Delcy Rodríguez used a national broadcast to defend Venezuela’s oil pact with Donald Trump, saying it would generate more than $209 billion while leaving the country’s ownership and sovereignty intact.
The agreement reportedly gives Washington control over 65 billion barrels across 17 strategic oilfields, with Rodríguez saying the sites could eventually produce more than 1.5 million barrels a day.
Trump has cast the deal as a historic win that more than doubles US oil reserves and said Venezuelan crude would help refill the Strategic Petroleum Reserve.
Criticism has spread from opposition figures to Chavista insiders: former PDVSA chief Rafael Ramírez called it a neocolonial handover, and leftwing protesters marched in Caracas against a US "land grab."
The backlash also deepens fears that the post-Maduro arrangement will entrench authoritarian rule, with opposition leaders warning the deal lacks legitimacy without free elections and transparent institutions.
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.