Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

Americans should be concerned about the fine print on Trump’s new oil deal

Opinion

A man walks with a ship behind him

man walks near the Punta Cardon refinery, on Jan. 23, 2026. Venezuela has the largest oil reserves in the world with an estimated 303 billion barrels.

(Jesus Vargas/dpa via ZUMA Press/TNS)

So, it was a war for oil after all.

On social media Friday, President Trump announced that the United States and Venezuela have struck an agreement for “THE BIGGEST OIL DEAL IN WORLD HISTORY.”


The whole thing is appalling, starting with the all-caps.

I have no love for the Venezuelan regime, run by, in Trump’s words, “the Highly Respected Interim President” Delcy Rodriguez. But this is a “deal” that Rodriguez couldn’t refuse. We invaded her country, abducted her criminal-dictator boss, Nicolás Maduro, and made her our satrap.

According to the Wall Street Journal, Venezuela and the U.S. will work through two intermediaries to get the oil flowing. The Venezuelan partner is Alejandro Betancourt, head of North American Blue Energy Partners. He’s been investigated, though not charged, for money laundering in Spain and Switzerland. He’s also one of the most famous “Bolichicos,” a nickname for the young businessmen who’ve gotten rich from their ties to the socialist, murderous, criminal dictatorship (it’s a portmanteau of “Bolivarian” and “Bourgeois”).

And who is the American partner? Well, the Pentagon, of course. Trump couldn’t get American oil companies to invest billions in Venezuela’s decrepit oil industry. (At a White House meeting in January, Darren Woods, the chief executive of Exxon Mobil infuriated the president by describing Venezuela as “un-investable.”) So, the commander in chief tapped the Pentagon’s Office of Strategic Capital to take a 35% stake in Betancourt’s firm, securing the right to buy 20% of all production “at cost.” Created in 2022, the OSC was intended to use loans and loan guarantees to help develop vital industries. Now, it’s the primary backer of the “history’s biggest oil deal.”

We’ll see how legal this is. You can be sure someone will be going to court over it. After all, the U.S. government will be working with a criminal regime, under implausible statutory authority, to buy oil at below-market rates while undermining our own oil producers.

I won’t shed many tears for the oil companies, even if the administration pulls this off. Then again, I don’t think they will, at least not any time soon. Trump boasts that this will help lower gas prices. Maybe. Someday. But even this scheme’s biggest boosters acknowledge that if it all goes swell, it will still take years to get the relevant oil fields producing, and years to retrofit American refineries to take Venezuela’s subpar oil. So, if Trump thinks prices at the pump are coming down before the midterms, or even during his presidency, he should think again.

But my primary objections to this imperial smash-and-grab are constitutional and moral. The constitutional problem is pretty straightforward. Trump lied to Congress and to the public about this scheme from the get-go. He claimed Operation Absolute Resolve was a mission by law enforcement to capture Nicolás Maduro. The same indictment for Maduro and his wife included members of the regime. We left them in place, because law enforcement was a pretext.

Roughly 11 hours after apprehending Maduro, Trump boasted that the U.S. was going to “run the country” by working with the criminal regime. Did Congress authorize that? Congress definitely didn’t authorize the Pentagon to get into the oil business.

Trump has a long, long history of claiming that America should “take the oil” from countries we go to war with. And months before this deal, he bragged that oil revenue from Venezuela has “paid for the attack many times over…. I always used to say, ‘To the victor belong the spoils.’ ”

Ironically, this phrase comes from a defense of the corrupt spoils system in U.S. politics, not some time-(dis)honored rule of war.

The Constitution does not empower the president to unilaterally launch wars, even brief ones, for the purpose of seizing or extorting a nation’s wealth. It’s worth noting that although the fighting in Venezuela was brief, the Iran war is dragging on. And that was his plan for Iran too.

“If I had my choice, what would I like to do? Take the oil. Because it’s there for the taking,” Trump told reporters in April. He also posted on social media: “With a little more time, we can easily OPEN THE HORMUZ STRAIT, TAKE THE OIL, & MAKE A FORTUNE.”

Then there’s the whole democracy thing. The administration vowed to restore Venezuelan democracy, eventually. We were supposed to be liberators bringing Venezuela freedom, according to the White House. Now, we’ve signed a “century-long” agreement with a corrupt, unelected, murderous regime. Do you think Trump is going to be in any kind of hurry to bring democracy to Venezuela now?

Jonah Goldberg is editor-in-chief of The Dispatch and the host of The Remnant podcast. His Twitter handle is @JonahDispatch.


Read More

The sky clears behind the U.S. Capitol after rainy weather

The sky clears behind the U.S. Capitol after rainy weather on Sept. 2, 2026, in Washington, D.C.

Finn Gomez / Getty Images

We Didn't Get This Angry Because Americans Changed: We Got This Angry Because Washington Did

Something unusual has happened on the opinion pages of The New York Times recently.

Three very different writers have described three seemingly different American problems.

Keep ReadingShow less
Gavel on top of binders

A full rundown of this week's congressional action: 7 bills headed to the President, a stalled data center bill, and the votes lawmakers wanted on record.

May Lim / 500px/Getty Images

House Crams in Votes Before Extended Break

The House wasn’t expected to stay in session past this week and, in fact, they left a day early after Rep. Massie (R-KY4) introduced an impeachment resolution against Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth. Nonetheless, they powered through many more votes than usual. We’ll cover the seven soon-to-be new laws and the bills of interest we highlighted in this week’s preview. As is its usual function, the Senate mostly acted as a break on legislation that had passed the House.

New Laws

These bills have all passed both chambers in identical form, so they next go to the President for signing.

Keep ReadingShow less
Capitol building, Washington, D.C.
The United States Capitol building with its white dome against a blue sky

Republicans Are Walking Away From Congress’s Core Duties

The story of this political moment keeps getting written like President Donald Trump is the main character — his impulses, his conflicts, his latest post on Truth Social.

But the more important story is happening one branch over, where a Republican-controlled Congress has spent the last several weeks demonstrating, in real time, what it looks like when a legislature declines to legislate.

Keep ReadingShow less
Cardboard ballot box with a voter slip being placed into it by a hand, with a blue and red coloured background.

Cardboard ballot box with a voter slip being placed into it by a hand, with a blue and red coloured background.

Getty Images

The Leverage Ethic and the Spirit of Tripartisanship

I made the immodest proposal in my edited interdisciplinary volume Leveraging: A Political, Economic, and Societal Framework that the contemporary analogue to what Max Weber called the "Protestant Work Ethic" in The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism was what I called "the Leverage Ethic."

Moreover, I suggested that the Leverage Ethic has more or less replaced what the late Harvard sociologist Daniel Bell called the "Consumer Ethic" in his classic book The Cultural Contradictions of Capitalism, which he argued more or less replaced the Protestant Work Ethic.

Keep ReadingShow less