17 Venezuelan oil fields holding 65 billion barrels—about one-fifth of national reserves—were handed to a US-linked joint venture, a move many Venezuelans describe as a surrender of a national patrimony.
The government says the 100-year deal could unlock billions for an oil sector gutted by mismanagement and sanctions, though experts say decrepit infrastructure means any meaningful production increase will take years.
In Caracas, skepticism has been sharpened by Trump’s January capture of Nicolás Maduro and February legal changes opening the industry to private capital, which critics say paved the way for deeper US control.
Oil’s political weight runs deep in Venezuela: PDVSA was built on the idea that crude wealth belonged to the nation, even as boom-and-bust cycles, corruption and collapsing output helped drive today’s economic crisis.
Chris Wright cast Trump’s policy as bringing “peace, freedom, opportunity and prosperity,” while some workers in oil towns say foreign control may be acceptable if it finally restores jobs and production.
With billions in revenue flowing through opaque channels, who truly controls the financial windfall of this historic US-Venezuela energy pact?
Could Venezuela's massive new oil agreement with the United States trigger its exit from OPEC and permanently reshape global energy markets?
How will the US extract billions of barrels of oil from a nation whose infrastructure has been decaying for decades?
America’s 2026 Venezuela Oil Takeover: How the U.S. Seized 65 Billion Barrels and Redrew the Global Energy Map
Overview
In January 2026, the U.S. launched a surprise military raid in Venezuela, capturing President Maduro after months of escalating tensions and drug-smuggling crackdowns. The Trump administration, facing domestic pressure from rising gas prices and planning strikes against Iran, quickly took control of Venezuelan oil, selling it for billions and initially placing proceeds in a controversial offshore account. Despite claims of a historic oil deal and increased exports to the U.S., the financial management of these assets remained highly opaque, sparking bipartisan criticism. The intervention also triggered regional condemnation and set a precedent for resource-driven U.S. policy in Latin America.