, PDVSA, much of the security apparatus and the bureaucracy; somebody has to sign the contracts today. Connecting Venezuelan economic interests to American companies could itself help pull the country away from the geopolitical networks that sustained Maduro.
But that argument confuses the need to restart the economy with the need to give an interim government the power to determine its structure for generations.
Washington could have pursued investment while limiting the duration of interim arrangements, requiring future democratic ratification for the largest commitments, creating sunset clauses, tying concessions to institutional milestones or ensuring that Venezuela’s democratic forces had genuine ownership of the framework. Democratic legitimacy is not an obstacle to investment certainty. Properly understood, it is one of its foundations.
The US seems unwilling to own the fact that no amount of financial engineering, political brokerage or well-connected intermediaries can substitute for a democratic government.
Instead, the emerging arrangement gives Delcy Rodríguez an increasingly powerful incentive to make herself indispensable. The more American capital, energy security and political prestige become attached to agreements signed under her government, the more valuable continuity becomes. Delcy’s obvious strategy is no longer merely to survive the transition. It is to survive Trump himself, so that the next American administration treats her not as the temporary caretaker Washington inherited in January but as the person guaranteeing oil production, investment contracts and political stability.
There have been meaningful changes since Maduro’s removal. More than a thousand political prisoners have reportedly been released. The government and representatives of the opposition have reached an agreement to renew the Supreme Court. But if the objective on January 3 was a genuine democratic transition, it is increasingly difficult to argue that Venezuela has moved very far from square one. Delcy still governs without democratic legitimacy. Much of the chavista State remains intact. María Corina Machado remains outside the country and outside the US-backed negotiating mechanism. Even senators from both parties in Washington have begun pressing the administration for a clearer path toward elections.
If anyone in Washington believes that another legally dubious agreement negotiated with the cronies who continue to usurp the Venezuelan State—particularly through figures like Alejandro Betancourt, now being mentioned as a facilitator for oil investment—will inspire substantially more confidence than anything Washington has tried since that glorious January 3 night, then they have learned remarkably little about the problem they inherited. Washington took responsibility for managing Venezuela’s transition that night. Eight months later, it still seems unwilling to own the central fact that no amount of financial engineering, political brokerage or well-connected intermediaries can substitute for a Venezuelan government with democratic and legal legitimacy.
There is a broader cost to that refusal. Machado is not merely another Venezuelan politician Washington happens to dislike. She is one of Latin America’s most recognizable democratic figures, with an audience extending across the region’s Right, democratic center and beyond. The administration’s repeated willingness to sideline her while embracing Rodríguez is therefore being watched outside Venezuela too.
If billions begin flowing through institutions and business networks that have never been subjected to democratic accountability, Washington may discover that it has helped recapitalize the very system it intended to replace.
It is particularly telling to see rightwing figures such as Emmanuel Rincón, Orlando Avendaño and Hermann Tertsch—voices that have spent much of the past eight months looking for the glass-half-full interpretation of Washington’s most questionable decisions—struggling to interpret the latest developments as anything other than the US installing a friendlier face atop the chavista state.
That matters for American power. The Trump administration has never pretended that its diplomacy would be delicate. Allies understand pressure, bargaining and the occasional arm-twist. But there is a difference between being a demanding partner and being an unreliable one. Latin American political leaders who have aligned themselves with Washington against authoritarian movements would be perfectly rational to study Venezuela and conclude that the US remains an excellent partner for a business transaction while being considerably less dependable as the guarantor of a political project.
Oil production can rise without democracy. Private investment can coexist with authoritarianism. Venezuela can become much more capitalist without becoming substantially more free. If billions begin flowing through institutions and business networks that have never been subjected to democratic accountability, Washington may discover that it has helped recapitalize the very system it intended to replace.
Chavismo spent a quarter century destroying the institutional ecosystem in which long-term investment could survive. Changing an oil law does not rebuild it. Removing Maduro did not rebuild it. Finding more adventurous investors will not rebuild it either.
Democratic legitimacy is not the prize Venezuela receives at the end of a successful transition. It is part of the infrastructure required for the transition to succeed.
So the appeal is clear for those who manage the financial spreadsheets, but what about everybody else?
US Open organisers have not yet commented in the wake of the Williams-Kenin match, but they have previously argued late scheduling is a benefit to fans.
“Without question late-night matches were heavily discussed and reviewed after the 2022 US Open,” tournament director Stacey Allaster said in 2023, after opting to maintain the late schedule.
“We looked at starting the evening session earlier, instead of 7pm start at 6pm, but it’s not really a possibility because it’s hard for New Yorkers to get here even at 7pm.
“We talked about [changing to] one match at night, but we felt that’s not fair to our fans. One of the realities we have in tennis is that we are not defined by a start and an end time. We can have a short match or we can have a five-hour match.”
And that lack of certainty is where the problems arise. Organisers might not think all matches will run long, but they definitely know it’s a possibility.
A five-set men’s match can easily run for over four or even five hours and a women’s match that goes the distance can comfortably pass the three-hour mark. Put those two matches back-to-back on Arthur Ashe with a short break in-between and suddenly whoever is playing second isn’t finishing until about 3am.
The reason Williams and Kenin started their match so late is that Novak Djokovic’s defeat by Mariano Navone took five sets and over four hours to complete.
By the time Williams and Kenin were finished, the crowd in the 23,933-capacity stadium was sparse.
The United States takes its turn chairing the G20 finance track this week under distinctly awkward conditions.
US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent and Federal Reserve Chair Kevin Warsh are hosting counterparts in the North Carolina mountains, following a deputies meeting held over the weekend, with the formal agenda covering economic growth, global imbalances, sovereign debt restructuring, banking regulation and energy security.
Asheville was chosen deliberately.
The city was devastated by Hurricane Helene in September 2024, a storm that killed more than 250 people and caused close to $80 billion (€69bn) in damage from Florida to the Carolinas, and Bessent has cited its rebuilding as a fitting backdrop for talks about economic growth.
“We want the rest of the world to come along with our growth agenda, whether it’s deregulation, the energy independence […]” he said, adding that “the world has this mountain of debt, and we do have to grow our way out of it,” confirming public debt will feature prominently in the discussions.
The setting may prove easier than the substance.
Trade friction between the US and Canada escalated after negotiations broke down, hostilities with Iran have resumed through economic rather than military means, and Warsh arrives days after a hawkish first Jackson Hole address that sharply raised the odds of a US rate rise this month.
Both meetings serve as groundwork for the leaders’ summit at Trump National Doral in Miami on 14 and 15 December, and come weeks before Xi Jinping is expected in Washington on 24 September.
The US Treasury Secretary intends to use bilateral meetings to build support for squeezing Tehran, and stated that Washington will sanction another bank this week, though he declined to name it.
“This is going to be financial violence if we have to,” Bessent told AP.
“We are showing people that we know who you are, you know who you are, and this has got to stop,” he added.
The campaign’s opening move came on Friday, when the US Treasury proposed a rule that would cut the Emirati branches of Banque Misr, Egypt’s second-largest lender, off from the American financial system.
By stopping short of full sanctions, the US administration appeared to signal reluctance to punish major trading partners that still deal with Iran, notably China and India.
On Beijing specifically, Bessent said “all options are on the table” over its continued oil purchases, while dismissing suggestions of hesitancy as “a completely false narrative that the media picked up on.”
The meetings are also being held under unusual media restrictions, after the US Treasury barred certain reporters from the New York Times, Wall Street Journal and Bloomberg from covering them.
The New York Times called the move “not just another disturbing effort by the administration to undermine independent journalism, but a blatant attempt to evade public scrutiny.”
The department has not explained its decision, though Bessent told the AP that “it has nothing to do with point of view.”
The EU is represented by Ireland’s Tánaiste and Finance Minister Simon Harris, who holds the role by virtue of Ireland’s EU presidency since 1 July, alongside ECB President Christine Lagarde and Economy Commissioner Valdis Dombrovskis.
Harris said he was looking forward to “the first Ministerial meeting of the G20 Finance Ministers and Central Bank Governors since Ireland assumed the Presidency of the EU,” describing the forum as a place where the largest economies “can exchange views and work towards international economic and financial stability.”
The Irish minister’s stated priority reflects the conflict shaping much of the agenda at this G20 meeting.
Among the EU’s concerns, Harris listed “energy security and ensuring we have secure and resilient energy supplies at a time of severe volatility caused by the conflict in the Middle East.”
He will also hold bilateral meetings with counterparts from G20 member states as Ireland has also been invited as a guest for the December leaders’ summit in Miami.
Additional sources • AP
JHVEPhoto/iStock Editorial via Getty Images
Amgen (AMGN) said new findings from a pre-specified Phase 3 VESALIUS-CV trial analysis showed Repatha (evolocumab) reduced the risk of death by 20% in high-risk adults without a prior heart attack or stroke when added to statins or other LDL-C-lowering treatments.
MAYA Jama cheekily vowed to ‘shake her money maker’ as she stunned in a racy red dress at Notting Hill Carnival on Sunday.
The Love Island presenter, 32, shared what she got up to at the world-famous street party on her social media.
Maya headed out to the streets of Notting Hill in west London in a taxi with her pals before busting some moves on an elevated platform.
She was captured holding a sign that said ‘shake my money maker’ by a fan and she reposted the picture to her Instagram story.
The star was in high spirits showing off her moves in a red and black striped dress and sunglasses.
In another repost, Maya was all smiles as she waved to a fan on the ground and made a love heart sign with her fingers.
Before the party, Maya told her 3.3 million followers: “Merry carnival to those who celebrate.”
Notting Hill Carnival takes place every year from the 29th to 31st of August after it first took place in 1966.
It is one of the largest festival celebrations of its kind in Europe, celebrating Caribbean culture.
It comes after Maya stripped down to a bikini and let off steam on a wild holiday with pals.
She took to Instagram on Wednesday evening to share a series of pictures from her fun holiday.
In one snap, the ITV favourite showed off her sexy body in a blue two piece.
Joe Raedle/Getty Images News
Strategy (MSTR) executive chairman Michael Saylor appeared to signal that the company has made its first Bitcoin purchase since June 22, as Bitcoin (BTC-USD) approached $79K.
Saylor posted “We’re Back” on X, suggesting Strategy may have resumed Bitcoin accumulation after pausing purchases
donlucius/iStock via Getty Images
The U.S. Treasury Department has blocked certain journalists from covering G20 finance ministers’ summit in North Carolina this week.
Individual reporters from The Wall Street Journal, Bloomberg News and The New York Times (NYT) were denied credentials to the
Amazon brings OpenAI, Meta, Anthropic AI models to AWS GovCloud
Source link
Asian stocks fell on Monday as hawkish comments from Federal Reserve boss Kevin Warsh saw investors ramp up bets on a US interest rate hike, while oil prices spiked after a fresh flare-up in the US-Iran war.
With inflation remaining stubbornly high – largely on the back of elevated energy costs – the US central bank has come under pressure to act, and Warsh’s refusal to provide guidance has stoked uncertainty.
But in a highly anticipated speech at the Jackson Hole symposium of central bankers and economists in Wyoming, he left traders with few doubts that he was ready to increase borrowing costs.
Warsh said: “We must be confident that underlying inflation is moving to our objective, clearly and at sufficient speed. Otherwise, we have work to do.”
He called the spike in inflation – currently at 3.7% and nearly double the Fed’s 2% target – “concerning”, and said he would be “hard-pressed” to describe current financial conditions as “restrictive”, a potential hint that rate hikes could be on the horizon.
However, he stopped short of saying he would support a hike, adding: “I stand here today committed to a discipline, not to a decision.”
All three main indexes on Wall Street fell Friday. Yields on short-term US Treasury bonds – which reflect monetary policy expectations – jumped, and the dollar rallied against its peers. Gold, which benefits from lower interest rates, fell.
And Asia followed suit, with tech firms – which rely on borrowing to fuel their huge AI investments – leading the way down.
Tokyo, Seoul, Hong Kong, Shanghai, Taipei and Jakarta were all down, though Singapore and Wellington edged up.
Focus will now turn to a string of crucial data releases over the next two weeks before the Fed makes its decision, with jobs up this week and the consumer price index (CPI) next week.
“Should we get an inline payrolls print that does not give the Fed too much to work with, next week’s core CPI report will become the major decider for the market’s Fed belief system,” wrote Chris Weston at Pepperstone.
“The volatility priced around that outcome across rates, forex and equities could therefore be significant.”
The Fed’s battle against inflation has been hobbled by the Iran war, which has pushed oil prices higher.
And after a run lower for most of last week, they spiked again on Monday, a day after the United States said it had attacked Iranian rocket launchers on a small island in the Strait of Hormuz, its first strikes on the country in a month.
The attack prompted Tehran to retaliate by hitting US military targets in Jordan. Both main crude contracts rose more than 2% on Monday.
The exchange came shortly after the US-Iran war hit the six-month mark, and at a time when hostilities had been subsiding.
The news revived concerns about the conflict, with attempts and peace talks appearing to be going nowhere and the strait – through which a fifth of global crude and gas passes – largely closed.
US officials this month vowed the “economic asphyxiation” of Iran to make it open the waterway.
“Hormuz is once again threatening to put a floor under oil just as Warsh is putting a ceiling on how much inflation patience markets should assume from the Fed,” said Quintex Intel’s Stephen Innes.
“For oil traders, (the) move is another reminder of how quickly the geopolitical premium can return.
“Physical flows through Hormuz have improved materially from their worst levels, which is precisely why crude had started giving back some of the fear premium, but the latest exchange shows how fragile that progress remains and how quickly the shipping story can be pushed back onto the trading desk.”
Additional sources • AFP
In 1995, issue 34 of Revista Bigott, a Venezuelan publication dedicated to anthropology and popular culture, discussed a resurgence of national sentiment after the 1992 coup attempts. One of its articles argued that a certain “llanero emboldening” of the coup leader, his decision to assume responsibility for what had happened, and the evocation of Simón Bolívar and the tricolor armband had restored appeal to a deeply rooted idea of national identity. The government at the time tried to capitalize on this momentum to save the system, which, in light of what happened afterward, also amounted to saving democracy. But the country was already exhausted. It was burdened by the discrediting of political parties, the hangover from the “Saudi Venezuela” era, the depression that followed the 1983 devaluation known as Black Friday, widespread corruption, low oil prices, and an institutional framework that failed to modernize.
As the reader knows, Hugo Chávez ended up winning the election in 1998, and the joropo, the flags, and the constant singing of the national anthem were reborn, transcending the political debate. Everything then became known as Bolivarian, from the schools to the republic itself. Each campaign was presented as a patriotic epic, a battle, or a slogan borrowed from popular sayings. But with Chávez, the national identity was fractured. The country, the idea of nationhood, and its symbols were hijacked. They belonged solely to his supporters. Just as an attempt was made to create a parallel institutional framework, something similar happened with the symbols: two flags, two coats of arms, and two ways of referring to everything. While the struggle against U.S. imperialism was presented as a heroic feat, the country was mortgaged to other powers and groups in exchange for political favors. Sovereignty was lost, both in terms of territory and the capacity to maintain a functional State serving its citizens.
These parallel structures (one crumbling, the other with feet of clay but relentless in its repression) blurred the boundaries of the republic. The country drowned in corruption and the disappearance of its shared identities. What could it defend? What could a country that expelled millions of its inhabitants and squandered its demographic dividend sound, smell, or taste like? Amid political violence, insecurity, and abuses, the economy shrank by more than half and came to be governed by the law of the strongest or the most connected, while individualism intensified. The country and its virtues became a source of nostalgia for better times or a promise of an uncertain future. The present, meanwhile, faded with bitterness.
Chavismo, in its eagerness to cling to power, also hijacked popular sovereignty. The excuse was that, although the opposition represented the majority, it should not be recognized because it was subservient and unpatriotic. After the theft of the 2024 elections and the US intervention of January 3, it became clear that the only sovereignty that truly matters to Chavismo is that which guarantees its own survival.
With the country dismantled, its people divided, and mired in neglect and impoverishment, Venezuela became the perfect prey for whoever is currently in power. One conclusion emerges from the “mega-agreement” announced by US President Donald Trump and vaguely explained by Delcy Rodríguez: details do matter. As presented, it appears to be a cruel and sad surrender of sovereignty, decided in the dead of night, like so many of the measures announced in recent decades.
The winner and his tyrant take everything—resources and concessions—as if it were a contemporary version of the handover of the Congo to Leopold II. A forced and macabre gift.
But having access to reserves is one thing; knowing how those barrels will be extracted is quite another. The question is what guarantees investors will have and, above all, what the country will receive in return.
Between what has been announced and its implementation, a vast gap still exists, marked by illegalities and profound incompetence. There is also the risk that Venezuela will continue to replicate the “bolichicos” model, increasingly similar to that of Russia in the late 1990s: a small class of millionaires facing a country mired in impoverishment.
It will be up to oil experts and economists to study the implications of what has been announced, and to historians to review the precedents of similar agreements: the Rojas-Pereire Protocol of 1879, the concessions granted under Gómez, the Rockefeller Plan, or the concessions granted by the Pérez Jiménez dictatorship in 1956. For now, all we know is that the US administration is determined to embody everything its harshest critics have always held against it. Chavismo, for its part, is determined to become everything it claimed the opposition would be, whose rise to power it said it would prevent to “protect” Venezuela, even at the cost of violating human rights and disregarding popular sovereignty.
The situation compels us to reach agreements as a society, promote genuine democratization, and reclaim our sovereignty, understood as the collective exercise of autonomy and freedoms. If we fail to do so, we will remain subject to the circumstances and interests of others, instead of acting in accordance with our own interests.
The outlook is not promising, but two questions remain: What future validity will any agreement signed with the regime currently governing Venezuela have? And what will the state of the planet be when Trump’s term ends on January 20, 2029?
As August gives way to September, next week brings a tech-heavy earnings slate, with investors focused on AI infrastructure, cybersecurity, enterprise software, and semiconductor demand as the market heads into the final stretch of the third quarter. Broadcom (AVGO
