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

Illustration of US Capitol

Illustration of US Capitol

Illustration provided

Are States and Localities Required to Cooperate with ICE?

Polls show a majority of Americans disapprove of how Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) is doing its job, with outrage stoked by a surge in immigration arrests across the country and multiple killings by federal immigration officials. In many places, residents are against their state and local officials cooperating with immigration authorities. And many local law enforcement leaders argue that cooperating with federal immigration enforcement operations undermines public safety by taking resources away from local priorities and eroding communities’ trust in law enforcement.

Trump administration officials have repeatedly argued that states and localities are legally obligated to cooperate with federal immigration enforcement efforts. They have also warned that state and local laws limiting cooperation with ICE will be met with harsh crackdowns.

Keep Reading Show less
people in a boardroom


Happy female entrepreneur with colleagues sitting at a desk in an office

Getty images

Understanding The Dissolution of Federal DEI Offices and Initiatives: Debate and Implications

This nonpartisan policy brief, written by an ACE fellow, is republished by The Fulcrum as part of our partnership with the Alliance for Civic Engagement and our NextGen initiative — elevating student voices, strengthening civic education, and helping readers better understand democracy and public policy.

Background

Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) is a buzzword often used in political spaces, and its implementations, or lack thereof, have repercussions on many groups. Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion efforts are organizational policies and initiatives that aim to equitably distribute opportunities and to create accepting workplaces for marginalized populations. These policies create hiring and recruitment guidelines to hire, retain, and promote individuals from those backgrounds. Supporters of these policies argue they are necessary in driving meaningful social progress, while critics argue they subordinate the role of merit in awarding opportunities.

Keep Reading Show less
People waving US flags

Modern politics rewards viral outrage over thoughtful debate. Explore how introducing mindfulness, gratitude, and cross-party reflection can lower the temperature in Washington and rebuild governance.

LeoPatrizi/Getty Images

Zen and Governing in a Time of Politics as Performance Art

News reports and social media constantly remind us that today’s political system rewards conflict, viral moments, and ideological performance over thoughtful and courteous debate.

Tune into the melee, and it is as if every high-ranking official is now a TV political pundit rather than a serious statesman or stateswoman.

Keep Reading Show less
houses being built

Existing laws in Colorado reduce the administrative and regulatory costs of building new housing.

Congress Just Passed a Housing Law That Rewards States for Reform — Here’s Why Colorado Has a Head Start

In Colorado, a full-time worker must earn US$36.44 an hour to afford a modest two-bedroom apartment without spending more than 30% of their income on rent, according to a recent report from the National Low Income Housing Coalition.

The state’s minimum wage is $15.16. Someone earning that would have to work 96 hours a week, more than two full-time jobs, to cover rent.

Keep Reading Show less