Showing posts sorted by date for query BLACK HISTORY MONTH. Sort by relevance Show all posts
Showing posts sorted by date for query BLACK HISTORY MONTH. Sort by relevance Show all posts

Thursday, September 03, 2026

Rural Residents Can Learn From the Factor-Farm Rollout to Resist Data Centers

Unlike the CAFO era, rural communities are asking questions before the statutes are locked in. The ultimate question will be: Do rural residents have the power to say no?



A sign on a rural Michigan road opposes a planned $7 billion data center on southeast Michigan farm land.
(Photo by Jim West/UCG/Universal Images Group via Getty Images)
Jim Goodman
Sep 03, 2026
Barn Raiser

Today’s data center proponents argue such projects bring needed jobs and a boost to local economies. Rural America has heard confident pitches like these before. Nearly 40 years ago, concentrated animal feeding operations, or CAFOs, arrived one barn at a time with bold promises of jobs and a county tax base.

By the time neighbors organized, right-to-farm laws and state preemption had severed the ground from under them. All the while, manure lagoons leached into the groundwater and fouled the air, shortening the life expectancy of the farmworkers and downwind neighbors.

Organizing still won real things, to be sure, from North Carolina’s CAFO moratorium in 1997 to Chris Jones’s clean-water campaign for agriculture secretary in Iowa today. When it comes to CAFOs, the lessons came late, but in the age of artificial intelligence, those same lessons can give rural communities a leg up.

While CAFOs crept into rural America, data centers are arriving as a land rush. This speed is both terrifying and an advantage. Texas alone has some 248 proposed data center projects, even though 56% of Texans tell pollsters they do not want one nearby, which means that, unlike the CAFO era, rural communities are asking questions before the statutes are locked in. And rural people need their voices to be heard. According to Pew Research Center, of the more than 1,500 data centers proposed or under development, 67% are in rural communities.

Everything CAFO country learned, it learned too late, after the wells were ruined, after the smell lowered adjacent property values and health outcomes, after the statutes were written.

The ultimate question will be: Do rural residents have the power to say no?

The answer is playing out across the country. In November 2025, 800 people filled a board meeting to oppose a billion-dollar Meta-linked project in Howell Township, Michigan, and the developer withdrew. In February, the city council of San Marcos, Texas, rejected a $1.5 billion campus after nearly nine hours of public comment, then became the first Texas city to ban data centers through its zoning code. Fort Worth, Texas, is drafting data center zoning rules of its own.

Nationally, the poorest census tracts resist data center projects at five times the rate of the richest. Projects that meet resistance are cancelled at several times the rate of those that do not. One tracker counts tens of billions of dollars in blocked or delayed projects.

Opposition to data center projects is one of the few issues that many Americans agree on. A June Reuters/Ipsos poll found that only 14% of respondents would support a data center being built in their community. On July 18, organizers held 142 protests across 42 states in the first nationwide protest against data centers and artificial intelligence.

Data center hyperscalers are copying the CAFO playbook as best they can. West Virginia has stripped its counties and towns of the power to regulate data centers; similarly, the state’s right-to-farm law prohibits local governments from bringing civil or criminal action against an agricultural operation as long as it meets state and federal laws, permits, and regulations. When Hill County, Texas, passed the state’s first county moratorium in May, a developer sued for $100 million and the county rescinded within a week, because Texas counties can zone against neither a data center nor a feedlot. Hood County pulled its own moratorium after state Sen. Paul Bettencourt (R-7) asked whether counties even hold that power; the same senator calls the San Marcos ban illegal.

Right-wing organizations like the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), behind the pro-CAFO model legislation of right-to-farm laws since the 1990s, likewise appear intent on denying local control in the data center buildout. At its annual meeting in July, ALEC considered a model legislative framework that would undercut local bans and moratoriums and give data centers the “clear authority to secure power… subject only to objective safety and interconnection standards,” as the Center for Media and Democracy reported. The meeting featured speakers from Google and Nvidia, along with a Meta sponsorship.

The outburst of anti-data center sentiment ahead of the midterms has forced political leaders to reckon with the issue of local control. This is where data centers and CAFOs diverge. In June, Texas Republican Gov. Greg Abbott, who once hailed Texas as “the epicenter of AI development,” called for a ban on AI data centers in rural neighborhoods and a cut to their billion-dollar-a-year tax exemption after facing rare bipartisan pressure. Florida Republican Gov. Ron DeSantis signed a law to preserve local control over data centers. Michigan’s candidates for governor are split over the server halls sprouting between Lansing and Detroit. Illinois recently reversed course on its data center policy, reeling in the subsidies it had rolled out in 2019. And in July, New York became the first state in the nation to enact a one-year moratorium.

So, who hasn’t been able to say no? We pulled the locations of CAFOs and data centers in North Carolina and Texas, where the data is easily available, and—yes—got Claude to plot it for us against demographic and county boundaries.






In North Carolina the answer is pretty clear. The state’s 2,482 permitted animal operations cluster in the Black Belt coastal plain where the epidemiologist Steve Wing found hog lagoons a generation ago. Weighted by the number of permits each county holds, those counties are 46% people of color, against 34% across North Carolina’s hundred counties as a whole. Duplin County alone holds over 500 permits and 2.2 million allowable hogs in a county where almost half the population of 49,000 are people of color.

Data centers are the inverse of CAFOs. The state’s data centers sit in counties whiter than the state average, in the Piedmont towns that lost their historic furniture and textile businesses as well as in wealthy Wake and Mecklenburg counties (respectively home to large cities Raleigh and Charlotte). Two of the state’s suspended projects are in adjacent Edgecombe County and Pitt County, where residents informed their resistance based on their history fighting CAFOs.

In 1995, residents of predominantly Black Kingsboro, in Edgecombe County, successfully blocked a major meatpacker from building a 300-acre slaughterhouse in their backyard through efforts to rezone land. When a $19 billion, 400-acre data center came knocking three decades later, residents opposed it en masse. The developer Energy Storage Solutions withdrew its proposal in July and by August, Edgecombe County enacted a two-year moratorium.






In Texas the pattern is a little more complex. Rural Texas tends to be whiter than a state average balanced by majority-Hispanic cities. Yet the feedlot Panhandle is majority-Hispanic meatpacking country, with counties like Deaf Smith and Castro where the workforce lives beside the feedyards it staffs. The rural counties now hosting data centers likewise run less white than rural Texas as a whole.

Other outlier cases in the US: The world’s densest data center cluster is outside Washington, DC, in Loudoun County, Virginia, among the wealthiest counties in America, while xAI’s Colossus runs beside Boxtown, a majority-Black neighborhood in Memphis.

The patterning and the possibilities for asking questions about data centers are very different. CAFOs were put next to the disempowered by history. In most of the counties with proposed data centers, there’s no local billionaire hyperscaler whose family has been on the land for generations to champion the project, with the historical ability to make people of color, in particular, suffer the consequences in the ways that CAFOs had.

In contrast, data centers are being aimed by site selectors in a hurry, looking for cheap land and water, cheap power and thin resistance. But they don’t have their local defenders and hands on the levers of power in the ways that CAFOs do.

At this intersection of race and class is the oldest American proxy for who can, and who can’t, say no.

Here are the questions that constituents should ask their local governments about new data center projects:
1. About Water

Does the permit say the cooling loop is closed, with maximum gallons per day, public metering, and penalties? We have yet to find a binding closed-loop commitment in any permit. Who owns the aquifer data, and who pays for the test wells?
2. About Power

Electric cooperatives, unique to rural America, have long been a way for farmers and rural people to claw back some power over their destiny. These cooperatives were established with a “duty to serve” the areas that investor-owned utilities refused to serve because the load factors were low. By pooling their demand, cooperatives could connect their members to a grid and lower their prices.

In the age of artificial intelligence, public utilities—rural electric cooperatives included—face a dilemma. The more a cooperative buys from its wholesale supplier, the greater its load factor and therefore the lower the cooperative’s average cost of power. When a data center project fields new requests for power, it can be life changing. Having a client with a reliable 24-7 demand for electricity means a predictable increase in the co-op’s load factor. All that new volume could, in principle, make every member’s bill cheaper and bring new system upgrades. It’s tempting to shut up and take the deal.

But as with any gift horse, every farmer knows to check the teeth. Data centers often have greater access to capital than their would-be electric cooperative providers, and their rise as buyers means a shift in the balance of bargaining power in the marketplace. Will attitudes toward universal service obligations remain in place? Will consumer protection policies evolve? And which regulator should be responsible for developing and overseeing new industry guardrails?

Who pays for the substation and the lines? Port Washington, Wisconsin found itself on the hook for a $90 million substation it did not need. Is there a curtailment agreement cutting the data center first in a grid emergency, as Texas now requires of loads over 75 megawatts? Are residential rates fenced off in a separate rate class? And for rural electric cooperative members: Does the all-requirements wholesale contract cap the solar and wind members may build, and would a giant new load deepen that dependence? Why do big loads get lower per kilowatt prices as they increase their usage while conservation earns nothing? Will data centers inherit the same pricing structure?
3. About Money

What does each abatement cost per permanent job, when a hyperscale facility employs a few dozen people? Will advance payments be required to pay for infrastructure upgrades? Will they accept provisions for interruptible power during times of peak demand to prevent rolling blackouts? Are there clawbacks? Is there a decommissioning bond for the day the hardware is scrap, as we now demand of wind farms?
4. About Democracy

Did any utility or government official sign a Non-Disclosure Agreement (NDA)? Can our county or township legally say no, and if not, which law took the power and who voted for it?

Everything CAFO country learned, it learned too late, after the wells were ruined, after the smell lowered adjacent property values and health outcomes, after the statutes were written. Data centers are arriving early enough that the questions can still be asked in time, even as the hyperscalers find friends in Washington DC, and in statehouses around the country, who’ll say yes to them so that local communities won’t be able to say no.

If we want to stop Amazon, Meta, and OpenAI riding roughshod over our communities and land, it will be because average people, urban and rural alike, will have joined forces to stop the trillionaire class from building their wealth off our backs.


Copyright 2024 by Barn Raising Media


Raj Patel
Raj Patel is a research professor at the Lyndon B. Johnson School of Public Affairs, and a member of the International Panel of Experts on Sustainable Food Systems. He is the author of Stuffed and Starved: The Hidden Battle for the World Food System and The Value of Nothing, and co-author of Inflamed: Deep Medicine and the Anatomy of Injustice and A History of the World in Seven Cheap Things, and co-director of the documentary The Ants and The Grasshopper. He writes at newsletter.rajpatel.org

Full Bio >
Jim Goodman
Jim Goodman is a retired third-generation dairy farmer from Wonewoc, Wisconsin and a member of Family Farm Defenders.
Full Bio >


Trump enrages MAGA voters after 'backwards and poor' threat backfires


A supporter of Donald Trump rallies outside an early polling precinct as voters cast their ballots in local, state, and national elections, in Clearwater, Florida, U.S., November 3, 2024. REUTERS/Octavio Jones

August 31, 2026 
ALTERNET

While President Donald Trump's second term has for the most part been marked by unprecedented partisan polarization, conservatives and liberals tend to unite around one issueopposition to data centers.

A series of posts on X, highlighted by HQ News Now, shares Trump supporters' reactions to the president's recent statement about data centers. In that Truth Social post, Trump declared that "the only reason that communities throughout the U.S.A. should not want Data Centers is if they want to end up being backwards and poor. If they want to be successful and rich, with far lower taxes and jobs all over the place, let Data Reign,. The good news is that there are plenty of other places that want them. If we kill the Golden Goose, you will only have yourselves to blame. China could not be happier with this anti Data Center movement. Actually, they can’t believe it is happening!”

In the HQ News Now post, the account highlighted one three-time Trump voter who wrote they "absolutely disagree" with the president. "I don't know who is telling you this garbage but please visit some communities that have been ravaged by data centers," the poster wrote. "There have no water pressure their electric bills are out of control, the incessant humming is intolerable and the ground water is poisoned. No on data centers!"


Similarly an account dubbed "Lefty Lies" write, "the only thing these data centers are gonna do is drive up our energy rates just like they have done throughout the country. We don't need this bulls——." In a similar vein, on user who wrote they "love" Trump noted, "if you are concerned about the windmills destroying birds [and] the constant humming, then you need to go visit a neighborhood with a data center right beside it. In Florida, especially, where our aquifer is so fragile [and] water is so expensive, data centers are a real threat. And, I'm MAGA!"

The MAGA account "VaccinesCauseSIDS" wrote "[I]'d rather have clean water and less surveillance," while another user declared, "I regret ever supporting you." An account from "Misty Collier" offered a lengthier reply, writing that "no one agrees with this sir. Data centers are a gateway for the market of the beast and total control. We love you. I am a MAGA Republican that has always supported you and hates communism. I understand they have convinced you this is right. That is a lie. We the people want to be free and have freedom and trust God and the constitution. We do not want control and surveillance. Those things promote communism. The people are to awake to be convinced otherwise."

Far right influencer Alex Jones wrote that Trump's vice president, JD Vance, went into "damage control" for Trump over data canters after Vance told reporters, "I don't think data centers are that controversial."

The Quartering ("@TheQuartering"), who is also conservative, wrote that "data centers are a reality, they are not going away. But ... they are as unpopular as illegal immigration in small towns like here in my state in Port Washington, we fought tooth and nail against it, and I'm pretty sure I don't know anyone who 'wants to be poor.'"

By contrast, former CNBC financial commentator Jim Cramer was sympathetic to Trump's position, writing on his account, "While the president seems to be inclined to slow things down, the border states would welcome them ... It will happen. They get the win. They have the cards." Newsman's Nick Sorter argued that "X just revealed they discovered a network of 200,000 Chinese influence bot accounts. Many of them posing as Americans to shape AI, energy and data center policies. President Trump warned about this just last month: 'Other nations are trying to get us to slow down and they are spending a lot of money on propaganda, on press PR, trying to convince everybody that this isn't a positive thing[.]' Looks like he was right."

Venezuela Under Siege: What Should Progressives Do?

Our first responsibility is not to prescribe Venezuela’s political course, but to challenge the coercive power our own government exercises over it.


(L-R) National Assembly president Jorge Rodríguez, Venezuela’s interim president Delcy Rodríguez, and Minister of Interior Diosdado Cabello (R) arrive to the delivery of the first year’s government report at Palacio Federal Legislativo on January 15, 2026 in Caracas, Venezuela.
(Photo by Jesus Vargas/Getty Images)


Roger D. Harris
Sep 02, 2026
Common Dreams

Ever since Hugo Chávez became Venezuela’s president in 1999 and initiated the Bolivarian Revolution, the country has been under siege by the US. The aggression escalated with the kidnapping of its lawful president, part of a larger and accelerating assertion of US imperial power worldwide. The Bolivarian Revolution survived but is in a forced tactical retreat.

For progressives outside Venezuela, this presents a difficult question. How should we respond when a government resisting US domination makes compromises that we may oppose, but does so under conditions largely imposed by Washington?

This article argues that criticism has its place. But it also needs to be contextualized in the larger struggle over Venezuela’s sovereignty and the consequences of weakening a government confronting overwhelming US power.
Chávez: Founding of the Bolivarian Revolution

Tension between solidarity with an actually existing revolutionary process and criticism of its compromises has recurred throughout the Bolivarian Revolution. Among the first on the left to part company with the Chavista government were anarchists, who proclaimed that they were second to none in supporting revolutions against imperialism—until those projects succeeded in achieving state power.

We can all agree that the Rodríguez government faces demands backed by overwhelming US power and unite to oppose the continuing imperialist siege. Those of us living in the imperial core must aim the main blow at the conditions that have necessitated such retreats.

This tendency still affirmed their abstract solidarity with “the people” but not with their chosen representatives. They felt betrayed because the Bolivarian leadership failed to fulfill their expectations to build a workers’ state on a suitably expeditious timetable.

Riding a global commodities boom, the Bolivarian Revolution funded major social welfare programs, prioritizing poor and working people. To finance these measures, over half of Venezuela’s oil exports and 60% of its overall exports were sold to the US. Dependency on oil sales deepened, with oil accounting for over 95% of the country’s foreign earnings.

Chávez proclaimed the goal of a socialist future, although he pardoned the unsuccessful 2002 coup plotters in an effort—perhaps mistaken—to encourage a cooperative domestic business class. He pragmatically sought opportunities to negotiate with them.
Maduro: Intensification of the Imperialist Siege

When Chávez died in March 2013, his chosen successor Nicolás Maduro won the snap presidential election. Maduro carried the Bolivarian project forward but under geopolitical conditions markedly different from his predecessor. Venezuela scholar Steve Ellner argues that there were no substantive political differences between the two leaders.

During Chávez’s illness, economic problems had accumulated (e.g., a dysfunctional currency exchange system). Maduro was under intense pressure from the moment he entered office.

Immediately, the US-backed and funded opposition started the guarimbas, demonstrations intended to accomplish by violence what they had failed to achieve at the ballot box. Washington, meanwhile, stepped up its hybrid war. Soon oil prices crashed and the US, under President Barack Obama, initiated ever more punishing sanctions in 2015.

Under these coercive measures, the Venezuelan economy by 2019 was in free fall with inflation over 100,000%. Never had an economy contracted so much in modern peacetime.

At this time of maximum weakness, a faction of the Venezuelan Communist Party developed a strategic disagreement with the governing coalition. It argued that the revolution should confront its class enemies more aggressively and expropriate major corporations, rather than seek a temporary rapprochement.

The nearly overwhelming task of righting the economy was ultimately achieved under Maduro’s leadership. After precipitous economic contraction, Venezuela has experienced positive economic growth since 2021. Never had a petro-economy achieved such a turnaround, which included near food sovereignty. To do so, the government relied foremost on the strong Chavista base. It also had to appeal to nationalistic elements among the bourgeoisie and offer them economic incentives to secure their cooperation.

Venezuela was not unique in making such accommodations. During this period, Cuba and Nicaragua—the two other Latin American countries striving for socialism—also introduced market-oriented reforms. With all three countries, the measures were pragmatic adjustments to a world economy dominated by the US and hostile to socialism.
Kidnapping of Maduro

The events leading up to Maduro’s abduction on January 3 involved an ever-intensifying regime-change campaign by the US in concert with its allies: asphyxiating sanctions, stolen assets, diplomatic isolation, cyberattacks, assassination attempts, mercenary invasions, among other measures. The last two months saw a total naval blockade on Venezuelan oil shipments, cutting the country’s economic lifeline.

Regardless, Maduro repeatedly maintained his longstanding willingness to negotiate with Washington. Just two days before his abduction, Maduro outlined a program of accommodation in his annual New Year’s interview with Ignacio Ramonet. This is the program that his successor Delcy Rodríguez has followed, including the amnesty and hydrocarbons laws.

The Bolivarian Revolution persevered. Its accommodations may be understood as tactical responses to unfavorable conditions rather than as a full abandonment of the project.

The fact that Maduro did not waver and the Bolivarian Revolution did not break presented a dilemma for Washington. The US—especially as its aggression against oil-rich Iran was heating up—needed access to Venezuelan oil. Neither country benefited by keeping the oil in the ground.

Yet the US had painted itself into a corner. The Trump administration had demonized Maduro as a narco-trafficker. Even though Maduro was more than willing to negotiate, the US had precluded that option. The kidnapping followed.
Rodríguez: Negotiated Sovereignty

The US invasion of Venezuela on January 3 demonstrated to both the leadership and the Venezuelan grassroots that they were alone—no country came to their defense. Whatever guardrails had existed before on the hegemon were down.

Yet the Bolivarian Revolution did not collapse. The highly polarized nation did not fall into civil unrest between Chavistas and opposition—if anything, it unified. The far-right María Corina Machado did not make her triumphal return to Caracas. Instead, that part of the opposition found itself discredited and in disarray.

In a seamless constitutional transition, Maduro’s vice president was sworn in as president. The Chavista movement united behind Acting President Delcy Rodríguez. Venezuela’s national recovery continues under a negotiated sovereignty where the US now bargains—with the ever-present threat of an even more lethal military action—over matters that should be the sole purview of Venezuelans.

Finding a way forward

The Bolivarian Revolution persevered. Its accommodations may be understood as tactical responses to unfavorable conditions rather than as a full abandonment of the project.

For international solidarity activists, the central question is how to forge a stance that advances the anti-imperialist struggle under these conditions. Those of us who support national sovereignty and self-determination should understand that what Venezuela is suffering relates to our failure to constrain our own imperialists.

Aiming the punch at the target. We can all agree that the Rodríguez government faces demands backed by overwhelming US power and unite to oppose the continuing imperialist siege. Those of us living in the imperial core must aim the main blow at the conditions that have necessitated such retreats.

We can all unite on actions to demand freeing President Maduro and “First Combatant” Cilia Flores from jail in New York City, ending sanctions, and returning stolen assets.

Differences among progressives. A useful distinction can be made between disagreements within the “left camp” and the fundamental conflict with imperialism. This does not mean suppressing differences or assuming that they are unimportant. Rather, it suggests approaching tensions among forces resisting imperialism in ways that seek common ground and avoid turning secondary differences into antagonistic ones.

Contextualizing criticism. Under pressure from Washington, the Rodríguez government deported former Venezuelan diplomat and minister Alex Saab and has established consular relations with Israel. These are among the bitter pills to swallow. Criticism of such actions may be entirely warranted, but should be assessed in light of the extraordinary constraints under which the Rodríguez government is operating.

A related example is Cuba, which is forced to tolerate a US military base and torture center in Guantánamo, has had the indignity of having the US secretary of war and the commander of the US Southern Command visit, and has introduced pro-capitalist economic reforms. Those reforms should be understood as “strategic adaptation” according to an article in Black Agenda Report. While not welcoming these accommodations to the US siege, international solidarity activists still unite with and defend Cuba.

Considering the alternatives. For example, the US and its allies waged wars of aggression and deposed Iraq’s Saddam Hussein in 2003, Libya’s Muammar Gaddafi in 2011, and Syria’s Bashar al-Assad in 2024. There were left critiques of these leaders but, in all instances, there were no viable left alternatives to them; nor were conditions for their people improved by their removal. There is no “third way” in a war.

This suggests that the relevant question is not whether a preferable government can be imagined, but what forces actually stand to replace the existing government. For Venezuela, if not the Rodríguez government, what is the actual alternative?

After 26 years of siege and domestic polarization, the Venezuelan people yearn for peace, reconciliation, and reconstruction—more so than ever after the devastating twin earthquakes on June 24. For those of us abroad, we can only imagine the difficulties of life under sanctions from the US and its allies.

Regional trends. Developments in Venezuela reflect a broader shift in Latin America under the “Donroe Doctrine,” where Trump’s reactionary wave has flooded the former Pink Tide. Venezuela should therefore be understood in the context of this region-wide sea change.

Not since Maduro’s election in 2024 has a leftist won in the region. We have witnessed a succession of far-rightists replace center-left presidents in Latin America. Last year, Nasry Asfura replaced Xiomara Castro in Honduras, José Antonio Kast replaced Gabriel Boric in Chile, and Rodrigo Paz replaced Luis Arce in Bolivia. This year, Abelardo de la Espriella replaced Gustavo Petro in Colombia. Coming up in October is the Brazilian presidential election pitting Flávio Bolsonaro against incumbent Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, with Trump actively interfering as he did in the other contests.

In all cases, the incumbents faced considerable criticism from the left. Yet whatever their shortcomings, the alternatives have been, or would be, less desirable.
Conclusion

Venezuela is not an isolated case. How progressives weigh criticism against solidarity, assess governments operating under US pressure, and consider the actual alternatives is increasingly relevant throughout the region.

Remarkably, given the intense pressure from the imperialists, the core Chavista leadership, the Socialist Party (PSUV), the civil-military union, the high courts and legislature, and the communes and grassroots organizations have all remained unified. Preserving that unity is particularly important; Bolivia’s experience of left fragmentation offers a cautionary example.

Our tasks are to educate the broader public about what is happening in Venezuela under extreme duress and to take collective action against the imperialist siege.

Between the Rubio State Department and corporate media, on one hand, and rejection of the Rodríguez government by some on the left, on the other, there is a vast intermediate terrain that needs to have a voice.

Whatever disagreements progressives may have with decisions made in Caracas, those decisions belong ultimately to Venezuelans. Our first responsibility is not to prescribe Venezuela’s political course, but to challenge the coercive power our own government exercises over it. The Venezuelans have not told us how to make our revolution; we should do the same for them.

Our tasks are to educate the broader public about what is happening in Venezuela under extreme duress and to take collective action against the imperialist siege. The Bolivarian Revolution has not failed. But the project urgently requires relief.


Our work is licensed under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). Feel free to republish and share widely.


Roger D. Harris
Roger D. Harris is with the Task Force on the Americas and the US Peace Council.
Full Bio >


Trump Accused of Using Iran War Energy Crisis as ‘Cover for a Resource Grab’ in Venezuela

“Oil reserves in Venezuela will do nothing to lower families’ bills today,” said one campaigner.



President Donald Trump watches the US military’s assault on Venezuela unfold on January 3, 2026.
(Photo by Donald Trump’s Truth Social Account/Anadolu via Getty Images)

Jake Johnson
Aug 31, 2026
COMMON DREAMS

President Donald Trump was accused over the weekend of exploiting an energy crisis of his own creation to make the case for what he dubiously characterized as “the biggest oil deal in world history” with Venezuela, a country that the US illegally attacked earlier this year in an operation to abduct its then-president, Nicolás Maduro.

“Trump drove up gas prices by launching a devastating war with Iran. Now he is using the energy crisis he created as cover for a resource grab of Venezuela’s oil,” Allie Rosenbluth, US program manager at Oil Change International, said in a statement on Sunday. “The announcement confirms his aggression against Venezuela was about securing power, profits, and fossil fuels.”

The newly announced agreement—which Trump and Venezuela’s acting president, Delcy Rodríguez, said involved the development of fields with potentially 65 billion barrels of oil—came as gas prices in the US remained above $4 per gallon. According to AAA, this month is “poised to set a new record as the most expensive August at the pump,” as the national average price for a gallon of gas has been above $4 every day of the month for the first time.

Rosenbluth, like other analysts, questioned the impact of Trump’s deal with Venezuela on the US energy crisis, which has become a major political problem for the president and his Republican Party heading into the midterms.

Trump, who has significant fossil fuel company holdings, claimed the deal would “substantially lower gas prices” and help replenish the US Strategic Petroleum Reserve, which is at its lowest level in decades after the president ordered the release of 172 million barrels following Iran’s closure of the Strait of Hormuz in response to US aggression.



Trump announced the deal with Venezuela on Friday, which marked six months since the US and Israel started bombing Iran.

“Oil reserves in Venezuela will do nothing to lower families’ bills today,” said Rosenbluth. “Increasing production of this extremely heavy and dirty crude would take years and billions of dollars. A bet on new Venezuelan oil production that may take a decade or more to materialize is a bet against solving the climate crisis already destroying lives and livelihoods every day. The immediate winners are the oil companies and private investors given access to Venezuela’s resources, while Venezuelans lose sovereignty, and communities in Venezuela and along the US Gulf Coast face more pollution and harm.”

“Trump’s attacks on Iran and Venezuela expose the vicious cycle of fossil fuel dependence: Wars secure access to oil, oil fuels violence and militarization, prices become more volatile, and fossil fuel companies profit while ordinary people pay,” Rosenbluth added. “Real energy security comes from phasing out fossil fuels and investing in affordable, renewable energy.”

Gerald Kepes, president of the consultancy firm Competitive Energy Strategies, noted in an interview with NPR that the US has no “government-owned operational capability per se in the oil and gas sector,” raising the question of “who’s going to operate on the ground?”

Chevron is currently the only US oil company actively producing in Venezuela. NPR reported that “there’s a private Venezuelan company involved in the deal,” but the details remain murky.
Oh Canada: We Will Neither Cower Nor Bend


Meme from the war between Canada and South Canada
Image from Bluesky


Abby Zimet
Aug 31, 2026
COMMON DREAMS
Further


More insane idiocy from the petty huckster clown king whose idea of governance is threatening lawsuits, trade wars, buildings that won’t put his name on them; bungling war and peace; flaunting Nazi loyalty queries and sadistic images of black men in chains; and distracting from it all with the dumbass geographic circlejerk of inventing “LAKe AMeRiCA.” The Internet was born for this: Cue Donald Ducks, the Straits of Our Moose, Lake Dead Pedo Bestie, Lake Superior President Obama, and Lake Stupid Fucking Moron.

Last week, after God killed the wrong 80-year-old in the 784th year of a presidency that feels like “being in middle school when there’s a substitute teacher and a student has a medical emergency,” yet more banal slop issued from a needy racist sociopath so stupid he once seemingly conflated the Very Hard words “transistor” and “transgender” to claim Biden’s CHIPS Act offered billions to domestic tech companies but “if you weren’t transgender, (you) didn’t qualify.” Jesus. No wonder, à propos of nothing, the widely deemed “worst president in U.S. history” took time out from his busy mob boss schedule to declare himself the bestest - take that Honest Abe - after his faithful Human Printer dug up a similar 1948 Life Magazine chart, which is “exactly the kind of thing a healthy, high-functioning person shares.”




‘The Red States, We’re Going to Hit Hard’: Canadian Politicians Vow to Make MAGA Pay for Trump’s Trade War



‘Canada Must Respond’: Ottawa Slaps Retaliatory Tariffs on US Goods After Trump Trade War Escalation

Other things he did, abetted by a confederacy of dunces, stooges, techno-fascists, warmongers, crypto dorks, “unfuckable hate nerds” and “an actual Jewish Nazi“: Having hit the six-month mark of his Iran debacle, he giddily proclaimed, ”Mission Accomplished!“ despite a. the only thing achieved is handing a newly empowered Iran control of the Strait of Hormuz as U.S. gas prices skyrocket and the economy implodes, b. he evidently missed the part where George W’s 2003 banner aboard an aircraft carrier became a queasy punchline, c. he did so amidst reports his and Kegsbreath’s said debacle has pushed the US military into a ”beyond critical“ shortage of money and missile interceptors in the case of an enemy attack, forcing them to shift funds around ”in imaginative ways“ - because everything he touches dies and we probably will too.

A fragile child, he demands fealty to even his ceaseless clusterfucks. Thus the latest inane authoritarian hokum from a Department of Homeland (sic) Security that alas hasn’t lost any of its fascist fervor since the brutal puppy-killing days of ICE Barbie. Its new, dystopian, “genuinely deranged” missive: A glowering image of Dear Dumb Leader with the dark challenge, “Did you remain loyal?”, which chillingly fails to consider just what atrocities they’re demanding allegiance to. The answer came in a post that swiftly followed: Sadistic footage of shackled Haitian immigrants, targeted after losing Temporary Protected Status for no reason but mindless, racist cruelty, being shuffled onto planes in pouring rain to the sneering tune of a Creole song about returning home - complete with fawning close-ups of the chains on their feet. Well done, sick fucks.

Meanwhile, the trail of destruction goes on apace. In D.C., after the East Wing and reflecting pool - we like the meme of him studying it with, “All I see is scum” and a lackey saying, “Well, it is a reflecting pool, sir” - we’ve reached the mobsters’ “offer-they- can’t-refuse“ phase on the besieged Kennedy Center. Having repeatedly lost in court, the regime now threatens to demolish the not-long-ago-flourishing Center unless a tantrum-throwing 10-year-old gets his name ”prominently added“ to its exterior with ”appropriate respect“ of his efforts to ”save“ it from a fictional “death spiral” that’s rendered it ”dilapidated, outdated, decrepit and embarrassing to the Nation’s Capital,“ which is some pot/kettle. If they can’t plaster his ghastly name over it - inscription, plaza et al - they’ll replace it with ”an outdoor amphitheater,“ aka a lawn.

They’re also pushing to sell off part of Yosemite National Park, like everything else, to the highest bidder, though the seller is such an imbecile he still cringingly says “Yo, Semites!“ He’s such a petty dolt he’s also skipping this year’s 9/11 remembrance at Ground Zero because he wasn’t allowed to give a Nazi speech there, opting to give it at the Pentagon before rushing off to the Irish Open at his crappy golf course, ‘cause priorities. Having trashed jobs, health insurance, food aid, the environment and most of our global alliances, he blew up trade talks with Canada, calling its endlessly nice residents ”nasty people,“ and holding a clownish Oval Office event to sign an idiotic executive order renaming Lake Ontario to ”LAKe AMeRiCA,“ which he’s ”been thinking about for a long time“ with what’s left of his tiny brain. (Here he is on trade: The stupid, it burns.)

“All it takes is a good pen and some intelligence,” he said, only batting one for two in a pretend-name-changing event labeled, “Making the Great Lakes Even Greater.” Then - what a feckin’ playacting infant - he drew a line through the doomed lake and intoned, “We have notified various people who needed to be notified...This is official.” He said he’d instructed craven lickspittle and Interior Secretary Doug Burgum to “take all appropriate actions.” Burgum slavishly wrote, “We’re on it, Mr. President!”, thus becoming the only person on Planet Earth to take this puerile claptrap seriously, evidently unaware an executive order is not a law and every ship entering the Great Lakes has to go through Canada’s Welland Canal, including $26 billion in U.S. trade, and it would be a shame if Canada up and supersized their tolls, and thank you for your attention to this matter.

Uncle Bernie and most of America promptly responded they’d rather have affordable health care, thanks, also housing, food, education and cancer research. Nova Scotia’s Conservative premier Tim Houston, “not exactly a firebrand,” opined, “We’re into some real foolishness now. It’s Lake Ontario, buddy.” Canada’s newly combative Prime Minister Mark Carney, out of fucks to give, noted that long before Europeans came the lake was named by Native Americans using the Huron word “Ontari’io,” for, “The lake is beautiful, the lake is big.” “The name is more than 400 years old,” he said. “Canadians know that naming reality means calling it Lake Ontario - then, now and always.” The Canadian Resistance Army, who earlier defended penguins, also chimed in, declaring, “We’re going to trade war/Beavers and moose won’t take it any more.”

Above all, it was agreed, “LAKe AMeRiCA” is what God invented the Internet for. The names spooled out in a gleeful torrent.

Lake Release the Epstein Files. Lake Gulf of Mexico. Lake Are We Doing This Again. Lake Micropenis. Lake Natalie. Lake Huron Thin Ice with Melania. Lake Universal Healthcare. Lake Eerily Overweight Pres Dick J. McRectum. Lake Felon. Lake Not Eerie. Lake Oh Canada. Lake Small Dick Energy. Many chose Lake Obama. Wisconsin Gov. Tony Evers created the politically incorrect Lake Retard: “See, I can sign napkins that say things too.” One decided to “just keep calling it Lake Epstein, like the Founders wanted.” Mapquest, unlike cowering Google, not only declined to change the lake’s name but invited viewers to “spread some geographic joy” and “name it whatever you want.” One result: Lake Who Uses Mapquest Anymore.

Many noted the traditional Great Lakes litany of “H.O.M.E.S” had entirely logically become “S.H.A.M.E.” People renamed their toilet bowl to Lake Trump. The White House to Home of Diaper Butt. Mar-a-Lago to Poopy Pants Palace. The United States of America to the Epstein States of Pedophiles, or just South Canada. President Trump to President Dickhead. California to Amerifornia. Strait of Hormuz to Strait of Our Moose. People mocked his thieving choice of one of the smallest and dirtiest Great Lakes. They noted, “Nobody in Ontario gives a single solitary fuck what Assclown McCrappy-Pants says about anything.” They griped the name change “really screws with the lyrics of Wreck of the Edmund Fitzgerald.”

“What are they trying to distract us from this time?” they asked. Response: “The previous distraction.” Some coddled the needy child-king: “Good for you, li’l fella.” Some railed: “Jesus Christ, can somebody just get him a coloring book already?” Some were still baffled by how low we’ve gone: “Wait, this is real?” Some refused to go there: “Nope.” Some summoned the great Talking Heads: “As things fell apart/Nobody paid much attention.” And some fought back against the incessant bullying. After the Center for American Progress released a report finding billions spent on ICE thugs and National Guard swarms had no real effect on reducing violent crime, Trump threatened a $5 billion lawsuit if they didn’t retract it. The center stood firm against “a transparent attempt to silence us.” “We will neither cower nor bend in the face of it,” they said. And, still and all, we will snark away.

Update: Talk about “Do not obey in advance”: After defying the petty madness, usage of Mapquest has surged to about 50 times its usual rate, leapfrogging past Google and Apple Maps to become the most-downloaded mapping app, and the fourth most popular of all apps excluding games in the US. Along with their “spread some geographic joy” invite, they posted a mocking, all-caps retort: “OUR MAPS ARE BIG AND BEAUTIFUL. PEOPLE COME UP TO US AND SAY WE’LL GET THEM PLACES. AND WE DO!!” Lol.


Canada vs. the Epstein States of America  Image from Bluesky

Tuesday, September 01, 2026

 

Pentagon takes stake in Venezuelan oil venture as details of Trump's deal emerge

Pentagon takes stake in Venezuelan oil venture as details of Trump's deal emerge
"Our deal with Venezuela is the biggest oil deal, by far, in World history!", Trump wrote on Truth Social. / WHFacebook
By bnl editorial staff September 1, 2026

The White House has set out the architecture of the sweeping US-Venezuela oil agreement President Donald Trump unveiled last week. In a fact sheet released on August 31, it confirmed that the Pentagon's investment arm would take a stake in the private Venezuelan operator chosen to run it, headed by a controversial businessman who has twice been arrested in the UK over money-laundering and embezzlement allegations he denies.

The operator, North American Blue Energy Partners (NABEP), is led by Alejandro Betancourt López, a 46-year-old Venezuelan tycoon with two decades of ties to the country's governing elite. His company was named publicly for the first time as Washington's chosen partner in a venture that grants it 100-year concessions over 17 oil fields holding an estimated 65bn barrels of crude, equivalent to roughly a fifth of Venezuela's proven reserves.

Under the terms disclosed by the White House, the Office of Strategic Capital – an investment arm of the Pentagon, now formally the Department of War – would hold a 35% stake in NABEP's parent company "at no cost to the American taxpayer." The State Department separately secured the right to buy a fifth of the venture's output at production cost, plus first refusal over the remaining 80%, terms designed to guarantee Washington a supply of discounted Venezuelan crude for its depleted Strategic Petroleum Reserve and for military use.

The disclosure, just days after Trump first touted the pact on social media as "the biggest oil deal in world history," fills in gaps that had fuelled confusion and speculation since August 28, when neither government named the Venezuelan counterparty or clarified how the arrangement would work. Yet it does not resolve every question: officials in Washington and Caracas did not release the underlying contract, decree or licence, and several figures in the public statements sit awkwardly alongside one another.

A controversial partner

Betancourt's rehabilitation has been rapid. British police detained him twice last year, in September 2025 on a Spanish warrant alleging money laundering and tax fraud, and again two months later after Swiss prosecutors sought his arrest as part of a probe into alleged embezzlement from the state oil company PDVSA. For much of this year he was effectively unable to leave London, where he has long been based, while contesting possible extradition to Switzerland. He has not been formally charged in any of the three jurisdictions, and Sara Chouraqui, NABEP's general counsel, said in a statement quoted by the NYT that "Mr Betancourt has never been charged with a crime in any jurisdiction."

It was Secretary of State Marco Rubio personally who wanted him freed up to work on the Venezuela talks, the New York Times reported, citing a person familiar with the effort; State Department officials subsequently lobbied their Swiss and British counterparts to relax the curbs on his movement.

Betancourt built his early fortune under the Chávez government through Derwick Associates, an electricity contractor he founded in the early 2010s that, according to El País, won at least 11 state contracts worth some $5bn to build thermoelectric plants "without having the slightest experience" and "without any competitive bidding." He later built NABEP into Venezuela's second-largest private oil producer, currently pumping more than 200,000 barrels a day, a figure the company says it aims to lift above 1mn b/d with the fresh investment. Thomas Posado, a Venezuela specialist at the University of Rouen, told France 24 that Betancourt embodies the archetype Venezuelans call a "bolichico," part of a business class "whose immense fortunes depend entirely on the goodwill and favours of the government, whether during the era of Hugo Chavez or Nicolas Maduro." Tom Long of the University of Warwick said Betancourt appears to enjoy the trust of Interim President Delcy Rodríguez, a position "really dependent on relationships with the state" rather than on any formal role. Betancourt himself said in a statement that the deal would unleash Venezuela's potential "to the great benefit of both Venezuelans and Americans."

Contradictions in the fine print

The Pentagon's exact role has proven hard to pin down. The New York Times reported that the 35% stake would in fact take the form of "penny warrants," a right to buy shares at a token price, sometimes just a single cent, rather than a straightforward shareholding, and one the Pentagon office is not obliged to exercise. That detail sits uneasily with a statement the Pentagon's chief spokesman, Sean Parnell, gave on August 29 insisting the office's "role is strictly limited to providing capital assistance in the form of a loan, loan guarantee, or technical assistance" and that it "cannot take any ownership stake in private companies.”

The numbers also evolved. The Associated Press had initially reported, citing an unnamed US official close to the original announcement, that Washington's effective share of the venture's output would be 55%; this week's more granular breakdown, a 35 % equity stake plus a guaranteed right to buy a further 20% of output at cost, adds up to the same figure, suggesting the two accounts describe the same arrangement rather than a change of terms. Less easily reconciled is the mismatch between the 100-year concessions granted to NABEP over the individual fields and Rodríguez's own account, given in a televised address on August 30, that the wider agreement would run for 25 years, during which Venezuela would collect a minimum royalty of 16% and income tax of 34%. Neither government has explained how the two timeframes relate to one another.

Analysts at UBS's chief investment office noted that a venture requiring billions of dollars in US government backing may need congressional sign-off, and that opinion polls point to Democratic gains in the legislature at midterm elections in November, leaving no guarantee lawmakers would support the deal. The bank's team, led by chief investment officer for emerging markets Alejo Czerwonko, wrote in a note that the administration could instead structure the arrangement as an executive-branch partnership requiring no congressional vote, though that route "would be vulnerable to a possible change in the executive branch in 2028," and added that legal challenges in US courts "cannot be ruled out either."

Reasserting the Monroe Doctrine

The White House statement framed the deal explicitly in geopolitical terms, saying most of the fields being handed to NABEP "were previously controlled or operated by Russian and Chinese firms, or by corrupt cronies of Maduro and Chavez," and declaring that Trump "has re-established the Monroe Doctrine, purging foreign malign influence from our backyard." Among the assets changing hands, according to Guacamaya, a Caracas-based oil-focused outlet, are Lake Maracaibo operations formerly run by China Concord Petroleum, a private Chinese firm, and the Intercampo Norte field, previously operated by China's state-owned CNPC.

Two further fields tied to Russian and Chinese state firms – Petromonagas and Petrolera Sinovensa, together producing close to 200,000 b/d – have a less certain future, and officials in Moscow and Beijing have so far stayed quiet on exactly what their state companies stand to lose. In a first sign of pushback on September 1, Guo Jiakun, a spokesperson for China's foreign ministry, stated that “the cooperation between China and Venezuela is protected by international law and the laws of both countries, and China's lawful rights and interests in Venezuela must be protected,” according to Xinhua.

Washington’s framing, meanwhile, carries some irony: before NABEP, Betancourt's companies had worked the same Lake Maracaibo basin through a joint venture with Gazprombank, the lending arm of Russia's state gas company, Guacamaya noted.

Whether the oil will flow

Even if the terms hold, analysts are sceptical the deal will move quickly. Writing in The Conversation, Sahara Hoff, a research associate at the University of Sydney's United States Studies Centre, pointed out that the 65bn barrels covered by the arrangement dwarfs the roughly 718.6mn barrels currently sitting in US strategic stocks, and cautioned that Trump's promise of lower fuel prices is unlikely to be fulfilled soon. Petrol prices have risen 37% and crude oil more than 20% since the war with Iran effectively shut down shipping through the Strait of Hormuz in March, while food prices are running 3% above year-ago levels and still climbing.

Venezuela's oil sector currently accounts for just 1% of global production after two decades of underinvestment, ageing infrastructure and crippling US sanctions; Chevron remains the only US major that never left the country following its 2007 nationalisation of oil assets by then-president Hugo Chavez, and is separately negotiating an expansion of its own operations there.

But Rystad Energy estimates it could take until the mid-2030s simply to restore Venezuela's existing fields to full output, while developing new fields could require upwards of a decade and at least $100bn. Aslak Orre, a Venezuela expert at Norway's Chr. Michelsen Institute, went further, telling France 24 that even tripling Venezuela's current output to match its historic 1970s peak would take "exactly 50 years to get 65bn barrels out of the ground," evidence, in his view, that the pledge amounts to "megalomaniac fantasies" rather than a serious production plan.

Speaking to the FT, Francesco Monaldi, director of the Latin America Energy Program at Rice University warned that “In the short term, there’s very little that can be done to increase production quickly, so this year will likely see an increase of less than 200,000 barrels.”

A further complication is the black gold's chemistry: America's strategic reserve was designed around light crude, while Venezuelan output is overwhelmingly heavy and extra-heavy, grades that require specialised refining, capacity that is already stretched thin by the Hormuz-related disruption.

UBS's analysts struck a similarly cautious note in their report, observing that Venezuelan oil output has risen by only 100,000-200,000 barrels a day in the roughly eight months since Nicolás Maduro's removal in January, a modest gain from what they called "a very low base." Absent a legal framework able to survive political turnover in both countries, they wrote, the agreement is "unlikely to result in materially higher foreign investment in Venezuela or a meaningful increase in oil production over the short to medium term."

Open legal questions

Several fundamental questions remain unanswered, according to UBS, which flagged the fields' allocation to NABEP without any competitive tender, a point also raised by Reuters. UBS's analysts questioned whether Rodríguez, as an interim president operating without a transparent bidding process, compliance safeguards or approval from the National Assembly, has the legal authority to bind future Venezuelan governments to a multi-decade contract, noting that the country's 1999 constitution declares hydrocarbon deposits "public-domain property" that is "inalienable," and reserves petroleum activity for the state. Reuters reported separately on August 31 that Chevron, along with India's ONGC, Italy's Eni, GeoPark and GE Vernova, were nearing their own, unrelated agreements with Caracas.

"[The Venezuelan oil] was this unbelievable value that was sitting dormant," Trump said during a press briefing on August 31. "But we're going to be taking all of that."

UBS called this an "extraordinary announcement, loaded with execution risks," summing up the overwhelming scepticism running through its note. But its analysts also added that Venezuela's evident willingness to lean on US capital and expertise for its reconstruction could still, in time, evolve into "a broader and lasting bilateral partnership," provided it is eventually grounded in legislation more solid than the statements issued so far.

Trump Says Venezuelan Oil Will Refill U.S. Strategic Petroleum Reserve


The United States will use Venezuelan crude to refill the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, President Donald Trump said on Sunday on social media.

Describing the move as a “Gift from Venezuela to the People of the United States,” President Trump said the “topping out” will begin soon, as quoted by Reuters.

The Strategic Petroleum Reserve has been drawn close to minimum operational levels amid a surge in U.S. crude oil exports in response to the crisis in the Middle East. As of August 21, per Reuters, the SPR held 290 million barrels. This was the lowest level in almost 44 years.

The “gift” that President Trump expects from Venezuela, however, may take a while to reach its destination. Venezuela exported 1.16 million barrels of crude oil daily last month, a slight decline from June’s 1.2 million barrels daily, on lower withdrawals from storage. The fact it needs draws from storage to top up exports suggests production is not rising as fast as some may hope.

There are also port capacity constraints, with reports from earlier this month saying tankers have to wait for as long as 30 days to load, as ports struggle with power outages and quality problems with the crude oil getting shipped out. Still, in July, exports to Venezuela’s biggest oil destination—the United States—averaged 786,000 barrels daily, which was the highest since early 2019.

Last week, meanwhile, news broke that the U.S. federal government is negotiating a direct ownership stake in the country’s high-yield field that contains combined reserves of 90 billion barrels of crude. Currently, Venezuela is pumping oil at a daily rate of 1.25 million barrels per day. To boost this, a lot of investments would be required, with Rystad Energy estimating the total for the next ten years at some $180 billion.

By Irina Slav for Oilprice.com

 

Venezuela says it will retain 'sovereignty' over its oil reserves despite US deal

The US has announced a deal that will give it access to Venezuela's oil reserves.
Copyright Copyright 2008 AP. All rights reserved.

By Rafael Salido
Published on

Venezuela's acting president says the aim is to turn the country's underground resources into a "source of social and economic well-being for the people of Venezuela."

Venezuela's acting President Delcy Rodríguez said on Saturday that the country would retain "sovereignty" over its oil resources despite a new agreement with the US that grants Washington significant access to the South American nation's reserves.

"One thing must be absolutely clear: Venezuela retains ownership and sovereignty over its resources," Rodríguez said in a speech broadcast on state television.

Under the terms of the agreement, which was announced by US President Donald Trump on Friday, the US is set to take control of 65 billion barrels of Venezuela's oil reserves.

According to Rodríguez, the deal also "calls for the development of 17 strategic fields" and could see investment of "more than $100 billion, and more than $209 billion in taxes for the state."

Rodríguez says the aim is to turn Venezuela's underground resources into a "source of social and economic well-being for the people of Venezuela."

However, some have accused the government of a lack of transparency surrounding the deal, with questions also being raised on social media about whether it will truly benefit Venezuelans.

The agreement comes after more than a decade of struggling to attract investment amid a deep economic crisis in the country.

Some analysts have now welcomed the US' role as a "guarantor" for investments into Venezuela, which has the world's largest proven reserves.

"Without this, these fields would not be developed over the next 10 or 15 years," Oswaldo Felizzola, a professor at the Institute of Advanced Studies in Administration (IESA), told AFP, adding that Venezuela's state-owned energy firm Petróleos de Venezuela "does not have the financial resources to do so."

Oil production in Venezuela rose by 29.8% between January and July, reaching 1.2 million barrels a day, although it remains well below the three million barrels a day recorded 25 years ago.

Rodríguez has introduced reforms in the mining and oil sectors to facilitate the entry of private and foreign capital, while Washington has relaxed sanctions on Venezuela's oil sector.

In a post on X, US Secretary of State Marco Rubio hailed the deal as a "huge win for both the American and Venezuelan people."

"It demonstrates how President Trump's bold foreign policy is driving America First wins: securing stable reserves and low-cost oil in our Hemisphere and lowering gas prices here at home," he wrote.



What we know about Trump’s deal giving the US access to Venezuela’s oil

FILE - Flames rise from flare stacks at the Amuay refinery in Los Taques, Venezuela, Jan. 14, 2026.
Copyright AP Photo


By Angela Barnes with AP
Published on

Besides a social media post from US President Donald Trump, the White House has said little about what he is calling “the biggest oil deal in world history” in Venezuela.

Trump said the agreement announced on Friday night would give the United States a stake in Venezuela’s vast oil reserves, a step towards his goal of extracting energy from the country after American forces captured then-President Nicolás Maduro in a middle-of-the-night raid in January and brought him to New York to face federal drug trafficking charges.

Venezuela’s interim leader, Delcy Rodríguez, described the deal as a step towards economic recovery that will modernise the country’s oil industry. In a televised address to the nation late on Sunday, Rodríguez insisted Venezuela's sovereignty is secure and said she wants the country to become a global energy powerhouse.

Earlier on Saturday, she said the oil reserves would “cease to be an inert, cold statistic and will instead become concrete solutions. Housing is one of them.”

But the answers to many questions, including how soon the reserves could be drilled and who will pay to make it happen, were not immediately clear. No text of any agreement has been released.

Here's a look at what is known and unknown:

What are the terms?

The US government and an unnamed private operator in Venezuela formed a new company that was given rights to develop untapped oil fields.

A statement from Rodríguez said the deal involves the development of 17 fields with a proven potential of 65 billion barrels. It said the agreement could draw $100 billion (€86 billion) in investment into Venezuela’s oil industry and yield more than $209 billion (€180 billion) in taxes for Caracas.

Trump said the agreement was negotiated by Secretary of State Marco Rubio, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth and Rodríguez.

The deal gives the United States 55% effective output of the new private company, including an ownership stake and rights to buy oil at cost. American purchases of the oil will go towards the US Strategic Petroleum Reserve along with the military, according to a US official who was not authorised to discuss the matter publicly and spoke on the condition of anonymity.

The company would be the second-largest corporate holder of proven reserves after Saudi Aramco, according to the official.

How will Venezuelans react?

Some in Venezuela considered it a betrayal of what their government has stated repeatedly for decades: Venezuelan resources are for Venezuela, and leaders would not allow the US government access to those resources.

Harvard University professor Ricardo Hausmann, a former Venezuelan planning minister, called it a “shameful deal."

“Venezuelans will not respect this illegitimate deal and no major US oil company will take it seriously because they know it will not last,” Hausmann said on social media, adding that Rodríguez “has no legitimacy or constitutional power to commit Venezuela to any such deal."

In her national address, Rodríguez pushed back on some of the early criticism.

“One thing must be absolutely clear: Venezuela retains ownership and sovereignty over its resources,” Rodríguez said. She said the goal is to reach other agreements with transnational private companies such as Chevron, Repsol and Shell.

She added: “We want to be an energy powerhouse, a major oil producer, a significant gas exporter, and a major national petrochemical developer."

What's the reaction on Capitol Hill?

It is unclear whether Congress will play a role in the arrangement, but lawmakers from both parties were quick to weigh in.

Trump allies called it a win.

Sen. Bernie Moreno, R-Ohio, said it was a historic deal that helps both countries. “If it were up to DC Democrats, Maduro would still be in power, Venezuelan oil would be going to China at half price, and the people of Venezuela would be getting robbed by a corrupt regime,” Moreno wrote on social media.

It was condemned by Democrats who said Maduro's capture was a means to this end.

Sen. Tim Kaine, D-Va., said Trump was always after Venezuela's oil, branding it “corruption at epic scale.”

“Will prices come down for Americans? Who knows but likely not as much as Trump has forced them up thru his idiotic Iran War," Kaine said on social media.

Sen. Chris Van Hollen, D-Md., said Trump “put our service members at risk to get Venezuelan oil for his billionaire buddies.”

What questions remain?

Many important details remain unclear, including who will cover necessary investments, the identity of the private operator and how America’s stake in the company breaks down.

The US will get 55% of the company's effective output, but it was not clear what portion of that comes from an ownership stake and how much comes from the right to buy oil at cost.

It also is unclear how the industry will react. Persuading big American oil companies to return to the region could prove a challenge given the political uncertainty and damaged infrastructure.

Chevron, the only US oil company actively producing in Venezuela, declined to comment. Separately from Trump’s announcement, Chevron already had been in talks to expand investment in the country. Exxon Mobil also declined to comment.

David Oxley, chief climate and commodities economist at Capital Economics, said that on its face, the deal could double US oil reserves and reduce dependence on crude oil from Canada and Mexico. But Oxley, writing in a commentary, cautioned that there are logistical hurdles and said the value of Venezuela's reserves may have been exaggerated under former President Hugo Chávez.

Even with legal and security guarantees, it is not clear that US oil companies “would be eager to invest,’’ he wrote, noting that “there simply might be more enticing commercial opportunities on offer elsewhere.’’