Venezuela

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Wait and see

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

VATICAN CITY — In his most substantial critique of U.S., Russian and other military incursions in sovereign countries, Pope Leo XIV on Friday denounced how nations were using force to assert their dominion worldwide, “completely undermining” peace and the post-World War II international legal order.

“War is back in vogue and a zeal for war is spreading,” Leo told ambassadors from around the world who represent their countries’ interests at the Holy See.

Leo didn’t name individual countries that have resorted to force in his lengthy speech, the bulk of which he delivered in English in a break from the Vatican’s traditional diplomatic protocol of Italian and French. But his speech came amid the backdrop of the recent U.S. military operation in Venezuela to remove Nicolás Maduro from power, Russia’s ongoing war in Ukraine and other conflicts.

The occasion was the pope’s annual audience with the Vatican diplomatic corps, which traditionally amounts to his yearly foreign policy address.

In his first such encounter, history’s first U.S.-born pope delivered much more than the traditional roundup of global hotspots. In a speech that touched on threats to religious freedom and the Catholic Church’s opposition to abortion and surrogacy, Leo lamented how the United Nations and multilateralism as a whole were increasingly under threat.

“A diplomacy that promotes dialogue and seeks consensus among all parties is being replaced by a diplomacy based on force, by either individuals or groups of allies,” he said. “The principle established after the Second World War, which prohibited nations from using force to violate the borders of others, has been completely undermined.”

“Instead, peace is sought through weapons as a condition for asserting one’s own dominion. This gravely threatens the rule of law, which is the foundation of all peaceful civil coexistence,” he said.

A geopolitical roundup of conflicts and suffering

Leo did refer explicitly to tensions in Venezuela, calling for a peaceful political solution that keeps in mind the “common good of the peoples and not the defense of partisan interests.”

The U.S. military seized Maduro, the Venezuelan leader, in a surprise nighttime raid. The Trump administration is now seeking to control Venezuela’s oil resources and its government. The U.S. government has insisted Maduro’s capture was legal, saying drug cartels operating from Venezuela amounted to unlawful combatants and that the U.S. is now in an “armed conflict” with them.

Analysts and some world leaders have condemned the Venezuela mission, warning that Maduro’s ouster could pave the way for more military interventions and a further erosion of the global legal order.

On Ukraine, Leo repeated his appeal for an immediate ceasefire and urgently called for the international community “not to waver in its commitment to pursuing just and lasting solutions that will protect the most vulnerable and restore hope to the afflicted peoples.”

On Gaza, Leo repeated the Holy See’s call for a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and insisted on the Palestinians’ right to live in Gaza and the West Bank “in their own land.”

In other comments, Leo said the persecution of Christians around the world was “one of the most widespread human rights crises today,” affecting one in seven Christians globally. He cited religiously motivated violence in Bangladesh, Nigeria, the Sahel, Mozambique and Syria but said religious discrimination was also present in Europe and the Americas.

There, Christians “are sometimes restricted in their ability to proclaim the truths of the Gospel for political or ideological reasons, especially when they defend the dignity of the weakest, the unborn, refugees and migrants, or promote the family.”

Leo repeated the church’s opposition to abortion and euthanasia and expressed “deep concern” about projects to provide cross-border access to mothers seeking abortion.

He also described surrogacy as a threat to life and dignity. “By transforming gestation into a negotiable service, this violates the dignity both of the child, who is reduced to a product, and of the mother, exploiting her body and the generative process, and distorting the original relational calling of the family,” he said.

Winfield writes for the Associated Press.

US President Donald Trump has asked for at least $100bn (£75bn) in oil industry spending for Venezuela, but received a lukewarm response at the White House as one executive warned the South American country was currently “un-investable”.

Bosses of the biggest US oil firms who attended the meeting acknowledged that Venezuela, sitting on vast energy reserves, represented an enticing opportunity.

But they said significant changes would be needed to make Venezuela an attractive investment. No major financial commitments were immediately forthcoming.

Trump has said he will unleash the South American nation’s oil after US forces seized its leader Nicolas Maduro in a 3 January raid on its capital.

“One of the things the United States gets out of this will be even lower energy prices,” Trump said in Friday’s meeting in the White House.

But the oil bosses present expressed caution.

Exxon’s chief executive Darren Woods said: “We have had our assets seized there twice and so you can imagine to re-enter a third time would require some pretty significant changes from what we’ve historically seen and what is currently the state.”

“Today it’s uninvestable.”

Venezuela has had a complicated relationship with international oil firms since oil was discovered in its territory more than 100 years ago.

Chevron is the last remaining major American oil firm still operating in the country.

A handful of companies from other countries, including Spain’s Repsol and Italy’s Eni, both of which were represented at the White House meeting, are also active.

Trump said his administration would decide which firms would be allowed to operate.

“You’re dealing with us directly. You’re not dealing with Venezuela at all. We don’t want you to deal with Venezuela,” he said.

The White House has said it is working to “selectively” roll back US sanctions that have restricted sales of Venezuelan oil.

Officials say they have been coordinating with interim authorities in the country, which is currently led by Maduro’s former second-in-command, Vice-President Delcy Rodríguez.

But they have also made clear they intend to exert control over the sales, as a way to maintain leverage over Rodríguez’s government.

The US this week has seized several oil tankers carrying sanctioned crude. American officials have said they are working to set up a sales process, which would deposit money raised into US-controlled accounts.

“We are open for business,” Trump said.

Venezuela’s oil production has been hit in recent decades by disinvestment and mismanagement – as well as US sanctions. At roughly one million barrels per day, the country accounts for less than 1% of global supply.

Chevron, which accounts for about a fifth of the country’s output, said it expected to bolster its production, building on its current presence, while Exxon said it was working to send in a technical team to assess the situation in the coming weeks.

Repsol, which currently boasts output of about 45,000 barrels per day, said it saw a path to triple its production in Venezuela over the next few years under the right conditions.

Executives at other firms also said Trump’s promises of change would encourage investment and they were hoping to seize the moment.

“We are ready to go to Venezuela,” said Bill Armstrong, who leads an independent oil and gas driller. “In real estate terms, it is prime real estate.”

But analysts say meaningfully increasing production would take significant effort.

“They are being as polite as humanly possible, and being as supportive as they can, without committing actual dollars,” said David Goldwyn, president of the energy consultancy Goldwyn Global Strategies and former US state department special envoy for international energy affairs.

Exxon and Shell are “not going to invest single-digit billions of dollars, much less tens of billions of dollars”, without physical security, legal certainty and a competitive fiscal framework, Goldwyn said.

“It’s not really welcome from an industry point of view,” he said. “The conditions are just not right.”

While smaller companies might be more eager to jump in and help boost Venezuela’s oil production over the next year, he said those investments would likely hover in the $50m range – far from the “fantastical” $100bn figure that Trump has floated.

Rystad Energy estimates it would take $8bn to $9bn in new investments per year for production to triple by 2040.

Trump’s suggested $100bn of investment into Venezuela could have a major impact – if it were to materialise, said the firm’s chief economist, Claudio Galimberti.

He said companies would only be likely to invest on that scale with subsidies – and political stability.

“It’s going to be difficult to see big commitments before we have a fully stabilised political situation and that is anybody’s guess when that happens,” he said.

Additional reporting by Danielle Kaye

GUATIRE, Venezuela — The United States and Venezuelan governments said Friday that they were exploring the possibility of restoring diplomatic relations between the two countries, and that a delegation from the Trump administration arrived in the South American nation Friday.

The small team of U.S. diplomats and diplomatic security officials traveled to Venezuela to make a preliminary assessment about the potential reopening of the U.S. Embassy in Caracas, the State Department said in a statement.

Venezuela’s government on Friday acknowledged that U.S. diplomats had traveled to the country and announced that it will send a delegation to Washington, but it did not say when.

In a statement, Delcy Rodríguez’s government said it “has decided to initiate an exploratory process of a diplomatic nature with the Government of the United States of America, aimed at the re-establishment of diplomatic missions in both countries.”

President Trump has placed pressure on Rodriguez and other former Maduro loyalists now in power to advance his vision for the future of the nation — a major aspect of which would be reinvigorating the role of U.S. oil companies in a country with the worlds’ largest proven reserves of crude oil.

The U.S. and Venezuela cut off ties in 2019, after the first Trump administration said opposition leader Juan Guaidó was the rightful president of Venezuela, spiking tensions. Despite the assertions, Maduro maintained his firm grip on power.

The Trump administration shuttered the embassy in Caracas and moved diplomats to nearby Bogotá, Colombia. U.S. officials have traveled to Caracas a handful of times since then. The latest visit came last February when Trump’s envoy for special missions, Richard Grenell met with Maduro. The visit resulted in six detained Americans being freed by the government.

Garcia Cano and Lee write for the Associated Press. Lee reported from Washington. AP reporter Megan Janetsky contributed to this report from Mexico City.

Jan. 9 (UPI) — President Donald Trump and executives for several U.S. oil and gas companies discussed a potential $100 billion investment in Venezuela’s energy sector Friday after Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro‘s capture.

Trump met with executives from Chevron, ConocoPhillips, ExxonMobil and other U.S. oil and gas firms and encouraged them to invest $100 billion to refine and sell seized Venezuelan oil, CBS News reported.

The president offered to guarantee the security of oil and gas companies if they returned to Venezuela, which decades ago seized infrastructure owned and built by U.S. firms when former President Hugo Chavez nationalized the country’s oil and gas industry.

With the backing of the United States and security assurances, Trump said the oil and gas companies would “get their money back and make a very nice return,” as reported by CNBC.

He offered to make a deal with the oil and gas companies as soon as Friday and said it would help to lower energy costs for U.S. consumers.

Venezuela has an estimated 303 billion barrels of proven reserves of crude oil, which equals about 17% of the world’s supply, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration.

That amount is the most anywhere, but Venezuela’s nationalization of its oil and gas industry led to years of neglect and greatly reduced its daily output from 3.5 million barrels per day in the 1990s to about 800,000 per day now, according to the Kpler energy consulting firm.

For Venezuela to meet a 3 million barrels-per-day target, energy firms would have to invest more than $180 billion over the next 14 years, analysts with Rystad Energy said.

Such an investment level has U.S. oil and gas executives publicly expressing skepticism, although they do acknowledge the president’s proposal is an enticing offer.

Trump said a decision on the matter should be reached very soon, if not on Friday.

WASHINGTON — President Trump is meeting with oil executives at the White House Friday in hopes of securing $100 billion in investments to revive Venezuela’s ability to fully tap into its expansive reserves of petroleum — a plan that rides on their comfort in making commitments in a country plagued by instability, inflation and uncertainty.

Since the U.S. military raid to capture former Venezuelan leader Nicolás Maduro on Saturday, Trump has quickly pivoted to portraying the move as a newfound economic opportunity for the U.S., seizing tankers carrying Venezuelan oil, saying the U.S. is taking over the sales of 30 million to 50 million barrels of previously sanctioned Venezuelan oil and will be controlling sales worldwide indefinitely.

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

It’s all part of a broader push by Trump to keep gasoline prices low. At a time when many Americans are concerned about affordability, the incursion in Venezuela melds Trump’s assertive use of presidential powers with an optical spectacle meant to convince Americans that he can bring down energy prices.

The meeting, set for 2:30 p.m. EST, is currently set to occur behind closed doors, according to the president’s daily schedule. “At least 100 Billion Dollars will be invested by BIG OIL, all of whom I will be meeting with today at The White House,” Trump said Friday in a pre-dawn social media post.

Trump is set to meet with executives from 17 oil companies, according to the White House. Among the companies attending are Chevron, which still operates in Venezuela, and ExxonMobil and ConocoPhillips, which both had oil projects in the country that were lost as part of a 2007 nationalization of private businesses under Maduro’s predecessor, Hugo Chávez.

The president is meeting with a wide swath of domestic and international companies with interests ranging from construction to the commodity markets. Other companies slated to be at the meeting include Halliburton, Valero, Marathon, Shell, Singapore-based Trafigura, Italy-based Eni and Spain-based Repsol.

Large U.S. oil companies have so far largely refrained from affirming investments in Venezuela as contracts and guarantees need to be in place. Trump has suggested on social media that America would help to backstop any investments.

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

Secretary of State Marco Rubio, Energy Secretary Chris Wright and Interior Secretary Doug Burgum are slated to attend the oil executives meeting, according to the White House.

Boak writes for the Associated Press.

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

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

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

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

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

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

It has led millions to flee the country for elsewhere.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

“The oil will take a while,” he said.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

US forces have seized another tanker in the Caribbean Sea, officials say, as the Trump administration continues its efforts to control exports of Venezuelan oil.

The tanker, the Olina, is on multiple countries’ sanctions lists and the fifth vessel to be seized by the US in recent weeks.

The US is using the seizures to pressure Venezuela’s interim government and remove the so-called dark fleet of tankers from service. Officials say this fleet consists of more than 1,000 vessels that transport sanctioned and illicit oil.

“Once again, our joint interagency forces sent a clear message this morning: ‘there is no safe haven for criminals,'” said the US military’s Southern Command on Friday.

The vessel reportedly left Venezuelan waters late on Sunday, after the US seized President Nicolás Maduro in an early morning raid.

Officials said Friday’s operation was carried out before dawn by Marines and sailors in coordination with the Department of Homeland Security, and that it was seized after it “departed Venezuela attempting to evade US forces”.

Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem wrote on X that it was “another ‘ghost fleet’ tanker ship suspected of carrying embargoed oil”.

Noem also shared a video appearing to show troops dropping onto a ship from a helicopter, and described the operation as “safe” and “effective”.

Maritime risk company Vanguard Tech said the vessel was attempting to break through the US naval blockade in the Caribbean. It had been sailing under a false flag registered to Timor-Leste, according to the International Maritime Organization.

Vanguard Tech added that the vessel’s location tracker was last active 52 days ago, northeast of Curacao, and that “the seizure follows a prolonged pursuit of tankers linked to sanctioned Venezuelan oil shipments in the region”.

The US had sanctioned the Olina last January, then named Minerva M, accusing it of helping finance Russia’s war in Ukraine by moving Russian oil to foreign markets.

Earlier this week, the US said it seized two other tankers linked to Venezuelan oil exports in “back-to-back” operations in the North Atlantic and Caribbean.

One of them was the Russian-flagged Marinera seized with the help of the UK Royal Navy, which gave logistical support by air and sea.

The Marinera is allegedly part of shadow fleet carrying oil for Venezuela, Russia and Iran, breaking US sanctions. US officials said that Marinera was falsely flying the flag of Guyana last month, which made it stateless.

US authorities alleged the second tanker – the M/T Sophia – was “conducting illicit activities”.

Experts have told BBC Verify that under UN international maritime law, authroties can board a stateless vessel.

President Donald Trump says Venezuela – which has the world’s largest proven oil reserves – “will be turning over” up to 50 million barrels of oil worth some $2.8bn (£2.1bn) to the US.

The oil, according to Secretary of State Marco Rubio, would be sold “in the marketplace at market rates” and that the US would control how the proceeds were dispersed “in a way that benefits the Venezuelan people”.

US president also says he will meet oil executives at White House on Friday to discuss Venezuela’s oil industry.

United States President Donald Trump has said he cancelled a second ⁠wave of attacks on Venezuela following “cooperation” from the South American nation.

The ​president said on Friday that Venezuela was releasing a large ‍number of political prisoners as a sign of “seeking peace”, following last week’s US military operation to abduct President Nicolas Maduro.

“This is a very ‍important and ⁠smart gesture. The USA and Venezuela are working well together, especially as it pertains to rebuilding, in a much bigger, better, and more modern form, their oil and gas infrastructure,” Trump said on Truth Social.

“Because of this cooperation, I have cancelled the previously expected second Wave of Attacks, which looks like it will ​not be needed, however, all ships will stay ‌in place for safety and security purpose,” his post added.

Trump’s comments come hours after he indicated in an interview on Fox News’s Hannity programme that Venezuelan opposition leader Maria Corina Machado was ‌coming to Washington next week, after previously dismissing the idea of working with her, saying that “she doesn’t ‌have the support within or the respect within ⁠the country”.

The Republican president, however, had told The New York Times on Wednesday that the US was “getting along very well” with the Venezuelan government, led by acting interim President Delcy ‌Rodriguez.

During the Fox interview, Trump also said he would meet oil executives at the White House on Friday and that the oil companies would spend ‍at least $100bn in Venezuela, which he repeated in his Truth Social post.

“At least 100 Billion Dollars will be invested by BIG OIL, all of whom I will be meeting with today at The White House,” Trump wrote on his social media platform ahead of the gathering, where he was expected to convince the oil heads to support his plans in Venezuela.

The Trump administration has repeatedly said that it is running Venezuela, with Energy Secretary Chris Wright on Wednesday asserting that Washington will control the country’s oil industry “indefinitely”.

Rodriguez, who was Maduro’s deputy, has said that her government remains in charge, with the state-run oil firm saying only that it was in negotiations with the United States on oil sales.

US outlet NBC News reported that the heads of Exxon Mobil, Chevron and ConocoPhillips are expected at the White House meeting.

“It’s just a meeting to discuss, obviously, the immense opportunity that is before these oil companies right now,” Trump’s spokesperson Karoline Leavitt told reporters on Wednesday.

Chevron is the only US company that currently has a licence to operate in Venezuela. Exxon Mobil and ConocoPhillips left the country in 2007, after refusing then-President Hugo Chavez’s demand that they give up a majority stake in local operations to the government.

Sanctioned by Washington since 2019, Venezuela sits on about a fifth of the world’s oil reserves and was once a major crude supplier to the United States.

But it produced only about 1 percent of the world’s total crude output in 2024, according to OPEC, having been hampered by years of underinvestment, sanctions and embargoes.

Trump sees the country’s massive oil reserves as a windfall in his fight to further lower US domestic fuel prices, a major political issue.

But he could face an uphill task convincing the major US oil companies to invest in Venezuela due to uncertainty about governance post-Maduro, security and the enormous expense of restoring production facilities.

In explaining the U.S. incursion into Venezuela to capture President Nicolás Maduro, President Trump accused Maduro and his wife of conducting a “campaign of deadly narco-terrorism against the United States and its citizens,” and Maduro of being “the kingpin of a vast criminal network responsible for trafficking colossal amounts of deadly and illicit drugs into the United States.”

“Hundreds of thousands — over the years — of Americans died because of him,” Trump said hours after U.S. special forces dragged Maduro from his bedroom during a raid that killed more than 50 Venezuelan and Cuban military and security forces.

Experts in regional narcotics trafficking said Trump was clearly trying to justify the U.S. deposing a sitting head of state by arguing that Maduro was not just a corrupt foreign leader harming his own country but also a major player in the sweeping epidemic of overdoses that has devastated American communities.

They also said they are highly suspicious of those claims, which were offered up with little evidence and run counter to years of independent research into regional drug trafficking patterns. Countries such as Mexico and Colombia play much larger roles, and fentanyl — not the cocaine Maduro is charged with trafficking — causes the vast majority of American deaths, the research shows.

Maduro’s indictment spells out some overt criminal acts allegedly committed by him, including selling diplomatic passwords to known drug traffickers so they could avoid military and law enforcement scrutiny in Venezuela.

Attorney General Pam Bondi arrives at the U.S. Capitol on Monday to brief top lawmakers after President Trump directed U.S. forces to capture Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro.

(Jacquelyn Martin / Associated Press)

It alleges other crimes in broad strokes, such as Maduro and his wife allegedly ordering “kidnappings, beatings, and murders” against people who “undermined their drug trafficking operation.”

However, Trump’s claims about the scope and impact of Maduro’s alleged actions go far beyond what the indictment details, experts said.

“It’s very hard to respond to the level of bulls— that is being promoted by this administration, because there’s no evidence given whatsoever, and it goes against what we think we know as specialists,” said Paul Gootenberg, a professor emeritus of history and sociology at Stony Brook University who has long studied the cocaine trade. “All of it goes against what we think we know.”

“President Trump’s claim that hundreds of thousands of Americans have died due to drug trafficking linked to Maduro is inaccurate,” said Philip Berry, a former United Kingdom counter-narcotics official and a visiting senior lecturer at the Centre for Defence Studies at King’s College London.

“[F]entanyl, not cocaine, has been responsible for most drug-related deaths in the U.S. over the past decade,” he said.

Jorja Leap, a social welfare professor and executive director of the UCLA Social Justice Research Partnership who has spent years interviewing gang members and drug dealers in the L.A. region, said Trump’s hyper-focus on Maduro, Venezuela and the Venezuelan gang Tren de Aragua as driving forces within the U.S. drug trade not only belies reality but also belittles the work of researchers who know better.

“Aside from making it a political issue, this is disrespecting the work of researchers, social activists, community organizers and law enforcement who have worked on this problem on the ground and understand every aspect of it,” Leap said. “This is political theater.”

Venezuela’s role

The U.S. State Department’s 2024 International Narcotics Strategy Report called Venezuela “a major transit country for cocaine shipments via aerial, terrestrial, and maritime routes,” with most of the drugs originating in Colombia and passing through other Central American countries or Caribbean islands on their way to the U.S.

Federal officers stand guard outside the Metropolitan Detention Center.

(Leonardo Munoz / AFP via Getty Images)

However, the same report said recent estimates put the volume of cocaine trafficked through Venezuela at about 200 to 250 metric tons per year, or “roughly 10 to 13 percent of estimated global production.” According to the United Nations 2025 World Drug Report, most cocaine from Colombia is instead trafficked “along the Pacific Coast northward,” including through Ecuador.

The same report and others make clear Venezuela does not play a substantial role in fentanyl production or trafficking.

The State Department’s 2024 report said Mexico was “the sole significant source of illicit fentanyl … significantly affecting” the U.S., and the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration’s 2025 National Drug Threat Assessment said Mexican organizations “dominate fentanyl transportation into and through the United States.”

The Trump administration suggested Venezuela has played a larger role in cocaine production and transport in recent years under Maduro, who they allege has partnered with major trafficking organizations in Venezuela, Colombia and Mexico.

Maduro pleaded not guilty at an arraignment in Manhattan federal court this week, saying he was “kidnapped” by the U.S.

While many experts and other political observers acknowledge Maduro’s corruption and believe he has profited from drug trafficking, they question the Trump administration’s characterization of his actions as a “narco-terrorist” assault on the U.S.

Former Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.), the Trump ally turned foe who this week stepped down from her House seat, condemned the raid as more about controlling Venezuela’s oil than dismantling the drug trade, in part by noting that far greater volumes of much deadlier drugs arrive to the U.S. from Mexico.

“If it was about drugs killing Americans, they would be bombing Mexican cartels,” Greene posted.

The Trump administration pushed back against such arguments, even as Trump has threatened other nations in the region.

U.S. Drug Enforcement Administrator Terry Cole said on Fox News that “at a low estimate,” 100 tons of cocaine have been produced and shipped to the U.S. by groups working with Maduro.

Expert input

Gootenberg said there’s no doubt that some Colombian cocaine crosses the border into Venezuela, but that much of it goes onward to Europe and growing markets in Brazil and Asia, and there’s no evidence large amounts reach the U.S.

“The whole thing is a fiction, and I do believe they know that,” he said of the Trump administration.

Berry said Venezuela is “a transit country for cocaine” but “a relatively minor player in the international drug trade” overall, with only a “small portion” of the cocaine that passes through it reaching the U.S.

Both also questioned the Trump administration labeling Maduro’s government a “narco-terrorism” regime. Gootenberg said the term arose decades ago to describe governments whose national revenues were substantially connected to drug proceeds, such as Bolivia in the 1980s, but it was always a “propagandistic idea” and had gone “defunct” as modern governments, including Venezuela’s, diversified their economies.

The Trump administration’s move to revive the term comes as no surprise given “the way they pick up atavistic labels that they think will be useful, like ‘Make America Great Again,’” Gootenberg said. But “there’s no there there.”

Berry said use of the term “narco-terrorism” has oversimplified the “diverse and context-specific connections” between the drug industry and global terrorism, and as a result “led to the conflation of counter-narcotics and counter-terrorism efforts, frequently resulting in hyper-militarised and ineffective policy responses.”

Gootenberg said Maduro was a corrupt authoritarian who stole an election and certainly had knowledge of drug trafficking through his country, but the notion he’d somehow become a “mastermind” with leverage over transnational drug organizations is far-fetched.

Several experts said they doubted his capture would have a sizable effect on the U.S. drug trade.

“Negligible. Marginal. Whatever word you want to use to indicate the most minor of impacts,” said Leap, of UCLA.

The Sinaloa Cartel — one of Maduro’s alleged partners, according to his indictment — is a major player in Southern California’s drug trade, with the Mexican Mafia serving as middleman between the cartel and local drug gangs, Leap said. But “if anyone tries to connect this to what is happening now in Venezuela, they do not understand the nature of drug distribution, street gangs, the Mexican Mafia, everything that goes on in Southern California. There is no connection.”

Berry said in the wake of Maduro’s capture, “numerous state and nonstate actors involved in the illegal narcotics trade remain unaffected.”

Jan. 9 (UPI) — Venezuela’s government has begun to release Venezuelan and foreign political prisoners, less than a week after its former head, Nicolas Maduro, was seized in a U.S. military operation.

It was unclear how many prisoners were released on Thursday, but among them was former National Assembly vice president and opposition leader Enrique Marquez.

Henrique Capriles, a deputy of the National Assembly, posted a video of Marquez and Biagio Pilieri, a former deputy of the National Assembly, embracing loved ones in the street after being released from prison.

“This is one more step toward justice and the future,” Capriles said in the caption to the video posted to X.

“Freedom for political prisoners! We want to see all of them embracing their loved ones.”

The center-right Primero Justicia party also said Venezuelan-Spanish human rights lawyer and activist Rocio San Miguel was among those released.

Spain’s foreign ministry confirmed in a statement of its own that five nationals — including one with dual nationality — were released on Thursday and were preparing travel to Spain.

“The Spanish Government extends its congratulations to these citizens, their families and friends,” the ministry said, adding that Minister Jose Manuel Albares had spoken to all of them personally.

“Spain, which maintains fraternal relations with the Venezuelan people, welcomes this decision as a positive step in the new phase Venezuela is currently undergoing.”

The United States and human rights organizations have called on Venezuela to release political prisoners for years.

According to Venezuelan NGO Foro Penal, there were 806 political prisoners in the country as of Monday.

Many arrests were conducted amid mass protests that erupted in the country in 2024 following Maduro, Venezuela’s authoritarian president, winning a third term in office in an election that was widely disputed.

The release comes after the United States arrested Maduro in a surprise military operation on Saturday and brought him to the United States on charges of narcoterrorism.

The capture has cast uncertainty over the future of the country, with key institutions still controlled by members of the Maduro regime and the Trump administration signaling a potentially long-term plan to rebuild Venezuela into a stable South American partner.

On Saturday, United States military forces carried out a dramatic strike in Venezuela that resulted in the capture and forcible removal of President Nicolas Maduro and his wife, Cilia Flores. They were flown to New York and are now in federal custody. Maduro appeared in federal court on drug and weapons charges and pleaded not guilty. Several governments, international legal experts and United Nations officials have described the military operation as an illegal “kidnapping” and a breach of international law. The UN secretary-general warned that it sets a “dangerous precedent”, undermining foundational norms of sovereignty under the UN Charter.

Yet, as Washington justifies its operation primarily with rhetoric about oil and narcotics, a deeper inspection reveals another dynamic: This was first and foremost an ideological battle, shaped by domestic political incentives in the US – in particular the strategic influence of Florida’s electorate and its political elite.

Oil is not the prime motive

The mainstream narrative frames Venezuela’s enormous oil reserves – officially among the largest proven in the world at roughly 298 billion to 303 billion barrels – as the core strategic prize. But a closer, evidence-based analysis shows the immediate economic rationale to be weak.

US crude imports from Venezuela, once significant, have dwindled to about 220,000 barrels per day (bpd) as of 2024, representing less than 4 percent of US crude imports. By contrast, imports from Canada dominate, accounting for roughly 60 to 63 percent of US crude import needs, and US production of light crude has risen sharply, reducing dependence on foreign sources. This shift undermines claims that Venezuelan oil alone is a strategic imperative.

Why does Venezuelan crude matter at all? The answer lies in its composition. Venezuelan oil is heavy and sour, the type that many US Gulf Coast refineries were designed to process. This, however, reflects refinery configuration rather than any compelling immediate strategic case. Furthermore, Venezuelan oil infrastructure has deteriorated over years of underinvestment with output falling from about 3.5 million bpd to roughly 1 million bpd by 2025, and a meaningful revival would require many years of sustained and consistent investment. Markets reacted only modestly to the capture of Maduro with global oil prices remaining relatively stable, suggesting that oil was not the main driver of the operation.

Not drugs either: Pretext vs reality

US officials have cited drug trafficking and “narcoterrorism” as part of the justification for the intervention. Maduro and other senior Venezuelan officials are indicted in the US on charges linked to alleged cocaine trafficking, and these accusations have been reiterated in court. However, research by international agencies and independent analysts suggests that, while Venezuelan territory is used as a transit route, it is not a major source of the drugs entering the US, which are overwhelmingly produced and trafficked through Mexico, Central America and the Caribbean. This gap between the scale of the drug trade and the rationale invoked has led many analysts to view the narcotics argument as a pretext rather than a primary driver of the operation.

Florida, ideology and domestic political incentives

A more persuasive rationale emerges when the domestic political incentives shaping US foreign policy are examined, particularly the role of Florida’s electorate and elite networks. With 31 electoral votes, Florida remains a pivotal state in presidential elections, where narrow margins mean even modest shifts among key constituencies can determine national outcomes.

This political reality is reinforced by Florida’s large and politically mobilised Latino communities. Cuban American voters have long prioritised anti-communist foreign policy positions while Venezuelan American communities, many of whom settled in the state over the past decade, have expressed strong opposition to authoritarian leftist governance in Caracas. Political scientists note that these constituencies constitute a significant voting bloc in closely contested elections, giving political elites strong incentives to adopt hardline positions against leftist regimes that resonate with these voters.

At the centre of this dynamic stands Marco Rubio, the US secretary of state and a Florida native whose political biography is deeply rooted in opposition to leftist governments in Latin America. Rubio’s family fled communist Cuba, and he has consistently championed confrontational policies towards socialist and authoritarian regimes in the region. Reports suggest that, during negotiations, Maduro offered concessions on oil and economic matters that could have been commercially beneficial, but advisers aligned with Florida’s political interests reportedly pushed for a harder line, prioritising ideological confrontation over economic pragmatism.

Florida’s political ecosystem also includes influential donor networks that have historically supported hawkish foreign policy positions, including well-organised pro-Israel constituencies with leverage at state and national levels. In recent months, high-profile visits by Israeli leaders to Florida and sustained engagement with US political figures have reinforced ideological alignments that frame regimes perceived as hostile to Israel or aligned with its adversaries as challenges requiring decisive responses. The convergence of electoral incentives, ideological commitments and elite networks helps explain why US policy towards Venezuela has been shaped as much by domestic political drivers as by external strategic interests.

Lessons for the Middle East

The implications for Middle Eastern actors are profound.

First, international law appears weakened. The US capture of a sitting head of state without multilateral authorisation underscores a willingness to sidestep international legal norms when domestic political imperatives are prioritised. The ineffectiveness UN Charter’s prohibition on the use of force absent Security Council approval or clear self-defence appears to have been discounted, eliciting global concern.

Second, the Middle East’s strategic relevance persists, albeit in an evolving context. While global energy markets are less dependent on Middle Eastern oil than in prior decades, other factors – capital flows, counterterrorism cooperation, strategic geography and enduring security partnerships – maintain the region’s importance. Intensifying US-China competition and Washington’s concern over closer China-Middle East ties will likely continue to anchor US engagement in the region. Israel, for its part, is expected to sustain robust lobbying efforts in Washington and European capitals to preserve its strategic relationships.

Yet the Venezuela episode illustrates that alliances predicated chiefly on energy security can be fragile and ideological and domestic political drivers can abruptly reshape foreign policy priorities. Middle Eastern states must, therefore, pursue a calibrated diplomatic strategy: engaging the US where interests converge while hedging against abrupt shifts driven by internal political calculations.

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Al Jazeera’s editorial stance.

WASHINGTON — Five Senate Republicans broke with party leaders on Thursday to advance legislation that would rein in President Trump’s use of the U.S. military in Venezuela, a move that comes as a growing number of GOP lawmakers have expressed unease about the White House’s threats to use force to acquire Greenland.

The procedural vote, which came over the objections of Republican leaders, now sets the stage for a full Senate vote next week on a measure that would block Trump from using military force “within or against Venezuela” without approval from Congress. Even with the Senate’s approval, the legislation is unlikely to become law as it is unlikely to pass the House, and President Trump — who has veto power over legislation — has publicly condemned the measure and the Republicans who supported it.

“This vote greatly hampers American Self Defense and National Security, impeding the President’s Authority as Commander in Chief,” Trump wrote in a social media post shortly after the 52-47 vote in the Senate.

The Republican defection on the issue underscores the growing concern among GOP lawmakers over the Trump administration’s foreign policy ambitions and highlights the bipartisan concern that the president is testing the limits of executive war powers — not only in Venezuela but also in Greenland, a semiautonomous territory of Denmark, a U.S. ally.

Sen. Susan Collins (R-Me.), one of the Republicans who voted for the resolution, said that while she supported the operation that led to the capture and extradition of Nicolás Maduro, she did not “support committing additional U.S. forces or entering into any long-term military involvement in Venezuela or Greenland without specific congressional authorization.”

The resolution is co-sponsored by Sens. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.), Tim Kaine (D-Va.) and Rand Paul (R-Ky.) and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.). The Republicans who supported it were Sens. Collins, Paul, Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, Todd Young of Indiana and Josh Hawley of Missouri.

“Finally, the Senate is exercising its constitutional power over the authorization of the use of force to prevent America from being dragged into a new war over oil,” Schiff said in a social media post after the vote.

Vice President JD Vance told reporters at the White House on Thursday that he was not concerned about Trump losing support among Republican lawmakers in Washington, adding that passage of the resolution in the Senate would not “change anything about how we conduct foreign policy over the next couple of weeks or the next couple of months.”

But Republican support for the resolution reflects a deepening concern within the GOP over Trump’s foreign policy plans, particularly his threats to acquire Greenland — a move that prompted European leaders earlier this week to call on the United States to respect the Arctic territory’s sovereignty

House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) told reporters on Wednesday that he does not believe “anybody’s seriously considering” using the military to take control of Greenland.

“In Congress, we’re certainly not,” Johnson said.

Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-S.D.) struck a similar tone the same day, telling reporters that he does not “see military action being an option” in Greenland.

Other Republican lawmakers have been more openly critical, warning that even floating the idea of using force against a member of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, a defense alliance that includes the United States, risks weakening America’s position on the world stage.

“Threats and intimidation by U.S. officials over American ownership of Greenland are as unseemly as they are counterproductive,” Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) said in a statement. “And the use of force to seize the sovereign democratic territory of one of America’s most loyal and capable allies would be an especially catastrophic act of strategic self-harm to America and its global influence.”

In a statement Tuesday, the White House said acquiring Greenland was a “national security priority” and that using the military to achieve that goal was “always an option.” A day earlier, Stephen Miller, Trump’s deputy chief of staff for policy, told CNN that “Greenland should be part of the United States.”

“Nobody is going to fight the United States militarily over the future of Greenland,” Miller said.

Miller’s remarks angered Republican senators, including Sen. John Kennedy (R-La.) who in an interview with CNN on Wednesday called the idea of invading Greenland “weapons-grade stupid.”

Sen. Thom Tillis (R-N.C), who has served as the top Republicans on the Senate NATO Observer Group since 2018, criticized the idea as well in a searing Senate floor speech.

“I’m sick of stupid,” Tillis said. “I want good advice for this president, because I want this president to have a good legacy. And this nonsense on what’s going on with Greenland is a distraction from the good work he’s doing, and the amateurs who said it was a good idea should lose their jobs.”

Tillis, who is not seeking reelection this year, later told CNN that Miller needs to “get into a lane where he knows what he’s talking about or get out of this job.”

Tensions rise as Brazil reinforces its northern border following US air strikes in Venezuela and the abduction of its President Nicolas Maduro.

Sao Paulo, Brazil – Brazil plans to send national guard troops to northern Roraima state, which borders Venezuela and has a strong presence of illegal armed groups who traffic drugs and mine illegally on both sides of the international boundary, according to a government decree.

In an official decree published on Thursday, the government authorised an unspecified number of National Public Security Force (FNSP) troops to be sent to Pacaraima, as well as Roraima’s capital, Boa Vista, about 213km (132 miles) from the border.

The move comes after the US on Saturday bombed Venezuela and abducted its president, Nicolas Maduro. On Sunday, Brazil temporarily closed its border with Venezuela near Pacaraima.

The decree said the FNSP will support the state’s public security agencies and operate in ways “essential to the preservation of public order and the safety of people and property”.

Brazilian media reported on Wednesday that Venezuela was reinforcing its military presence on the border, and multiple armed groups, including Venezuelan colectivos and Brazilian gangs like the First Capital Command (PCC) and the Red Command (CV), operate in the area.

Gimena Sanchez, Andes director for the Washington Office on Latin America (WOLA), told Al Jazeera that Brazil’s deployment of guard troops to the border is an “appropriate move”. She said that violence caused by Colombian rebel groups active in Venezuela is pushing the population further south towards Brazil.

She added it “makes sense [for Brazil] to reinforce the border”, but noted there still has notbeen a mass displacement of Venezuelans.

Brazil has been a fierce critic of the US attacks. On the social media platform X, its president, Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva, said the US had crossed an “unacceptable line”.

Asked whether President Lula’s comments could provoke Washington, Sanchez said that the US is more concerned with Cuba, Mexico and Colombia at the moment. “Given that context and also that some European countries as well condemned it, I don’t think Brazil is at risk of being the focus of ire of the Trump administration,” she concluded.

That escalated quickly. We’re barely into 2026, and events are already unfolding that could meaningfully reshape the political landscape.

The death of Renee Nicole Good, a 37-year-old mother and U.S. citizen who was shot and killed by an Immigration and Customs Enforcement agent in Minneapolis on Wednesday, has the potential to shake the political landscape in ways reminiscent of George Floyd’s killing in 2020.

The Trump administration initially claimed Good “weaponized her vehicle” in an act of “domestic terrorism,” an account that appears to be contradicted by video evidence. Whether the incident escalates into a broader political reckoning — or fades from public attention — may determine its lasting effect on President Trump’s popularity and his immigration policies.

Meanwhile, Trump’s decision to invade Venezuela and capture then-President Nicolás Maduro remains controversial, even among some of his fans.

The attack drew immediate criticism from Marjorie Taylor Greene, Tucker Carlson and Laura Loomer, with Carlson and Loomer going so far as to float the claim that Maduro’s ouster was really about imposing gay marriage on Venezuela (this is impressive, because it manages to combine foreign policy, culture war panic and complete nonsense into a single sentence).

But this schism isn’t limited to ex-House members, podcasters and conspiracy theorists. Inside the administration, the balance of power appears to be tilting away from the noninterventionists and toward the hawks — at least, for now.

The current beneficiary of this shift is Secretary of State Marco Rubio. As recently as last month, JD Vance, who has generally staked out an anti-interventionist posture, seemed like Trump’s obvious heir. Now, Rubio’s stock is up (if “Lil Marco” falls short, he can always settle for Viceroy of Venezuela).

That’s not to say Rubio is anywhere near being Trump’s clear successor. Venezuela could disappear from the headlines as quickly as it arrived, buried beneath the next crisis, scandal or social media outburst. Or it could go sideways and dominate headlines for years or decades.

Military adventurism has an uncanny habit of doing exactly that.

If Venezuela turns into a slow-motion disaster, Democrats will reap the benefits as will the GOP’s “America First” contingent.

But January hasn’t just presented a possible touchstone for Republicans; Democrats have been hit with their own challenge, too: the Minnesota fraud scandal, which has already pushed Democratic Gov. Tim Walz out of a reelection bid. It is the kind of story that reinforces voters’ worst suspicions about their party.

During the past five years, parts of Minnesota’s Somali diaspora became entangled in alleged fraudulent activity, reportedly submitting millions of dollars in claims for social services that were not actually rendered.

The details are complicated; the implications are not. Public programs retain support only when voters believe they are competently managed, and this story suggests the opposite.

The fact that the scandal involves the Somali community makes it even more combustible. Fair or not, it provides ready-made ammunition for those eager to stoke racial resentment, discredit refugee policies and turn bureaucratic failure into an indictment on Democrats.

The fallout extends well beyond Minnesota. Kamala Harris has been signaling interest in another presidential run, and Walz was her vice-presidential pick in what was already a truncated and awkward campaign. That decision alone won’t sink a future bid for her, but it certainly doesn’t strengthen her already dubious case that she has exceptional political judgment.

More troubling for Democrats is the fear that Minnesota is the tip of the iceberg. Walz’s exodus was sparked by a right-wing YouTuber who started doing some sleuthing — and brought attention to years-old investigations by the Walz and Biden administrations. Other influencers are already promising similar exposés elsewhere.

Right-wing podcaster Benny Johnson, for example, has announced plans to descend on California, declaring it “the fraud capital of the world.” Newsom returned fire with a vicious Trump-like retort, demonstrating once again why he became the Democratic frontrunner in 2025.

Newsom’s Twitter rejoinder aside, it’s not crazy to think that the Democrats’ recent momentum could be squandered if it turns out more of these scandals exist and have been ignored, downplayed or (worse) covered up.

It’s risky to describe anything in modern politics as a turning point, because each week reliably produces something that eclipses the last outrage. Still, the opening days of this new year already feel consequential. Seeds have been planted. Whether they mature is the question.

Buckle up. It’s only January.

Matt K. Lewis is the author of “Filthy Rich Politicians” and “Too Dumb to Fail.”

A resolution that would block US President Donald Trump from taking further military action against Venezuela without congressional authorisation has passed in the Senate by a vote of 52-47.

With the measure receiving a simple majority in Thursday’s vote, it will move ahead to the House.

Days after US forces abducted Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro in a dramatic military raid in Caracas, senators voted on the latest in a series of war powers measures introduced since the administration ramped up military pressure on the country with attacks on boats off its coast in September.

Republicans have blocked all of the measures, but the last vote was just 49-51, as two senators from Trump’s party joined Democrats in backing a resolution in November. Administration officials had told lawmakers at that time that they did not plan to change the government or conduct strikes on Venezuelan territory.

More to come…

Calls for new elections in Venezuela often assume the existence of basic democratic conditions. In reality, those conditions do not exist. Venezuela cannot hold credible, free, or fair elections today because the country lacks the most fundamental prerequisite of democracy: the rule of law. Without a restoration of institutional independence and a genuine separation of powers, elections would serve only to legitimize an authoritarian system rather than offer Venezuelans a real choice.

Although Venezuela formally maintains the appearance of a constitutional democracy—with a constitution, courts, and a National Assembly—real power is concentrated in the hands of a small group of individuals aligned with the ruling party. Institutions that should act as checks on executive authority instead function as extensions of it.

A clear example is the swearing in of the interim president, Delcy Rodríguez, done by her brother, Jorge Rodríguez, who is the president of the National Assembly.

This concentration of power is not accidental. Over many years, first under Hugo Chávez and later under Nicolás Maduro, the government systematically dismantled institutional independence. A majority of judges were replaced with loyalists, transforming the judiciary into a political tool rather than an impartial arbiter of the law. As a result, courts no longer protect constitutional rights or limit executive overreach; they enforce political decisions.

The definitive rupture of constitutional order occurred after Venezuelans elected an opposition-majority National Assembly in 2015 (following the 2014–2015 political cycle). This democratic outcome represented a clear mandate to challenge executive power, oversee government actions, and restore institutional balance.

After the elections held in July of 2024, despite clear and convincing evidence that the opposition had won, not one Venezuelan institution recognized the result and instead awarded the presidency to Maduro once again.

Rather than accept this result, the Maduro government moved to neutralize the Assembly. Through rulings issued by a politically controlled Supreme Court, the Assembly was declared in contempt, its powers were stripped, and its legislative authority rendered meaningless. To fully sideline the opposition-controlled legislature, the government went further by creating a so-called “Constituent Assembly,” purportedly to reform the constitution. This body was neither elected under fair conditions nor authorized through a legitimate democratic process. Instead, it functioned as a parallel legislature designed to replace the National Assembly altogether. This marked the end of any meaningful separation of powers in Venezuela.

From that point on, Venezuela ceased to operate under its own constitutional framework. There has been no genuine transfer of power, no institutional accountability, and no respect for electoral outcomes that challenge the ruling group’s control.

In this context, calling for new elections without first restoring the rule of law is fundamentally flawed. Elections held under a system where courts, electoral authorities, security forces, and media are controlled by one political faction cannot be free or fair. They do not reflect the will of the people; they merely reproduce the existing power structure.

True elections require an independent judiciary; a neutral and credible electoral authority; respect for the separation of powers; and guarantees of political rights, free speech, and fair competition. None of these conditions currently exist in Venezuela. After the elections held in July of 2024, despite clear and convincing evidence that the opposition had won, not one Venezuelan institution recognized the result and instead awarded the presidency to Maduro once again.

Depolitize the guys with guns

For Venezuela, the path forward is not immediate elections, but a democratic transition. Such a transition must focus first on restoring the rule of law, reestablishing independent institutions, and guaranteeing basic political freedoms. More importantly, making sure that the nation’s security forces are once again impartial and can align with the mandate granted by the people.  

The Venezuelan armed forces have become one of the most decisive instruments of authoritarian control. Far from acting as a neutral guarantor of constitutional order, they operate as an extension of the ruling party. This loyalty is maintained through a combination of political patronage, economic privileges, and legal impunity, ensuring that the military remains aligned with the regime rather than the nation.

Can Venezuela simply declare that everything passed over the last ten years never existed? While morally appealing, such an approach would be legally and practically unworkable.

For any genuine democratic transition to succeed, this dynamic must change. The armed forces must be depoliticized and restored to their constitutional role: defending the sovereignty of the country, not a political faction. Their impartiality is essential to guarantee that electoral outcomes are respected and that citizens can exercise their rights without fear of coercion or intimidation. Without this shift, even well-designed electoral reforms risk collapse under the weight of military interference.

Without this transition, elections risk becoming another instrument of authoritarian control. With it, they can become the foundation for rebuilding Venezuela’s democracy. Only then can elections serve their true purpose: allowing Venezuelans to decide their future freely and without coercion.

The problem of legal continuity

If the diagnosis is clear—that Venezuela cannot hold credible elections under current conditions—the path forward is far less certain. The country faces a fundamental and unavoidable question: how does a society undo more than a decade of institutional erosion without creating legal chaos or collective paralysis?

One of the most difficult challenges of a democratic transition is determining what to do with the body of laws, decrees, and decisions enacted under an illegitimate system. Can Venezuela simply declare that everything passed over the last ten years never existed? While morally appealing, such an approach would be legally and practically unworkable.

Millions of Venezuelans have lived, worked, signed contracts, owned property, and made daily decisions under this framework. Entire economic and social relationships—even distorted ones—have been shaped by these rules. Declaring all of them null and void overnight would risk replacing authoritarianism with legal uncertainty.

A transition must therefore strike a careful balance: recognizing legal reality without legitimizing the system that produced it.

This dilemma is especially acute when it comes to contracts issued by the regime. Some were instruments of corruption or political patronage; others were ordinary commercial or administrative acts necessary for the country to function.

Above all, a transitional process will require political restraint: a recognition that the goal is not to replace one concentration of power with another, but to restore limits on power itself.

Take Chevron for example. Their current operations in the country are legally questionable; many lawyers in the country will tell you that the legal framework under which they are operating has no legal foundation. This will probably make it difficult for other oil companies to go into the country and invest until there is a clear legal framework that they can trust.

A future democratic government will need a principled framework to distinguish between contracts that are inherently illegitimate due to corruption, coercion, or constitutional violations; and contracts that, while issued under an authoritarian regime, involve good-faith third parties and essential services.

This is not a problem unique to Venezuela, but it requires transparent mechanisms—such as independent review bodies or transitional courts—to prevent arbitrariness while restoring public trust.

The constitutional question

Another central issue is whether Venezuela should return to a prior constitutional framework as a foundation for democratic restoration. Some argue that the 1999 Constitution—despite its flaws—remains the last broadly legitimate constitutional document approved by popular vote and could serve as a starting point.

If so, the question becomes procedural: how does the country re-legitimize institutions that still formally exist but have lost all independence?

One possible path is a general referendum authorizing a limited, clearly defined transitional process. Such a referendum could enable the appointment of a new, independent National Electoral Council; establish a transparent mechanism to select new Supreme Court justices; and define the temporary scope and duration of transitional authorities.

This would allow change to occur within an explicit democratic mandate, rather than through ad hoc or purely political decisions.

Importantly, Venezuela does not lack institutions on paper. Courts, electoral bodies, ministries, and legislative frameworks already exist. The challenge is not rebuilding the state from scratch, but cleaning and depoliticizing institutions so they can function independently.

That process will require clear legal standards for independence and accountability. International technical support and observation would help to prevent permanent transitional arrangements by enforcing time-bound mandates. Above all, it will require political restraint: a recognition that the goal is not to replace one concentration of power with another, but to restore limits on power itself.

There are no simple solutions. Any transition will involve compromises, uncertainty, and difficult decisions. But postponing these questions—or pretending elections alone can resolve them—only delays Venezuela’s recovery.

The task ahead is not merely electoral. It is constitutional, institutional, and moral. Reestablishing democratic rule of law will require confronting the past honestly, managing the present responsibly, and designing a future in which no individual or group can again place itself above the law.

Who knew that by “America First,” President Trump meant all of the Americas?

In puzzling over that question at least, I’ve got company in Marjorie Taylor Greene, the now-former congresswoman from Georgia and onetime Trump devotee who remains stalwart in his America First movement. Greene tweeted on Saturday, just ahead of Trump’s triumphal news conference about the United States’ decapitation of Venezuela’s government by the military’s middle-of-the-night nabbing of Nicolás Maduro and his wife: “This is what many in MAGA thought they voted to end. Boy were we wrong.”

Wrong indeed. Nearly a year into his second term, Trump has done nothing but exacerbate the domestic problems that Greene identified as America First priorities — bringing down the “increasing cost of living, housing, healthcare” within the 50 states — even as he’s pursued the “never ending military aggression” and foreign adventurism that America Firsters scorn, or at least used to. Another Trump con. Another lie.

Here’s a stunning stat, thanks to Military Times: In 2025, Trump ordered 626 missile strikes worldwide, 71 more than President Biden did in his entire four-year term. Targets, so far, have included Yemen, Syria, Iraq, Somalia, Nigeria, Iran and the waters off Venezuela and Colombia. Lately he’s threatened to hit Iran again if it kills demonstrators who have been marching in Tehran’s streets to protest the country’s woeful economic conditions. (“We are locked and loaded and ready to go,” Trump posted Friday.)

The president doesn’t like “forever wars,” he’s said many times, but he sure loves quick booms and cinematic secret ops. Leave aside, for now, the attacks in the Middle East, Africa and the Caribbean and the eastern Pacific. It’s Trump’s new claim to “run” Venezuela that has signaled the beginning of his mind-boggling bid for U.S. hegemony over the Western Hemisphere. Any such ambition raises the potential for quick actions to become quagmires.

As Stephen Miller, perhaps Trump’s closest and most like-minded (read: unhinged) advisor, described the administration’s worldview on Monday to CNN’s Jake Tapper: “We live in a world, in the real world, Jake, that is governed by strength, that is governed by force, that is governed by power. These are iron laws of the world since the beginning of time.”

You know, that old, amoral iron law: “Might makes right.” Music to Vladimir Putin’s and Xi Jinping’s ears as they seek hegemonic expansion of their own, confident that the United States has given up the moral high ground from which to object.

But it was Trump, the branding maven, who gave the White House worldview its name — his own, of course: the Donroe Doctrine. And it was Trump who spelled out what that might mean in practice for the Americas, in a chest-thumping, war-mongering performance on Sunday returning to Washington aboard Air Force One. The wannabe U.S. king turns out to be a wannabe emperor of an entire hemisphere.

“We’re in charge,” Trump said of Venezuela to reporters. “We’re gonna run it. Fix it. We’ll have elections at the right time.” He added, “If they don’t behave, we’ll do a second strike.” He went on, suggestively, ominously: “Colombia is very sick too,” and “Cuba is ready to fall.” Looking northward, he coveted more: “We need Greenland from a national security situation.”

Separately, Trump recently has said that Colombia’s leftist President Gustavo Petro “does have to watch his ass,” and that, given Trump’s unhappiness with the ungenuflecting Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum, “Something’s going to have to be done with Mexico.” In their cases as well as Maduro’s, Trump’s ostensible complaints have been that each has been complacent or complicit with drug cartels.

And yet, just last month Trump pardoned the former president of Honduras, Juan Orlando Hernández, who was convicted in a U.S. court and given a 45-year sentence for his central role in “one of the largest and most violent drug-trafficking conspiracies in the world.” Hernández helped traffickers ship 400 tons of cocaine into the United States — to “stuff the drugs up the gringos’ noses.” And Trump pardoned him after less than two years in prison.

So it’s implausible that a few weeks later, the U.S. president truly believes in taking a hard line against leaders he suspects of abetting the drug trade. Maybe Trump’s real motivation is something other than drug-running?

In his appearance after the Maduro arrest, Trump used the word “oil” 21 times. On Tuesday, he announced, in a social media post, of course, that he was taking control of the proceeds from up to 50 barrels of Venezuelan oil. (Not that he cares, but that would violate the Constitution, which gives Congress power to appropriate money that comes into the U.S. Treasury.)

Or perhaps, in line with the Monroe Doctrine, our current president has a retro urge to dominate half the world.

Lately his focus has been on Venezuela and South America, but North America is also in his sights. Trump has long said he might target Mexico to hit cartels and that the United States’ other North American neighbor, Canada, should become the 51st state. But it’s a third part of North America — Greenland — that he’s most intent on.

The icy island has fewer than 60,000 people but mineral wealth that’s increasingly accessible given the climate warming that Trump calls a hoax. For him to lay claim isn’t just a problem for the Americas. It’s an existential threat to NATO given that Greenland is an autonomous part of NATO ally Denmark — as Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen warned.

Not in 80 years did anyone imagine that NATO — bound by its tenet that an attack on one member is an attack on all — would be attacked from within, least of all from the United States. In a remarkable statement on Tuesday, U.S. allies rallied around Denmark: “It is for Denmark and Greenland, and them only, to decide on matters concerning Denmark and Greenland.”

Trump’s insistence that controlling Greenland is essential to U.S. national security is nuts. The United States has had military bases there since World War II, and all of NATO sees Greenland as critical to defend against Russian and Chinese encroachment in the Arctic. Still, Trump hasn’t ruled out the use of force to take the island.

He imagines himself to be the emperor of the Americas — all of it. Americas First.

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

BEIRUT, Lebanon, Jan. 8 (UPI) — The capture of Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro in a dramatic military operation ordered by U.S. President Donald Trump represents another blow — a new red flag — for Iran and its main proxy, Lebanon’s Hezbollah, potentially depriving the group of an ally and a foothold, or safe haven, in Latin America.

The predawn raid in Caracas not only sparked renewed U.S. accusations that both entities were involved in drug and arms trafficking, money laundering and evading sanctions, but also raised questions about whether the Venezuela model could be applied to Iran.

“No more drug trafficking, no more Iran‑Hezbollah presence there and no more using the oil industry to enrich all our adversaries around the world,” U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio said in summarizing his country’s. goals for Venezuela and its allies.

Venezuela and Iran, which developed deep political, diplomatic, economic and military cooperation under Maduro and his predecessor, Hugo Chavez, as part of an “Axis of Unity” against U.S. influence, have suffered from U.S.-imposed crippling sanctions that have intensified their economic crises.

In June 2022, Iran and Venezuela signed a 20‑year cooperation agreement intended to strengthen their alliance and circumvent U.S. sanctions by expanding collaboration in areas such as energy, oil, petrochemicals, science and technology, and other sectors.

The accord envisaged Iranian assistance with Venezuela’s oil industry and broader technical cooperation, and since then, the two countries have also deepened military cooperation, including links involving drone technology.

Long-standing ties between Iran and Venezuela created conditions in which Hezbollah — through networks embedded in Venezuela and parts of the diaspora — was reportedly able to establish financial and logistical operations in the country.

According to U.S. congressional testimony in October, these activities included fundraising, money transfers, smuggling and using Venezuelan‑issued travel documents.

The Maduro government denied these allegations, but Washington sanctioned Venezuelan officials and businessmen accused of assisting Hezbollah operatives.

Such accusations against Hezbollah, whose military capabilities were significantly degraded during the war with Israel, have been described by analysts in Lebanon as exaggerated and unsupported by clear evidence.

Mohanad Hage Ali, an analyst and fellow at the Beirut-based Carnegie Middle East Center, said Venezuela offered “a window of opportunity” for Hezbollah to be active in a state where the regime is friendly to the group and sympathetic to its ideology. But many claims describing a vital Hezbollah-Venezuela relationship exceeded what publicly available evidence supports.

“This is because what we have seen are instances of involvement by individuals who have relationships with Hezbollah, whether relatives or others, and these relationships and the roles they play seem small compared to Hezbollah’s budgetary needs in Lebanon,” Hage Ali told UPI.

Undoubtedly, he said, Hezbollah has some form of presence, representation, financial and economic activities, or plays a role in drug trafficking, but these are “limited,” as is its ability to expand abroad.

With the militant group relying more on direct funding from Iran, Hage Ali said Hezbollah would be affected in the event of a regime change in Caracas, but added, “I fail to see Venezuela as a crucial part of the overall puzzle of Hezbollah financing.”

It remains to be seen whether Trump can translate or invest the success in capturing Maduro into political gains.

It would not be easy to contain a country such as Venezuela simply by abducting its president, retired Lebanese Brig. Gen. Hassan Jouni argued.

“Would Trump be able to control and subjugate the Venezuelan regime? Would that require boots on the ground– a land invasion?” Jouni asked, warning that such a move would entail significant attrition and deep involvement for the United States, making the operation highly risky.

Snatching Maduro from his home in Caracas and charging him with drug trafficking and terrorism sent a clear message from Trump to countries around the world — especially those opposing his policies, chief among them Iran: Cooperate or face the use of force.

Jouni said the message capped the Dec, 29 meeting between Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, with threats that Iran would not be allowed to restart its nuclear program or rebuild its ballistic missile industry.

Could the Venezuela scenario be used for Iran? Could Trump do in Tehran what he did in Caracas — even going so far as to reach and capture Iran’s Supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei?

Jouni ruled out such a possibility, explaining that Iran differs from Venezuela because of the nature of its regime, its geographical location and the vast size of the country. Moreover, Khamenei would be protected by an “exceptional protection system.”

“Would Russia and China accept the overthrow of the Iranian regime and its replacement with a pro-U.S. one?” Jouni asked during an interview with UPI, suggesting “under-the-table” coordination with Russia on Ukraine and with China on Taiwan for possible exchanges.

Moreover, Iran would not stand idle and would strike back at Israel — as it did during the 12-day war last June, causing considerable damage — and would likely target U.S. bases across the region.

Kassem Kassir, a political analyst who specializes in Islamic movements and is close to Hezbollah, said Iran is being targeted, whether through economic pressures and sanctions affecting the internal situation, or militarily.

“Today, Tehran is ready for all possibilities, working to contain popular movements and street protests by addressing economic problems,” Kassir told UPI.

With Hezbollah no longer constituting a threat to Israel, a war against Iran, which would require Trump’s approval and his green light for Israel, might not change much, given the fighting round in June, according to Jouni.

A possible way out could be a deal — modeled on the recently forced arrangement with Venezuela regarding its oil, under which Caracas agreed to export up to $2 billion worth of crude to the United States — through which Trump could secure substantial investments in Iran in exchange for eased tensions or dropping threats of regime change.

Whether all these new U.S. interventions could bring stability remains uncertain and doubtful, especially given the chaos unleashed after the 2003 Iraq invasion, when disbanding the army and rebuilding the state from scratch backfired both in the country and across the region, Hage Ali noted.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Three-phased plan

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Political situation unstable

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

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

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

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

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

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

WASHINGTON — President Trump’s administration on Wednesday sought to assert its control over Venezuelan oil, seizing a pair of sanctioned tankers transporting petroleum and announcing plans to relax some sanctions so the U.S. can oversee the sale of Venezuela’s petroleum worldwide.

Trump’s administration intends to control the distribution of Venezuela’s oil products globally following its ouster of President Nicolás Maduro in a surprise nighttime raid. Besides the United States enforcing an existing oil embargo, the Energy Department says the “only oil transported in and out of Venezuela” will be through approved channels consistent with U.S. law and national security interests.

That level of control over the world’s largest proven reserves of crude oil could give the Trump administration a broader hold on oil supplies globally in ways that could enable it to influence prices. Both moves reflect the Republican administration’s determination to make good on its effort to control the next steps in Venezuela through its vast oil resources after Trump has pledged the U.S. will “run” the country.

Secretary of State Marco Rubio suggested that the oil taken from the sanctioned vessels seized in the North Atlantic and the Caribbean Sea would be sold as part of the deal announced by Trump on Tuesday under which Venezuela would provide up to 50 million barrels of oil to the U.S.

“One of those ships that was seized that had oil in the Caribbean, you know what the interim authorities are asking for in Venezuela?” Rubio told reporters after briefing lawmakers Wednesday about the Maduro operation. “They want that oil that was seized to be part of this deal. They understand that the only way they can move oil and generate revenue and not have economic collapse is if they cooperate and work with the United States.”

Seizing 2 more vessels

U.S. European Command said on social media that the merchant vessel Bella 1 was seized in the North Atlantic for “violations of U.S. sanctions.” The U.S. had been pursuing the tanker since last month after it tried to evade a blockade on sanctioned oil vessels around Venezuela.

Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem revealed U.S. forces also took control of the M Sophia in the Caribbean Sea. Noem said on social media that both ships were “either last docked in Venezuela or en route to it.”

The two ships join at least two others that were taken by U.S. forces last month — the Skipper and the Centuries.

The Bella 1 had been cruising across the Atlantic nearing the Caribbean on Dec. 15 when it abruptly turned and headed north, toward Europe. The change in direction came days after the first U.S. tanker seizure of a ship on Dec. 10 after it had left Venezuela carrying oil.

When the U.S. Coast Guard tried to board the Bella 1, it fled. U.S. European Command said a Coast Guard vessel had tracked the ship “pursuant to a warrant issued by a U.S. federal court.”

As the U.S. pursued it, the Bella 1 was renamed Marinera and flagged to Russia, shipping databases show. A U.S. official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss sensitive military operations, said the ship’s crew had painted a Russian flag on the side of the hull.

The Russian Foreign Ministry said it had information about Russian nationals among the Marinera’s crew and, in a statement carried by Russia’s state news agencies Tass and RIA Novosti, demanded that “the American side ensure humane and dignified treatment of them, strictly respect their rights and interests, and not hinder their speedy return to their homeland.”

Separately, a senior Russian lawmaker, Andrei Klishas, decried the U.S. action as “blatant piracy.”

The Justice Department is investigating crew members of the Bella 1 vessel for failing to obey Coast Guard orders and “criminal charges will be pursued against all culpable actors,” Atty. Gen. Pam Bondi said.

“The Department of Justice is monitoring several other vessels for similar enforcement action — anyone on any vessel who fails to obey instructions of the Coast Guard or other federal officials will be investigated and prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law,” Bondi said on X.

The ship had been sanctioned by the U.S. in 2024 on allegations of smuggling cargo for a company linked to Lebanese militant group Hezbollah, which is backed by Iran.

Easing sanctions so U.S. can sell oil

The Trump administration, meanwhile, is “selectively” removing sanctions to enable the shipping and sale of Venezuelan oil to markets worldwide, according to an outline of the policies published Wednesday by the Energy Department.

The sales are slated to begin immediately with 30 million to 50 million barrels of oil. The U.S. government said the sales “will continue indefinitely,” with the proceeds settling in U.S.-controlled accounts at “globally recognized banks.” The money would be disbursed to the U.S. and Venezuelan populations at the “discretion” of Trump’s government.

Venezuelan state-owned oil company PDVSA said it is in negotiations with the U.S. government for the sale of crude oil.

“This process is developed under schemes similar to those in force with international companies, such as Chevron, and is based on a strictly commercial transaction, with criteria of legality, transparency and benefit for both parties,” the company said in the statement.

The U.S. plans to authorize the importation of oil field equipment, parts and services to increase Venezuela’s oil production, which has been roughly 1 million barrels a day.

The Trump administration has indicated it also will invest in Venezuela’s electricity grid to increase production and the quality of life for people in Venezuela, whose economy has been unraveling amid changes to foreign aid and cuts to state subsidies, making necessities, including food, unaffordable to millions.

Ships said to be part of a shadow fleet

Noem said both seized ships were part of a shadow fleet of rusting oil tankers that smuggle oil for countries facing sanctions, such as Venezuela, Russia and Iran.

After the seizure of the now-named Marinera, which open-source maritime tracking sites showed was between Scotland and Iceland earlier Wednesday, the U.K. defense ministry said Britain’s military provided support, including surveillance aircraft.

“This ship, with a nefarious history, is part of a Russian-Iranian axis of sanctions evasion which is fueling terrorism, conflict, and misery from the Middle East to Ukraine,” U.K. Defense Secretary John Healey said.

The capture of the M Sophia, on the U.S. sanctions list for moving illicit cargos of oil from Russia, in the Caribbean was much less prolonged.

The ship had been “running dark,” not having transmitted location data since July. Tankers involved in smuggling often turn off their transponders or broadcast inaccurate data to hide their locations.

Samir Madani, co-founder of TankerTrackers.com, said his organization used satellite imagery and surface-level photos to document that at least 16 tankers had left the Venezuelan coast since Saturday, after the U.S. captured Maduro.

The M Sophia was among them, Madani said, citing a recent photo showing it in the waters near Jose Terminal, Venezuela’s main oil export hub.

Windward, a maritime intelligence firm that tracks such vessels, said in a briefing to reporters the M Sophia loaded at the terminal on Dec. 26 and was carrying about 1.8 million barrels of crude oil — a cargo that would be worth about $108 million at current price of about $60 a barrel.

The press office for Venezuela’s government did not immediately respond to an Associated Press request for comment on the seizures.

Toropin, Boak, Lawless and Biesecker write for the Associated Press. Lawless reported from London.

Russian officials indicated in 2019 that the Kremlin would be willing to back off from its support for Nicolás Maduro in Venezuela in exchange for a free hand in Ukraine, according to Fiona Hill, an advisor to President Trump at the time.

The Russians repeatedly floated the idea of a “very strange swap arrangement between Venezuela and Ukraine,” Hill said during a congressional hearing in 2019. Her comments surfaced again this week and were shared on social media after the U.S. stealth operation to capture Maduro.

Hill said Russia pushed the idea through articles in Russian media that referenced the Monroe Doctrine — a 19th-century principle in which the U.S. opposed European meddling in the Western Hemisphere and, in return, agreed to stay out of European affairs. It was invoked by Trump to justify the U.S. intervention in Venezuela.

Even though Russian officials never made a formal offer, Moscow’s then-ambassador to the United States, Anatoly Antonov, hinted many times to her that Russia was willing to allow the United States to act as it wished in Venezuela if the U.S. did the same for Russia in Europe, Hill told the Associated Press this week.

“Before there was a ‘hint hint, nudge nudge, wink wink, how about doing a deal?’ But nobody [in the U.S.] was interested then,” Hill said.

Trump dispatched Hill — then his senior advisor on Russia and Europe — to Moscow in April 2019 to deliver that message. She said she told Russian officials “Ukraine and Venezuela are not related to each other.”

At that time, she said, the White House was aligned with allies in recognizing Venezuelan opposition leader Juan Guaido as the country’s interim president.

But fast forward seven years and the situation is different.

After ousting Maduro, the U.S. has said it will now “run” Venezuela policy. Trump also has renewed his threat to take over Greenland — a self-governing territory of Denmark and part of the NATO military alliance — and threatened to take military action against Colombia for facilitating the global sale of cocaine.

The Kremlin will be “thrilled” with the idea that large countries — such as Russia, the United States and China — get spheres of influence because it proves “might makes right,” Hill said.

Trump’s actions in Venezuela make it harder for Kyiv’s allies to condemn Russia’s designs on Ukraine as “illegitimate” because “we’ve just had a situation where the U.S. has taken over — or at least decapitated the government of another country — using fiction,” Hill told AP.

The Trump administration has described its raid in Venezuela as a law enforcement operation and has insisted that capturing Maduro was legal.

The Russian Foreign Ministry did not immediately respond to a request for comment on Hill’s account.

Russian President Vladimir Putin has not commented on the military operation to oust Maduro but the Foreign Ministry issued statements condemning U.S. “aggression.”

Burrows writes for the Associated Press.