Business & Economics
Trump Shields Venezuelan Oil Revenues After Majors Call Country ‘Uninvestable’
On 10 Jan 2026 President Trump signed an executive order ring-fencing Venezuelan oil proceeds in U.S. custody one day after oil-company chiefs demanded legal and financial guarantees to justify fresh investment in the post-Maduro sector.
Focusing Facts
- Executive order dated 10 Jan 2026, issued under the National Emergencies Act and IEEPA, blocks seizure of Venezuelan oil funds held by the United States.
- At a 9 Jan 2026 White House meeting, ExxonMobil CEO Darren Woods told Trump that Venezuela’s current legal framework is “uninvestable,” despite the administration’s push for at least US$100 billion in private capital.
- Financial Times (8 Jan 2026) reported U.S. officials pledged up to 50 million barrels of Venezuelan crude for U.S. supply, but Chevron, ConocoPhillips and Exxon insisted on “serious guarantees” before committing.
Context
Washington’s attempt to escrow a foreign nation’s oil revenue echoes the 2003 U.S.–run Development Fund for Iraq and, further back, the 1953 Anglo-American orchestration of Iran’s oil nationalization reversal. In each case a security-cum-economic intervention was cloaked in language of “protecting” assets for the target population while smoothing the path for Western capital. Today’s order fits a century-long tug-of-war between resource nationalism and external corporate control: Chávez’s 2006 contract rewrites forced majors out; Trump now dangles re-entry if they accept U.S., not Venezuelan, oversight. Whether this matters in 2126 may hinge less on the barrels in the Orinoco than on the precedent of a hegemon asserting custodial rights over another state’s commodities—an approach that may accelerate the existing trend toward de-dollarization and diversified energy supply as global demand gradually pivots away from oil.
Perspectives
International mainstream and business press
e.g., Reuters, AP, Los Angeles Times — Report that Trump’s executive order aims to safeguard Venezuelan oil revenue but U.S. majors deem the country 'uninvestable' unless Washington offers strong legal and financial guarantees. Focuses on corporate risk-return calculations and official statements, largely sidestepping ethical concerns about the U.S. capture of Venezuela and implicitly normalising the post-invasion status quo to preserve access and neutrality.
Pro-Trump conservative/populist media
e.g., RadarOnline — Presents Trump’s meeting with oil chiefs as a bold move that will make both Venezuela and the United States ‘very successful,’ stressing presidential assurances of ‘total safety, total security’ for corporate investors. Frames the policy as a triumphant win while glossing over legal, humanitarian, and market criticisms, catering to an audience inclined to celebrate Trump’s leadership.
Libertarian / anti-intervention commentators
e.g., Ron Paul Institute — Argue that seizing Venezuelan oil is delusional because the country’s tiny output cannot influence world prices, portraying Trump’s plan as economically ignorant and strategically pointless. Driven by a long-standing ideological opposition to foreign intervention, the commentary may discount any geopolitical or humanitarian rationale that conflicts with non-interventionist principles.