US-Venezuela Relations

Photographic evidence

There is a photograph that serves as evidence: Delcy Rodríguez and Donald Trump, together, smiling, in New York. Hundreds of narratives can be constructed around that photo. Diplomatic, tactical, or strategic explanations can be devised. Some may speak of pragmatism, power dynamics, negotiation, or political necessity. All of that is open to debate. But there is something that remains true regardless of any narrative: the photograph is evidence and depicts a specific scene. And that scene is difficult to reconcile with much of the political tradition from which Delcy Rodríguez hails.

Because there is another image from the same day that completes the picture: Delcy Rodríguez approaching [Spanish President] Pedro Sánchez while he is on the phone, waiting for him to finish so she can greet him. The image conveys something difficult to reconcile with the power of the Bolivarian Revolution’s historic leadership: a desire to reach out, almost like a student waiting for the other person to hang up the phone so she can greet him; an attitude that seems a far cry from the dignity and authority with which Chavismo once stood up to global powers. And a few hours later, the photo-op with Trump appears. Two images from the same day that speak for themselves, because diplomacy is one thing, and the position from which it is exercised is another; negotiating is one thing, and showing subordination is another. That is what it looks like.

Chavismo’s tradition

And what we see today is a far cry from Hugo Chávez’s “Go to hell, you fucking Yankees.” It’s a far cry from that rebellious Chavismo that could stand up to the King of Spain, that could publicly confront the United States, and that built much of its political identity around an idea of sovereignty, dignity, and resistance in the face of imperial power. There was a political force there, a capacity to stand up to power, a way of exercising leadership, that is hard to find in these recent images.

When the narrative trumps reality

We live, at the same time, in a dystopian world in which artificial intelligence, technological advances, and algorithms often lead us to be unaware of reality or to experience it from a perspective different from what is actually observed. We can construct stories, narratives, and entire universes around a single scene until the narrative ends up overtaking reality. While the world’s wealthy talk about moving to Mars or colonizing other planets, perhaps the biggest debate we face is much more fundamental: aligning stories, narratives, and algorithmic trends with reality.

Assuming that reality is something different from what we see often leads us to explore ideas, utopias, or even political stances from a perspective increasingly distant from what is actually happening. And perhaps today, a revolutionary leap would be to align reality with what is being recounted or narrated. Ideas, utopias, and political stances need to stem from reality—not from a reality constructed to align with what we need to believe. When the narrative begins to take the place of facts, we stop interpreting reality and start adapting it to our needs.

The power of what is seen

That is why the power lies in what is seen. And what is seen is not just a photograph of Delcy Rodríguez and Donald Trump. That photograph appears in the wake of a US military intervention in Venezuela, which led to the kidnapping of Nicolás Maduro and Cilia Flores, and after Trump publicly took credit for the operation. What we see is Delcy Rodríguez standing before the man who brags about this operation and presents its outcome as a victory. And this matters because the photograph isn’t floating in a vacuum: it has a context—it involves deaths, a military attack, a captured Venezuelan president, strategic resources at stake, and a US president claiming credit for the outcome of that operation.

At this very moment, paradoxically and surprisingly, an entire epic narrative of triumph and “peace diplomacy” is emerging, a grandiloquent celebration of a supposed victory. And the important thing is to state something very simple: defeat is not epic. A defeat can simply be a defeat. What can be discussed is how one faces it, what stance one takes in the face of it, and what dignity one maintains when conditions are adverse. But a defeat does not become a victory simply because we construct a grand narrative around it. Reality retains a dimension that rhetoric cannot erase.

The words of the victor

What we see is a Delcy Rodríguez who tolerates Trump saying outrageous things. Trump spoke of the US operation in Venezuela in terms of victory and the victor; he justified the use of force and even spoke of the spoils that belong to the victor. This is an offensive affront to the dead—who are not only Venezuelans but also Cubans—and, fundamentally, to those killed in an intervention on Latin American soil. That context does not disappear simply because a diplomatic facade is later constructed or by conjuring a strategic explanation for every gesture.

It happened. And it is incomprehensible that Delcy Rodríguez would then appear in a triumphant, smiling manner in the face of that display of power and in the presence of the very person who has abducted Venezuela’s President Nicolás Maduro and Cilia Flores. We can discuss the reasons for the negotiations, the balance of power, the tactical necessities, the circumstances, and the alternatives. All of that is part of politics and can be analyzed. But there is something that comes before all those explanations: what actually happened.

Tactics and consistency

And this raises a question we should not shy away from: What is the difference between Milei’s stance and Delcy Rodríguez’s stance with regard to the US? No doubt, in the coming hours, explanations will emerge aimed at establishing profound differences between the two, and we will be told that they follow different logics, that one expresses subordination and the other a tactic, that one represents a political project and the other a historical necessity. All of that is open to debate. But it is important to look at the concrete attitude, because if politics can always be explained away as a tactic, then consistency begins to lose all specific weight. And when consistency loses its specific weight, almost anything can become a strategy: a concession can be presented as a victory, subordination as pragmatism, a defeat as peace diplomacy, and a photograph as an epic moment. Reality, however, remains.

A model of dignity

If there is a model to look to today—as we saw on January 3—it was Cuban dignity, which fought to the very end against US troops and delivered a fierce, dignified response, despite being outmatched in firepower and at a disadvantage in every respect. At the UN General Assembly, too, it was the Cuban delegation that stood up and walked out [during Trump’s speech]. Therein lies a model of dignity—a model from which to fight and from which to view ourselves. There are moments when politics needs to reclaim the ability to set boundaries against power.

And this matters especially for those of us who see ourselves within a tradition of the left, of sovereignty, of emancipation, and of transformation. Because we cannot lose the ability to recognize a point of reference when we see it. We cannot construct an artificial epic around something that offers us no point of reference. And we cannot turn a scene of subordination into a revolutionary one simply because we need to preserve a certain narrative.

Surrender is also conceptual

If we fall into this pragmatic, tactical logic—where consistency seems to carry little weight and reality can be distorted through grandiloquent rhetoric—we lose something far more important than a short-term political debate: we lose the ability to think. What we see is a very happy Delcy Rodríguez standing next to Trump. What we see is a Venezuelan historical process that we have admired but which no longer serves as a point of reference, because today it is part of mechanisms that strengthen Donald Trump and of a strategic surrender of resources—not only natural ones but also conceptual and ideological ones.

And the latter is perhaps even more important, because it is not just about oil, natural resources, or economic agreements. Symbols, references, words, and political traditions are also being surrendered. A tradition that for years was built around resistance to imperialism may end up being used to legitimize a new relationship of subordination. And when that happens, the surrender is not only material—it is also conceptual. A part of what for years allowed us to construct a worldview, a way of interpreting sovereignty, and a way of understanding emancipation is being surrendered.

Intellectual honesty

So there is no turning back. As a matter of dignity, as activists, it is important not to betray our intellect and to realize that this is what it looks like.

Some will come forward in the next few hours to say, “No, it’s a tactic.” Well, but no revolutionary process has ever come about that way. Can you imagine Fidel Castro celebrating with Kennedy after the Bay of Pigs? It would be something similar. The comparison may seem harsh, but it actually helps us understand the problem: it’s one thing to negotiate with an adversary and quite another to stage a celebration with someone who has just bragged about a military intervention; it’s one thing to manage a defeat and quite another to build an epic out of a defeat.

Back to reality

Perhaps the problem of our time is precisely this: we have learned to construct narratives capable of altering our perception of reality. Artificial intelligence can do it, algorithms can do it, political narratives can do it, the great powers can do it, and we ourselves can do it when we need reality to resemble what we want to believe. That is why, perhaps, a revolutionary leap today is something much more fundamental and, at the same time, much more difficult: returning to reality, aligning what is with what is reported and narrated; not abandoning utopias but preventing them from becoming an excuse to ignore the facts; not abandoning politics but preventing politics from forcing us to deny what is right before us; not ceasing to think strategically but reclaiming coherence as a dimension of strategy.

And perhaps the first obligation of those of us who still believe that politics can transform reality is not to betray our intellect in order to save the narrative. To look at reality, to think from within it, and to hold our ideas up against what is actually happening. Because before any explanation, before any epic, and before any narrative construction, there is something that remains right before us.

It is what it looks like.

Translated by Venezuelanalysis.

Source: Barrio Adentro

Caracas, September 22, 2026 (venezuelanalysis.com) – Venezuelan Acting President Delcy Rodríguez and US President Donald Trump held a first face-to-face meeting on Tuesday night in New York amid the rapid rapprochement between Washington and Caracas.

The closed-door gathering took place at the Lotte New York Palace hotel during a reception for world leaders participating in the ongoing 81st session of the United Nations General Assembly. Trump was flanked by Secretary of State Marco Rubio, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, and other White House officials, while Rodríguez was joined by Foreign Minister Félix Plasencia.

The Venezuelan government published photos of the meeting, with the two leaders smiling for the cameras in front of the countries’ flags.

On her social media channels, Rodríguez praised the “historic” sit-down with Trump and reported that the discussions focused on strengthening “cooperation in strategic areas such as energy and mining.”

“We thanked President Trump and his government […] for its support for Venezuela’s reinsertion into multilateral spaces,” she stated. “Venezuela and the United States share a historic relation that, in this new era, we must drive forward through dialogue.”

Tuesday’s summit was the first between US and Venezuelan leaders since a brief encounter between Barack Obama and Nicolás Maduro during the 2015 Summit of the Americas in Panama.

Rodríguez is also set to be the first Venezuelan head of state to participate in the UN General Assembly since Maduro in 2018, during Trump’s first term. In 2019, then as vice president, Rodríguez addressed the UN General Assembly, denouncing US sanctions as a form of “state terrorism” and accusing Trump of “sticking his imperial claws” against Venezuela and Cuba

The high-level meeting follows a rapid diplomatic rapprochement between Caracas and Washington following the January 3 US bombings and kidnapping of President Nicolás Maduro and First Lady Cilia Flores. In the months since, the acting Rodríguez administration has fast-tracked energy and mining reforms tailored to US and Western corporate interests while also realigning the country’s foreign policy.

The Venezuelan acting president and her diplomatic team have yet to mention Maduro in their New York trip. Maduro and Flores are presently detained in Brooklyn, some 10 miles from the UN headquarters, and facing drug trafficking conspiracy charges. Both pleaded not guilty.

At the time of writing, the White House has offered no details on Tuesday’s summit with Rodríguez.

However, in his UN speech earlier in the day, Trump hailed the US’ military operation to kidnap “outlaw dictator” Maduro.

“Our actions in Venezuela are proof that the United States will no longer permit threats to America to gain a foothold anywhere in the Western Hemisphere. And if necessary, we will use our unmatched military might to secure the vital national interests of the United States,” he said.

Trump went on to boast about US corporations entering the Venezuelan energy sector and praised a recent deal giving privileged access to more than 20 percent of the Caribbean nation’s reserves to a Pentagon-controlled firm as “perhaps the biggest deal ever made.”

“To the victor belong the spoils,” he added. Rodríguez and the Venezuelan delegation were shown listening to Trump’s speech in the UN live broadcast.

Prior to the high-profile Trump sit-down, Venezuela’s acting president held meetings with Inter-American Development Bank (IDB) President Ilan Goldfajn, International Monetary Fund (IMF) Managing Director Kristalina Georgieva, and World Bank President Ajay Banga to discuss Venezuela’s reintegration into international financing and cooperation mechanisms.

“We are promoting new stages of engagement with the international financial system and working to ensure joint efforts for the benefit of the Venezuelan people. Venezuela’s future is built through partnerships, hard work, and the firm determination to keep moving forward and creating opportunities for our nation,” Rodríguez said. 

She also met with UN Secretary-General António Guterres, with whom she reportedly discussed Venezuela’s political and economic situation, cooperation with the UN, human rights, and dialogue.

The Venezuelan leader likewise held a brief conversation with Spanish Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez and Foreign Minister José Manuel Albares.

Edited by Ricardo Vaz in Lisbon, Portugal.

Lisbon, Portugal, September 17, 2026 (venezuelanalysis.com) – Continental Resources, a firm owned by billionaire and Trump donor Harold Hamm, struck a deal on Wednesday to exploit one of Venezuela’s largest oilfields.

Under the agreement with Venezuelan state oil company PDVSA, Continental will receive a long-term concession with “100 percent working interest” for the 500 square-kilometer Ayacucho 2 block in Venezuela’s Orinoco Oil Belt. The block contains an estimated 30 billion barrels of extra-heavy crude.

“Continental was built to recognize great resource opportunities and have the conviction to pursue them,” Hamm told Fox News, vowing that the deal would take his company to an “entirely new level.”

For her part, Venezuelan Acting President Delcy Rodríguez claimed that the agreement would “strengthen [Venezuelan] oil production” and “create opportunities for economic growth.”

Hamm and PDVSA Vice President Jovanny Martinez signed the contract in Houston on the sidelines of the G20 energy summit. Martínez and Oil Minister Paula Henao attended the conference to pitch investment opportunities in Venezuela’s oil and gas sector.

PDVSA had previously assigned the Ayacucho 2 block to Chinese private firm Anhui Guangda in 2025. However, no information on investments or output were publicly disclosed, while Venezuelan authorities have not justified rescinding the contract with Anhui.

US government-controlled corporation NABEP, which recently received long-term concessions to 17 major Venezuelan oilfields containing 65 billion barrels in reserves, will also take over projects formerly run by Chinese enterprises, including state-owned CNPC. Beijing has called for its investments and interests in Venezuela to be respected.

Hamm was one of the corporate executives present at the White House on January 9, when Trump announced that Washington would control Venezuela’s oil industry and called on Western majors to invest. Since the January 3 US attacks and kidnapping of President Nicolás Maduro, the White House has managed the South American country’s crude export revenues.

The White House has also backed Venezuelan authorities’ pro-business overhaul of the energy sector while issuing sanctions exemptions to select US-aligned corporations. Chevron, Shell, and Eni are among the companies that have signed new contracts or renegotiated existing ones in recent months.

According to Bloomberg, ExxonMobil is in advanced talks to return to the Caribbean country after a litigious past. The energy giant is negotiating rights to four major oilfields in the Orinoco Oil Belt, two of which it previously owned before they were nationalized by former President Hugo Chávez.

In the 2000s, the Texas-based corporation refused to comply with reforms implemented to assert state sovereignty over the oil industry. ExxonMobil refused compensation offers and pursued international arbitration after its assets were nationalized. The company received an arbitration award significantly below its demands. 

ExxonMobil was additionally denounced repeatedly by Caracas after it spearheaded offshore drilling projects in the territorial waters of the disputed Essequibo Strip.

On Wednesday, Venezuelan authorities likewise inked a 20-year agreement with Florida-based Denarius Holding Group, controlled by Turkish energy group Çan2 Termik. Denarius is taking over the Petrokariña project in Anzoátegui state, which contains 10 oilfields producing a variety of crude types.

Heeney Capital receives gold mine concession

In parallel to its oil opening, Venezuelan authorities have also fast-tracked reforms opening the country’s mining sector to multinational corporations.

On Wednesday, New York-based Heeney Capital and commodities trader Mercuria Energy received a 30-year concession to operate the Chocó 10 mine in Bolívar State. The project holds considerable gold deposits and was run by Rusoro Mining in the 2000s before being nationalized by the Chávez government.

Heeney and Mercuria pledged US $1 billion in initial investment in the Chocó project. The two firms had struck a previous agreement with Caracas to purchase and trade Venezuelan minerals and other commodities.

One of Heeney’s co-founders, Sean Pi, signed the deal at the presidential palace in May and praised Trump’s “leadership” in defending US access to mining resources abroad. Pi has endorsed legislative initiatives deregulating and streamlining mining projects to bolster the US supply of critical minerals.

Under the trading agreement, Heeney and Mercuria are reportedly preparing to ship 15,000 metric tons of Venezuelan aluminum to the US. The corporate partners are likewise seeking to take over VENALUM, Venezuela’s biggest aluminum smelter. Glencore, an Anglo-Swiss mining and trading multinational, is also interested in VENALUM, according to reports.

Venezuelan authorities have not commented on the negotiations for the aluminum smelter. In April, Rodríguez appointed a commission to evaluate privatization of “non-strategic” state assets.

The Trump administration has identified securing access to Venezuelan mineral riches as a key national interest and is reportedly preparing an executive order to boost US corporate participation in Venezuelan mining projects.

Edited by Lucas Koerner in Philadelphia, USA.

Caracas, September 16, 2026 (venezuelanalysis.com) – Former Venezuelan Industry Minister and government envoy Alex Saab pleaded guilty to conspiracy to commit money laundering and illicit financial transactions after reaching a plea deal with US prosecutors in a federal court in Miami.

Appearing before the US District Court for the Southern District of Florida, Saab changed his previous “not guilty” plea, entered on July 24, during a hearing before Judge Kathleen M. Williams. “Guilty, Your Honor,” the 54-year-old businessman stated during Tuesday’s session.

In his guilty plea, Saab admitted to participating, alongside “high-ranking officials” in the Nicolás Maduro government, in an “illegal scheme” involving bribes and illicit payments linked to the CLAP subsidized food program. The money allegedly obtained through the scheme was wired through accounts located in South Florida.

In the 12-page plea agreement, Saab named Socialist Party (PSUV) lawmaker José Gregorio Vielma Mora, who was governor of Táchira state at the time, as an alleged accomplice, alongside Colombian nationals Álvaro Pulido Vargas, Emmanuel Enrique Rubio González, and Carlos Rolando Lizcano. 

However, he also referred to two other individuals as “co-defendant 1” and “co-defendant 3.” Their identities have not been publicly disclosed by US prosecutors.

Saab also agreed to “fully cooperate” with the US Department of Justice (DOJ) by providing “truthful and complete information and testimony, and producing documents, records, and other evidence” in “any trial or judicial proceeding” requested by the US government.

He likewise agreed that he would not “protect any person or entity through false information or omission,” nor falsely implicate “any person or entity.”

The Colombian-born businessman also agreed to surrender US $195 million, along with properties and assets derived from the alleged crimes, to prosecutors. The government gave him 14 days to disclose all assets related to the offenses.

Saab, who stated that he suffers from post-traumatic stress disorder and takes antidepressants every night to sleep, could face a maximum sentence of 20 years in prison, as well as a $500,000 fine.

Nevertheless, prosecutors reportedly agreed to recommend a reduced sentence if his cooperation against the other defendants in the case proves valuable. His sentencing hearing has not been scheduled but is expected to take place in January.

The DOJ warned that it “reserves the right to evaluate the nature and extent of the defendant’s cooperation,” as well as the “quality and significance” of the information provided for the relevant investigations.

The agreement does not publicly specify which investigations Saab will be required to assist with or which other Venezuelan officials the US Justice Department is targeting. With Saab having been a key figure for Caracas to circumvent US economic sanctions, analysts have speculated that he could be a witness in the case against President Nicolás Maduro.

Maduro and First Lady Cilia Flores are facing charges, including drug trafficking conspiracy, after being kidnapped by US special forces on January 3.

The current case is the second criminal prosecution Saab has faced in the United States. In 2020, when traveling as a Venezuelan government envoy, he was arrested in Cape Verde during a refueling stop and subsequently extradited to the United States. He was on trial for separate money laundering accusations.

However, in December 2023, then-President Joe Biden granted Saab a pardon as part of a prisoner exchange between the United States and Venezuela. Saab returned to Caracas and joined the government as minister of industry. Following Maduro’s kidnapping, Acting President Delcy Rodríguez removed the former envoy from the cabinet in January before authorities handed him over to US agencies in May.

Venezuelan high-ranking officials claimed that Saab had committed fraud in acquiring Venezuelan citizenship and vowed to present evidence of his alleged long-term cooperation with US agencies, but no further details have been released to date.

Edited by Ricardo Vaz in Lisbon, Portugal.

Caracas, September 14, 2026 (venezuelanalysis.com) – The US Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) Foreign Agricultural Service announced a package of measures to boost US agricultural exports to Venezuela amid growing concerns about the South American country’s national production.

According to the USDA, the plan will facilitate Venezuelan corporations’ purchase of US food products and agricultural commodities through government-backed credit and will include the delivery of food assistance and training for Venezuelan technicians.

“The Trump administration is committed to Venezuela’s economic prosperity, and USDA is leveraging its export financing, market development programs, technical scholarships, and food assistance initiatives to address this situation,” said Under Secretary for Trade and Foreign Agricultural Affairs Luke J. Lindberg.

Lindberg added that he “looks forward to positioning US agriculture to help meet needs and build lasting trade relationships.” The US official visited Venezuela as part of an official delegation in early July.

Washington’s credit program for food exports will be provided through the reactivation of the GSM-102 guarantee program. The mechanism offers guarantees to exporters that reduce the risk for financial institutions backing the transactions in case importers fail to meet their commitments. 

The Agriculture Department also announced that it will lift restrictions to allow foreign banks to back Venezuela-related transactions.

A USDA report had already estimated that Venezuela would need to import 1.5 million metric tons of wheat during the 2026-2027 marketing year. Corn and soybeans are likewise identified as key staples to be exported to the Caribbean nation. The latest initiative 

The Trump administration also lifted restrictions under its Feed the Future Agricultural Resilience Mission Initiative and plans to include Venezuela in a regional agribusiness trade mission scheduled for early 2027.

A bigger influx of US farm products will place an additional strain on Venezuelan food production, with local campesinos increasingly protesting against imports from agribusiness corporations that seek to drive crop prices down.

On September 9, rice growers from Guárico and nearby states organized a “tractorazo,” blocking a major highway in Calabozo with trucks and tractors to demand that the government halt the entry of imported rice during the domestic harvest season and ensure that agroindustrial companies adhere to established prices.

Protesters complained that imports from countries where food production is subsidized, including the US, create unfair competition and risk driving Venezuelan campesinos bankrupt. The latest mobilization was sparked by the reported arrival of a shipment of 355 thousand tons of rice, more than half of the Venezuelan production in 2025. 

Rural organizations have likewise denounced the exoneration of tariffs and import taxes as another factor putting national production at a disadvantage. Venezuelan authorities, including the National Assembly and the Agriculture Ministry, have vowed to review the import issue but have offered no measures to date.

In the Calabozo protest, producers denounced that imported rice had saturated silos and storage facilities during the 2025-2026 winter-summer crop cycle, forcing them to sell below production cost or lose their crops altogether. Demonstrators demanded a $0.25-per-kilogram subsidy from the state to compensate for the losses incurred and vowed to take the protests to Caracas if they receive no response from authorities.

The September 9 “tractorazo” was the latest in a series of mobilizations in recent months in Venezuela’s main agricultural states. Rice growers have complained about high fuel and input costs and urged the government to establish and enforce fair crop prices. 

According to agriculture lobby FEDEAGRO, more than 2.2 million metric tons of white corn, yellow corn, and rice have entered the country so far in 2026, more than triple the recent combined high of 709,000 metric tons in 2023.

“We cannot continue depending on a neighbor’s pantry. That is a failure. In Venezuela, we have the land, a committed agricultural sector, and people investing in farming, but excessive imports place us at a dramatic disadvantage,” stressed FEDEAGRO President Osman Quero.

Quero stressed that foreign producers have access to credit programs, fuel and fertilizer subsidies, and better infrastructure, while Venezuelan farmers face inflation and a lack of financing programs.

Edited by Ricardo Vaz in Lisbon, Portugal.

Caracas, September 9, 2026 (venezuelanalysis.com) – The president of Venezuelan state oil company PDVSA, Héctor Obregón, backed the recent agreement with the Trump administration as a “win-win relationship” on Monday.

“We signed Productive Participation Contracts where we put forward crude reserves and qualified personnel. What were we missing? Foreign capital,” he said in an interview with Unión Radio.

Productive Participation Contracts (CPP) are concession-type agreements whereby energy projects are turned over to private corporations which run operations and commercialization while paying a negotiated portion of proceeds to the Venezuelan state.

The recent oil deal, hailed by Trump as “the biggest in history,” will see Venezuela transfer 17 prime oilfields, containing 65 billion in proven crude reserves, to private operator NABEP. The projects are split between extra-heavy crude fields in the Orinoco Oil Belt and mature light- and medium-crude ones in the Lake Maracaibo basin.

Obregón insisted on the mutual benefits, explaining that Venezuela will collect taxes and royalties while the US will be able to supply its domestic demand. Regarding the agreement’s timeline, which the White House has claimed to span 100 years, Obregón stated that the concession is for 25 years but may be renewed for similar periods “as many times as necessary.”

After initially vowing that NABEP would invest US $100 billion in the oilfields, a figure repeated by Venezuelan officials, the Trump administration changed the pledge to “more than $10 billion.” 

According to a White House “fact sheet” on the deal, the US State Department will be able to secure 20 percent of the NABEP’s output at cost and have a right of first refusal over the remaining 80 percent.

Obregón suggested that Washington could secure additional benefits, indicating that a reference $65 barrel would have a $15 “sales discount.” The oil official likewise estimated capital and operational expenditures at $12-15 and stated that NABEP would never secure a smaller portion of proceeds than the Venezuelan state, with the percentage increasing for greenfield projects.

The $19 revenue estimate offered by Venezuelan officials as the government’s take for a reference $65 barrel is significantly lower than the benchmarks established under the 2001 Hydrocarbon Law approved by former President Hugo Chávez and subsequent reforms. Under the previous framework, only PDVSA or PDVSA-majority joint ventures were allowed to operate oilfields, with the Venezuelan state securing as much as $0.80 for every $1 of oil proceeds in the latter case.

NABEP, owned by Venezuelan oil mogul Alejandro Betancourt, will grant a 35 percent stake at no cost to the Pentagon’s Office of Strategic Capital (OSC). Washington will likewise have veto power over NABEP’s board of directors. Betancourt has faced corruption accusations in Venezuela, with authorities issuing an arrest warrant in 2022 that was later dropped. For its part, the Trump administration has sought to halt money laundering investigations against the Venezuelan businessman both in the US and in Switzerland.

Obregón went on to acknowledge that Venezuelan export revenues are currently deposited in a US Treasury account before US officials decide on the disbursement amounts and timings back to Caracas.

“There is a state-to-state agreement to receive Venezuelan funds in Treasury accounts,” he disclosed, echoing Washington’s assertion that its seizure of Venezuelan export proceeds aims to protect them from potential creditor claims. 

“The channeling of revenues through the US Treasury could be considered a protection measure, since there are debt claims against PDVSA and creditors could target our accounts,” he argued.

Neither US nor Venezuelan authorities have disclosed the amount of revenue collected and disbursed back to Caracas. Luigi Pisella, an advisor to Acting President Delcy Rodríguez, claimed that the Trump administration is deducting the costs of its January 3 military operation against Venezuela from the country’s funds.

The costs of goods and services supplied by US-based exporters to Venezuela are also being directly deducted from the funds held in the Treasury accounts.

Apart from controlling export earnings, US officials have publicly participated in a pro-business overhaul of the Caribbean nation’s hydrocarbon law and regulations, including reviewing drafts of the legislation.

The Trump administration has maintained sanctions on the Venezuelan oil industry while issuing licenses for select Western corporations. US Energy Secretary Chris Wright oversaw the signing of agreements with Chevron, Eni, and smaller US-backed energy firms during a visit to Caracas earlier this month.

Edited by Lucas Koerner in Philadelphia, USA.

Mérida, September 7, 2026 (venezuelanalysis.com) – Defense attorneys representing Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro and First Lady Cilia Flores have formally requested the dismissal of criminal charges against them in the United States, invoking head-of-state and diplomatic immunity under international law.

In a motion filed before the US District Court for the Southern District of New York on September 2, defense counsel argued that domestic courts lack jurisdiction to indict, prosecute, or detain sitting foreign leaders.

Maduro and Flores’ legal teams emphasized that international treaties and long-standing legal principles shield active heads of state and high-ranking government officials from foreign criminal jurisdiction, regardless of the status of bilateral relations between countries.

Lead defense attorney Barry Pollack asserted that the Justice Department’s indictment constitutes an unprecedented overreach of foreign judicial authority. 

“Under settled international law and long-standing diplomatic practice, foreign courts cannot exercise criminal jurisdiction over a sitting head of state,” he stated in court filings.

Pollack underscored that Maduro is facing charges for acts that would have been part of his official duties and that he “vehemently denies” the US prosecutors’ allegations.

The Venezuelan leader is facing charges of “narcoterrorism,” drug trafficking conspiracy, and weapons possession offenses. Flores has been accused of the same alleged crimes except “narcoterrorism.” Maduro and Flores were kidnapped by US special forces on January 3 following military strikes in Caracas and surrounding states.

Under the established trial schedule, federal prosecutors have several weeks to respond to the immunity case and the motion to dismiss.

Subsequently, US District Judge Alvin Hellerstein is expected to evaluate written arguments and hold an evidentiary hearing on November 17 to decide whether to grant the defense’s request or proceed to trial. In the latter case, the trial would begin in June 2027.

Legal analysts have argued that the sovereign immunity case is unlikely to succeed given the US judicial system’s tradition of deferring to the executive branch on foreign policy matters. Under the “one voice” doctrine, domestic courts follow the White House and the Department of State regarding which authorities are formally recognized as representing a foreign country.

The first Trump administration refused to recognize Maduro as Venezuela’s legitimate head of state following his 2018 reelection, instead backing the self-proclaimed “interim government” headed by Juan Guaidó. In 2023, Washington transferred its recognition to the defunct, opposition-majority parliament despite its term expiring two years earlier.

In March, the Trump administration recognized Delcy Rodríguez as Venezuela’s “sole leader.” As Maduro’s vice president, Rodríguez took over as acting president in January and has overhauled the Caribbean nation’s foreign policy in the months since. Caracas has reestablished diplomatic relations with Washington and strengthened ties with its global partners, including Israel, while distancing itself from historic allies such as China, Cuba, and Iran.

In his motion to dismiss, Pollack called it “incongruous” for the White House to recognize Rodríguez but not Maduro, who appointed her as vice president.

Venezuelan officials have not commented on the latest developments in Maduro and Flores’ case. After holding multiple rallies in the weeks following the January 3 kidnapping, Venezuelan authorities have significantly scaled back the public backing for the pair.

In a June interview, Rodríguez said that Maduro remains Venezuela’s legitimate president but stopped short of demanding his liberation, instead claiming that he has the right to “demonstrate the truth” before the US justice system.

In recent weeks, the Venezuelan government, through its official communications, as well as state-owned media channels, has increasingly dropped the “acting” label, referring to Rodríguez simply as “president.”

For their part, US-based international solidarity movements have staged monthly mobilizations demanding Maduro and Flores’ immediate release, including outside the federal detention center in Brooklyn where the pair is presently detained.

Edited by Ricardo Vaz in Caracas.

Venezuelanalysis editor Ricardo Vaz joined Clash Point editor Isaac Eshetu to take stock of Venezuela and its present relationship with the United States. The discussion covers the kidnapping of Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro and the political fallout in Caracas, US control over Venezuela’s all-important oil industry, and a marked foreign policy shift in recent months.

(Note: the interview was recorded on August 14, before the US and Venezuelan governments announced a “historic” oil deal)

Source: Clash Report

Caracas, September 3, 2026 (venezuelanalysis.com) – Venezuelan Acting President Delcy Rodríguez and US Energy Secretary Chris Wright celebrated an oil agreement between the two countries and North American Blue Energy Partners (NABEP) and a flurry of additional energy deals signed on Wednesday.

“This is a historic day in the transformation of Venezuela,” Wright said in a joint press conference at Miraflores Palace. “President [Donald] Trump has a clear mission in Venezuela: to bring peace, freedom, and prosperity to everyone.”

The US official went on to praise the “enormous deal” announced last Friday that will see NABEP, a company owned by Venezuelan businessman Alejandro Betancourt, receive long-term concessions for 17 prime oilfields in the Caribbean nation that hold 65 billion barrels of reserves.

According to the White House, the US Department of War’s Office of Strategic Capital (OSC) will acquire a 35 percent stake in NABEP through penny warrants. The US State Department will be able to purchase 20 percent of NABEP’s production at cost and hold a right of first refusal for the remaining 80 percent. 

Washington will likewise control the company’s board of directors. Wright stated that the NABEP deal is “ambitious” and predicted that Venezuelan oil production would surpass 2 million barrels per day (bpd) by the end of the decade, nearly doubling the current output of 1.1 million bpd.

For her part, Rodríguez urged Wright to convey her gratitude to Trump, the US State Department, and the Department of Energy for helping secure “a mutually beneficial, win-win agreement.”

“I trust that the binational agreement will also prove beneficial for the people of the United States,” the acting president told reporters. “Venezuela is ready to welcome these investments that will boost the country’s development.”

Rodríguez had previously stated that Venezuela is estimating US $19 of revenue per barrel extracted in the project, significantly below the government take under the 2001 Hydrocarbon Law enacted by former President Hugo Chávez. The law was overhauled with US support in January to expand benefits for foreign corporations.

Both Rodríguez and Wright faced questions about Betancourt, who has faced embezzlement and money laundering investigations in Spain and Switzerland stemming from alleged corruption in dealings with state oil company PDVSA.

NABEP has operated in the country since 2024 and was awarded the project without a prior bidding process. It is currently Venezuela’s second-largest crude producer after Chevron. Wright said the US government had negotiated the agreement carefully and would exercise strict control over the flow of funds associated with the NABEP deal.

Rodríguez, for her part, said that Betancourt is not facing any judicial proceedings in Venezuela, with a 2022 arrest warrant for corruption having been dropped one year later. Similarly, Secretary of State Marco Rubio argued in an interview that the Venezuelan mogul is not the subject of any investigation in the US.

Before the afternoon press conference, Wright attended a ceremony at the presidential palace that saw the Venezuelan government sign a number of agreements with foreign corporations.

Chevron, the largest foreign corporation operating in Venezuela, saw its joint venture with PDVSA awarded two additional extra-heavy crude fields, Carabobo-1 and Carabobo-2 South, in the Orinoco Oil Belt.

The Texas-based company announced plans to invest $7 billion in its Venezuela projects over the next five years with the goal of more than doubling the current 250,000 bpd output. Chevron CEO Mike Wirth affirmed in an interview that the “strong legal protections” and “improved terms” under the reformed Hydrocarbon Law granted the company “attractive low-cost oil growth” prospects. 

Italian company Eni also signed a contract to develop the Junín-5 block, one of the largest in the Orinoco Oil Belt. The project will migrate from a joint venture with PDVSA majority to a concession-type deal, called a Productive Participation Contract, which offers increased benefits for the private operator.

Eni CEO Claudio Descalzi was likewise present in Miraflores Palace and thanked US and Venezuelan authorities for backing foreign investments in the South American country.

Wednesday’s ceremony also saw Primavera secure a concession to exploit the medium- and heavy-crude Budare-Elotes block in eastern Venezuela. Primavera is an energy-investment vehicle created by billionaire Fred Ehrsam, a Trump supporter and co-founder of Coinbase, to enter the Venezuelan oil industry.

Additionally, Colorado-based wildcatter Aspect Energy received rights to study potential new oilfields in eastern Venezuela.

Finally, PDVSA and state electricity company CORPOELEC signed “strategic alliance” agreements with GE Vernova, an offshoot of General Electric, to upgrade and repair electrical infrastructure supporting Venezuela’s oil industry.

Following the pro-business overhaul of its energy sector, Caracas has signed new or updated agreements with multiple Western multinational corporations, including BP, Shell, and Repsol. 

Since the January 3 military strikes and kidnapping of President Nicolás Maduro, the Trump administration has wielded significant control over the Venezuelan oil and gas industry. The Caribbean nation’s export revenues are currently deposited in a US Treasury account before the White House decides the disbursement timings and amounts.

Washington has also kept wide-reaching sanctions in place while issuing licenses for select corporations and banning dealings with companies from Russia, China, and Iran. With NABEP set to take over five oilfields previously operated by joint ventures with Chinese firms, Beijing demanded that its “rights and interests” in Venezuela be respected.

Edited by Ricardo Vaz in Caracas.

Caracas, September 1, 2026 (venezuelanalysis.com) – The Chinese government has called for its “legitimate rights and interests” in Venezuela to be protected following reports that joint ventures involving Chinese firms are set to be displaced by a US-backed corporation.

“China-Venezuela cooperation is protected by international law and the laws of both countries. China’s legitimate rights and interests in Venezuela must be guaranteed,” foreign ministry spokesman Guo Jiakun said in a press conference on Tuesday.

Guo added that the economic and trade relations between nations “should follow the principles of equality and mutual benefit.”

Beijing’s warning came in the wake of an announced US-Venezuela oil deal that Venezuelan Acting President Delcy Rodríguez termed “historic” and US President Donald Trump called “the biggest in history.”

Under the joint plan, Washington-backed North American Blue Energy Partners (NABEP) is set to receive long-term concessions to develop 17 oilfields, holding 65 billion barrels of proven crude reserves, in the Caribbean nation. The projects are split between light- and medium-crude fields in western Venezuela and extra-heavy crude ventures in the eastern Orinoco Oil Belt.

According to Reuters, five of the oilfields to be handed over to NABEP are joint initiatives with Chinese companies, including state-owned CNPC and Hong Kong-registered China Concord Petroleum. In 2025, China Concord installed a drill rig in Lake Maracaibo in what was the first major infrastructure investment in western Venezuela in many years.

Another project in the agreement is believed to be run by a joint venture between Venezuela’s state oil company PDVSA and a Russian enterprise.

NABEP is owned by Venezuelan oil mogul Alejandro Betancourt and has expanded its presence in the Venezuelan oil industry in recent years. Its current oil output is around 200,000 barrels per day (bpd). Betancourt has faced multiple international embezzlement and money laundering investigations but has never been formally charged, with US officials reportedly lobbying Swiss authorities not to bring criminal charges against the Venezuelan businessman.

In a statement posted on Monday, Betancourt said Venezuela is “blessed with an abundance of natural resources” that would be “unleash[ed] to the great benefit of both Venezuelans and Americans.”

The Trump White House published a “fact sheet” on Monday, claiming that the deal “secures US energy dominance for the next century.”

The administration stated that the Department of War’s Office of Strategic Capital (OSC) will receive a 35 percent stake in NABEP at no cost. The State Department will be given the right to purchase 20 percent of NABEP’s output at cost and hold the right of first refusal for the remaining 80 percent.

Washington will also have the final say on NABEP’s board of directors and the company will be subject to US laws and government audits. The document also pledged that the Betancourt-owned company will invest “up to $100 billion” in the oilfields.

The White House went on to explain that the concessions will conform to Venezuela’s reformed Hydrocarbon Law, which was “adopted with US support” and vastly expanded benefits for private corporations. Washington has exerted significant control over the Venezuelan oil industry since its January 3 military operation, issuing sanctions waivers for select companies while the US Treasury manages crude export revenues.

The Trump administration hailed NABEP’s takeover of oilfields previously run by Russian and Chinese companies as a triumph for the Monroe Doctrine, “ensuring American dominance in our hemisphere is never again questioned.”

The US factsheet insisted that the oil concessions will last 100 years, contradicting Rodríguez, who said the agreement is for 25 years. Venezuela’s acting president vowed that the accords would usher in a new era of “welfare and prosperity.”

According to Rodríguez, the initiative has a 1.5 million bpd target and Venezuela will collect an estimated US $19 per barrel extracted, a figure significantly below the benchmarks established under the prior hydrocarbon legislation enacted by former President Hugo Chávez.

The US-Venezuela deal has drawn widespread scrutiny over its lack of transparency and the unfavorable terms for Caracas, with popular movements rallying against “neocolonialism and imperialist attacks.”

For its part, the Venezuelan National Assembly approved a resolution on Tuesday endorsing the “binational energy accords.” The proposal was backed by the United Socialist Party (PSUV) and allies as well as some opposition deputies.

National Assembly President Jorge Rodríguez, the acting president’s brother, reiterated the government’s argument that “oil underground serves no purpose” and promised that crude production will reach “levels never seen before.”

US Energy Secretary Chris Wright landed in Venezuela on Tuesday night ahead of a scheduled press conference with Acting President Rodríguez on Wednesday. The Trump official, the Venezuelan government, and NABEP are expected to formally sign agreements at the ceremony.

Alongside the White House deal, several multinational corporations, including US-based Chevron and GE Vernova, India’s state-owned ONGC, and Italy’s Eni, are expected to ink contracts with Caracas in the coming days.

Some companies are slated to update existing agreements in accordance with reformed legislation, while others are set to enter into new deals in the South American country. According to Reuters, Chevron will expand its presence in the Orinoco Oil Belt while also securing access to light crude in Monagas State.

Edited by Lucas Koerner in Philadelphia, USA.

In nearly simultaneous social media posts on August 28, Venezuela’s acting president, Delcy Rodríguez, and U.S. President Donald Trump announced a historic “Oil Agreement” between the U.S. and Venezuela.

According to Rodríguez, the agreement—the operational and legal details of which remain unknown—covers the development of 17 oil fields containing 65 billion barrels of proven reserves, with a projected investment of US $100 billion that would translate into more than $200 billion in taxes for the state, theoretically aimed at Venezuela’s social and economic recovery.

For his part, Trump presented the energy pact as a major economic and geopolitical victory for his administration, arguing that it was the “largest oil agreement in world history,” with the United States directly securing “majority control” over more than one-fifth of Venezuela’s proven hydrocarbon potential, which would allow it to “more than double U.S. oil reserves.”

A game of numbers that hides what matters

Due to the initial lack of transparency and the absence of specifics regarding timelines, the U.S. companies involved, and the operational terms, the announcement drew a largely negative reaction from the public, given that it marks a historic turning point both for the bilateral relationship between Washington and Caracas and for the economic and political future of the Caribbean nation, which has been structurally subject to the dictates and interests of the White House since the January 3 military attack.

The initial confusion was quickly followed by baseless speculation about potential royalties, whether the agreement is positive for national development, and future material benefits—with no clarity as to whether these will be so meager and symbolic as to be humiliating, or whether they will be somewhat acceptable within the context of an openly asymmetrical bilateral relationship that favors Washington’s agenda of plunder and geopolitical control.

But addressing those issues—without the agreement and its clauses in hand, and without knowledge of the initial contracts signed with U.S. companies—would leave us stuck in a labyrinth. In fact, the game of numbers surrounding still-fictitious revenues has mired the discussion in its early days, with statements in the media from the government, Chavismo, and sectors of the opposition defending their own positions based on how close or far they are from what Trump wants.

What the current technical and economic debate leaves out—and does not even consider—is far too important and decisive.

For example, the ambiguity surrounding the structure of the oil pact—rather than being an uncontrolled outcome—represents the very core of its design and is a symptom of close coordination regarding shared political calculations between the White House and Miraflores.

The absence of a treaty or a verifiable legal instrument shows that the announcement is part of a bilateral political agreement, framed as a strategic energy-focused commitment in which the two parties reinforce their narratives and smooth over tensions within their circles of power, influence, and target audiences.

Thanks to this jointly planned ambiguity, Trump and Rodríguez can put forward contradictory and divergent narratives without jeopardizing their alliance, while capitalizing on the momentum to shape narratives and thereby rally their support bases and internal coalitions.

This is the only way to explain why Trump insinuates that he directly controls Venezuelan reserves to soften the blow of the Iranian quagmire from which he cannot extricate himself, while Rodríguez contradicts him in a public address, in which she reaffirmed that her government has not relinquished ownership of its oil and that it has signed an agreement that is broadly beneficial and defining for the country’s economic future, leveraging U.S. capital and technology.

In this way, the White House tenant is trying to kill two birds with one stone: 1) undermine internal pressure within the Republican Party calling for the acting president’s head before the midterms; and 2) to incentivize oil companies to inject capital and invest heavily under the promise of lucrative returns in the medium and long term, using Caracas’s strategic alignment and the Pentagon’s participation as a shareholder in the oil exploration project as a hedge against risk.

On the other hand, Miraflores is also killing its own birds by exploiting the purely rhetorical nature of the bilateral pact. On the one hand, it downplays public criticism accusing it of handing over oil to the U.S. under regressive conditions—which imply a return, in an adapted form, to the humiliating concession model (leasing oil fields in exchange for a tax burden favorable to corporations) that defined the Washington-Caracas energy relationship for a third of the 20th century.

Furthermore, the Venezuelan government reinforces the narrative of economic recovery as its programmatic roadmap, with a structural strategy based on the assumption that the purported material benefits derived from preferential and advantageous trade with the U.S. will translate into political and social legitimacy through improved wages and public services—which could, through the careful management of numbers and expectations (at least that is the intention), eventually dissolve the political contradiction posed in terms of sovereignty.

The current picture is one of extreme uncertainty. The degree of confidence among oil companies remains to be seen in light of the danger that the agreement could be reversed after Trump leaves office in 2028, as well as the complexities that may arise when harmonizing contracts with the new Hydrocarbons Law passed in February of this year.

In short, the agreement is a high-risk joint maneuver in which Trump and Rodríguez definitively tie their political fates together, mutually benefiting from converging on a starkly transactional and profit-driven logic, blessed and endorsed by the otherworldly powers of the postwar God of Money: the US dollar.

The one-way trip into the unknown

From now on, Trump cannot overthrow Rodríguez if he wants to retain a lifeline in the face of the lost battle to control the Strait of Hormuz, which is under Iranian control; nor can the latter break free from the strategic alignment with Washington if she wishes to remain electorally competitive and survive as a political force—one that is currently accelerating a complex process of internal transformation, ideologically and programmatically, toward the orbit of the economy and results-oriented politics.

In the years to come, perhaps August 28, 2026, will be interpreted as the date on which, strangely enough, Venezuela returned to 1908—the year in which a triumphant Juan Vicente Gómez, having defeated Cipriano Castro (public enemy number one under the Roosevelt Corollary), laid the foundations of the modern Venezuelan state by applying a feudal-oil doctrine of “open arms” to Western companies, first British and, after the 1920s, primarily American.

But perhaps it will also be remembered as a turning point marked by elites who replaced politics and the republican vision with the courtship of an emperor obsessed with power.

The oil agreement may be materially beneficial for Venezuela; it may also, in fact, signal a return to the humiliating times of Gómez, whose rise to power, over a dying Castro—who lacked social support and was besieged by the U.S. empire—was encouraged, promoted, and later defended by a US establishment that was ecstatic over the adaptation of the Monroe Doctrine, led by Theodore Roosevelt who loved to quote the proverb: “Speak softly and carry a big stick….”

The agreement can rightly be called historic—a view on which Rodríguez and Trump fully agree. But not because of its technical and fiscal characteristics, but because, politically, it implies the harsh acceptance that Venezuela’s ruling elites have nothing more to offer the Caribbean nation than a lucrative oil deal for the U.S., tempered by the consolation that the revenue from extracted barrels will be enough to lift us out of the devastation caused by sanctions and economic mismanagement.

What this pact reveals is, precisely, the failure of the Venezuelan elites, who are now at such a point of weakness and lack of autonomy that the distinctions between adversaries and enemies across the political spectrum hinge on who is closest to Trump, who gets his backing and who gets to negotiate with him. Within this web—obscured by neutralizing technical language—the future of the Bolivarian Republic is being shaped, amid its bitter journey through an inverted pyramid of legitimacy that has transformed the head of the White House into the guiding force of the national landscape.

In the deep void left by technical narratives, reality operates at its actually existing vertices, with a war of narratives favoring the elites in their goal of reducing politics to administrative discussions of taxes and royalties, while simultaneously concealing the harsh truth of a nation that has lost control of its destiny—a destiny now decided in English and in the metropolis of the Trump empire.

Perhaps accepting the truth as it is may be a first step toward facing a future full of questions and doubts—ones that cannot be resolved through partisan slogans, unfulfilled promises, or narratives that erase history and its lessons.

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect those of the Venezuelanalysis editorial staff.

Translated by Venezuelanalysis.

Source: Diario Red

What does the increasingly brazen US approach to Latin America mean for Venezuela, and what can Haiti’s experience tell us about what may come next?

In Episode 47 of the Venezuelanalysis Podcast, Ricardo Vaz is joined by Jacqueline Luqman of the Black Alliance for Peace and Jake Johnston of the Center for Economic and Policy Research (CEPR).

They discuss the so-called “Donroe Doctrine,” the use of disaster and aid as tools of external control, and the parallels between Haiti’s experience after the 2010 earthquake and the current challenges facing Venezuela. They also look at how US foreign policy is connected to domestic politics, the implications of this new era for Venezuela and the wider region, and how resistance can be built over the longer term.

Powered by RedCircle

Caracas, August 30, 2026 (venezuelanalysis.com) – Venezuelan Acting President Delcy Rodríguez has defended an oil agreement that US President Donald Trump called “the biggest in history.”

“The historic agreement with the United States will have a great impact on Venezuelans’ lives in the long term,” she said in a televised broadcast on Saturday evening. “It is useless to have oil reserves underground. They should be turned into welfare and prosperity for our country.”

The acting president pledged that the deal would lead to “education and healthcare” improvements and contribute to “energy security” in the Western Hemisphere. She reiterated gratitude to Trump and US Secretary of State Marco Rubio for the agreement.

According to Rodríguez, the joint initiative will see undisclosed private operators take over 17 oilfields for 25 years. The fields in question contain 65 billion barrels of crude, a little over 20 percent of the country’s reserves.

She added that the project had a 1.5 million barrel per day (bpd) target. With prices estimated at $65, Venezuela would collect US $19 per barrel, totaling $209 billion over the course of the agreement.

However, the price estimates stand markedly below present and projected market values, while the state’s take is likewise significantly reduced. Under previous legislation, enacted by former President Hugo Chávez, the Venezuelan state collected over $0.75 for every dollar of oil extracted in the form of royalties, taxes, and dividends from state oil company PDVSA.

Furthermore, an average of $8.4 billion in yearly revenue for 1.5 million bpd produced also amounts to a much reduced share for the Caribbean nation. In 2025, with lower market prices and Venezuela forced to sell at a discount to circumvent US sanctions, the country collected a reported $18.4 billion from an average of 941,000 bpd produced.

Unofficial sources have published the 17 oilfields in question, with nine being extra-heavy crude projects, eight of them in the Orinoco Oil Belt. The remaining eight are reportedly mature light and medium crude fields in Western Venezuela.

For his part, Trump presented the agreement as a major foreign policy victory that would boost US energy security for decades. In a social media message on Sunday, Trump claimed he would use Venezuelan oil to “fill up the Strategic National Reserves,” calling the supply “a gift from Venezuela.”

Details on the US role in the agreement have yet to be disclosed, with Trump Energy Secretary Chris Wright expected in Caracas in the coming days.

According to AP, the US government will have an ownership stake in a company receiving 100-year rights to drill in the assigned oilfields. Washington would reportedly secure 55 percent of the output and be able to purchase oil at cost.

The Wall Street Journal reported that the Trump administration plans to secure a 35 percent stake in North American Blue Energy Partners (NABEP), a firm owned by Venezuelan oil mogul Alejandro Betancourt that currently operates multiple oil projects. The operation would be conducted by the Pentagon’s Office of Strategic Capital through penny warrants that minimize capital investment.

Venezuelan and US officials have stated that the deal will attract $100 billion in private sector investment. Nevertheless, there has been no information released about the private actors involved.

Since the January 3 US military strikes and kidnapping of President Nicolás Maduro and First Lady Cilia Flores, the Trump administration has seized control over Venezuela’s energy sector. Washington has maintained wide-reaching sanctions in place while issuing licenses for select Western corporations. The US Treasury likewise manages Venezuela’s crude sale revenues, with the amounts and timings of the disbursements to Caracas left at the White House’s discretion.

The acting Rodríguez government has pushed a pro-business overhaul of its hydrocarbon law and regulations in coordination with US officials and corporate executives. In recent months, companies such as Chevron, BP, and Shell have struck new long-term oil and natural gas deals or renegotiated existing ones.

Popular movements call for ‘anti-imperialist resistance’

The announced agreement with the Trump administration has drawn significant criticism over its lack of transparency and implications for Venezuelan sovereignty.

Economist Francisco Rodríguez questioned whether the deal would require parliamentary approval as established by the Venezuelan Constitution. He likewise called for an explanation on whether the announced revenue figures are at current prices or adjusted for inflation. “19 dollars per barrel in 2051, when the project ends, correspond to a real value of 9 dollars today,” he wrote.

Venezuelan social movements also took to the streets of Caracas on Saturday to protest against “neocolonialism and imperialist attacks.” The mobilization was organized by the Popular Anti-Imperialist Front, a coalition of grassroots collectives that has staged regular demonstrations in recent weeks.

“The Popular Anti-Imperialist Front aims to bring together revolutionary movements to resist the imperialist aggression our country is facing,” activist Fernando Berroterán told Venezuelanalysis. “We are staging protests in different communities to raise popular consciousness.”

Berroterán stated that he was “completely opposed” to the announced deal, adding that the Popular Anti-Imperialist Front would meet and establish a joint position in the coming days.

Fellow organizer Orlando Vega argued that the Venezuelan government has “stumbled” in its response following the January 3 US attacks. He urged a firmer stance, demanding the release of Maduro and Flores and a review of legislation approved “under US coercion.”

“Our call is for the people to organize pockets of resistance against imperialism and Zionism,” Vega concluded.

Edited by Lucas Koerner in Philadelphia, USA.