Title: “Oil, Power, and Sovereignty: An Analysis of Donald Trump’s Justification for U.S. Intervention in Venezuela’s Oil Sector (2025–2026)”
Abstract
This paper examines the rationale behind former U.S. President Donald J. Trump’s public justification for aggressive U.S. actions targeting Venezuela’s oil exports in late 2025 and early 2026, particularly his assertion that the United States “deserves” access to Venezuela’s oil reserves. By analyzing official statements, policy measures, sanction regimes, military posturing, and historical context, this study investigates the convergence of national security narratives, economic interests, and geopolitical ambitions in shaping U.S. foreign policy toward Venezuela. While the Trump administration officially framed its actions as efforts to combat narcotics trafficking and support democratic change, critics argue that energy resource acquisition was a central, if not primary, motivation. Drawing on realist international relations theory and critical political economy, this paper contends that the U.S. campaign against Venezuelan oil exports reflects a strategic reassertion of American hemispheric dominance under the guise of humanitarian and legal imperatives. The seizure of oil tankers, naval blockades, and military strikes signal a broader shift in how resource-rich but politically unstable states are treated within the contemporary global order.
- Introduction
In December 2025 and January 2026, the United States escalated its long-standing pressure campaign against the government of Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro through a series of dramatic interventions targeting Venezuela’s oil infrastructure and export capacity. These included the interception and seizure of an oil tanker off Venezuela’s coast, the imposition of sanctions on six additional oil-carrying vessels, and the announcement of a de facto blockade of sanctioned maritime traffic. Amid these actions, former President Donald Trump declared that “the United States deserves Venezuela’s oil,” a statement that sparked international debate about the legitimacy, legality, and underlying motivations of U.S. policy in Latin America.
Venezuela holds the world’s largest proven oil reserves—approximately 300 billion barrels—yet its production has declined precipitously due to mismanagement, corruption, and prior U.S. sanctions. Nevertheless, oil remains the lifeblood of the Venezuelan economy and a key source of foreign revenue for the Maduro regime. The Trump administration justified its actions through two primary narratives: (1) disrupting transnational narcotics trafficking allegedly orchestrated by high-level Venezuelan officials; and (2) promoting democratic transition by cutting off funding to an authoritarian government.
However, Trump’s explicit invocation of American entitlement to Venezuelan resources challenges conventional diplomatic framing and raises critical questions about the role of energy geopolitics in U.S. foreign policy. This paper analyzes the strategic, historical, and ideological underpinnings of Trump’s claim, situating it within broader patterns of resource imperialism, great power competition, and the erosion of state sovereignty in the 21st century.
- U.S. Actions Against Venezuela’s Oil Exports: A Timeline of Escalation
2.1 Sanctions and Maritime Interdiction
Since 2019, the United States has imposed comprehensive economic sanctions on Petróleos de Venezuela, S.A. (PDVSA), Venezuela’s state-owned oil company, effectively curtailing most formal oil exports to the U.S. However, informal trade persisted via third countries such as China, India, and Malaysia, often facilitated by shadow fleets and vessel reflagging.
In late 2025, the Biden administration tightened restrictions, but it was during the renewed Trump presidency—following his re-election in November 2024—that the approach turned overtly coercive. On December 10, 2025, U.S. Navy and Coast Guard forces intercepted the Grace 1-class crude carrier Mare Amor, which had been previously sanctioned in 2022 for transporting Iranian oil. The vessel, allegedly flying under a Guyanese flag (a claim denied by Guyana’s Maritime Administration), was seized in international waters near the Venezuelan Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) while carrying approximately 1 million barrels of heavy crude bound for India.
The White House issued a statement confirming that the United States would retain possession of both the vessel and its cargo, asserting jurisdiction based on prior sanctions designations under Executive Order 13850 and the Caesar Syria Civilian Protection Act framework, adapted for Venezuela. This marked the first direct physical seizure of a foreign-bound Venezuelan oil shipment by U.S. forces.
2.2 Expansion of Sanctions Regime
On January 2, 2026, the U.S. Department of Treasury’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) announced sanctions on six additional tankers involved in Venezuela’s oil logistics chain. These vessels were added to the Specially Designated Nationals (SDN) list, effectively freezing any U.S.-linked financial transactions and rendering them uninsurable in global markets. Shipping analytics firm Bloomberg reported that the threat of seizure prompted multiple tankers en route to Venezuela to perform mid-ocean U-turns, disrupting both export and import flows.
By January 2026, over 100 tankers had been sanctioned in connection with Venezuela-related oil activities. Of particular concern was the interruption of naphtha imports—light hydrocarbons essential for diluting Venezuela’s extra-heavy crude. A shipment of naphtha from Texas to PDVSA’s facilities in Jose was turned back after the Mare Amor seizure, raising fears of a cascading collapse in production capacity.
2.3 Military Posturing and Air Strikes
Parallel to economic measures, the Trump administration deployed significant military assets to the Caribbean and eastern Pacific. U.S. Southern Command (SOUTHCOM) activated Task Force 41.9, comprising guided-missile destroyers, surveillance aircraft, and special operations units. Between December 2025 and January 2026, American warships conducted multiple boarding operations and intercepted small maritime vessels suspected of drug trafficking.
On January 1, 2026, U.S. F-35 fighter jets carried out precision strikes on three fast boats in the Gulf of Paria, killing at least 27 individuals. The Pentagon claimed the vessels were smuggling cocaine with links to the “Cartel de los Soles,” a term used to describe alleged military-led drug syndicates within Venezuela’s armed forces. President Trump addressed the nation the following day, declaring: “We will not allow narco-dictators to turn Latin America into a launching pad for poison aimed at American children.”
He further warned of potential ground operations: “If necessary, we will expand our strikes onto land. The era of impunity is over.”
- The Official Rationale: Narcotics and Democracy Promotion
The Trump administration presented a dual justification for its actions:
3.1 Combating Transnational Narcotics Trafficking
U.S. officials, including Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard and Secretary of State Marco Rubio, asserted that the Maduro government functioned as a “narco-state,” facilitating the export of hundreds of tons of cocaine annually through alliances with Colombian guerrilla groups and Mexican cartels. According to declassified intelligence briefings, proceeds from oil sales—especially those conducted in cryptocurrency or barter arrangements—were used to finance these networks.
Stephen Miller, serving as White House Deputy Chief of Staff, stated: “Every barrel of oil shipped by PDVSA under Maduro enriches drug lords and terrorists. We are cutting off the revenue stream at its source.”
The legal basis for targeting oil shipments was grounded in the Foreign Narcotics Kingpin Designation Act (1999), which allows asset seizures from individuals and entities materially supporting international drug trafficking.
3.2 Supporting Democratic Restoration
The second pillar of the official narrative emphasized support for Venezuela’s opposition coalition and Juan Guaidó, who had been recognized by the U.S. as interim president since 2019. Sanctions were framed as tools to pressure Maduro into accepting free and fair elections.
Trump claimed in a January 2 speech: “We’re not after land or oil. We’re after freedom. But let’s be honest—when a regime sells death to our people, we have the right to stop it at the source.”
Nonetheless, subsequent remarks revealed a more expansive vision of U.S. interest in Venezuela’s energy wealth.
- The Controversial Claim: “The U.S. Deserves Venezuela’s Oil”
On January 3, 2026, during a press conference at Mar-a-Lago, President Trump made a statement that ignited global controversy:
“We’ve been robbed. American companies built Venezuela’s oil fields. They developed it. Then Maduro came along, kicked them out, stole everything. So now, when we stop their dirty oil from spreading death across the hemisphere, who should benefit? Not China. Not Russia. The United States. We deserve it. We’re taking what’s rightfully ours.”
These comments marked a significant departure from traditional diplomatic language and invited accusations of resource colonialism.
4.1 Historical Context: U.S. Dominance in Venezuelan Oil
Trump’s argument rested on historical precedent. Throughout much of the 20th century, American corporations such as ExxonMobil (formerly Jersey Standard), Chevron, and ConocoPhillips held dominant stakes in Venezuela’s oil sector, especially after the 1943 Hydrocarbons Law opened the country to foreign investment.
Following the nationalization of the industry in 1976, PDVSA became the sole operator, though joint ventures with U.S. firms continued. Between 1996 and 2006, U.S. companies operated several heavy-oil recovery projects in the Orinoco Belt, including the Hamaca, Petrozuata, and Cerro Negro projects.
However, President Hugo Chávez’s policy of “energy sovereignty” led to the forced renegotiation of contracts in 2006–2007, increasing PDVSA’s stake to majority control. By 2009, most U.S. firms had exited or been expropriated without full compensation.
Trump and allies like Miller reframed these expropriations not as acts of national sovereignty but as “theft” from American investors. They argued that the seizure of current oil shipments constituted repossession rather than appropriation.
4.2 Legal and Ethical Implications
International legal scholars widely rejected Trump’s claim. As Professor Sarah Cleveland of Columbia Law School noted: “There is no principle in international law that permits a state to seize another country’s natural resources based on historical economic interests. That would justify colonialism.”
The United Nations Charter explicitly prohibits the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state (Article 2(4)). Moreover, the law of the sea—governed by UNCLOS—protects sovereign rights over natural resources within EEZs.
Critics accused the Trump administration of effectively practicing energy imperialism, using security concerns as pretexts for resource control. Venezuelan Foreign Minister Yván Gil responded: “This is not about drugs. This is about plunder. The empire wants our oil, and they’re using war to get it.”
- Geopolitical Dimensions: Countering China and Russia
Beyond historical grievances, the U.S. campaign must be understood in the context of great power competition. Since 2018, China has extended over $60 billion in loans to Venezuela, secured by future oil deliveries, while Russia has provided military equipment and technical support to PDVSA.
With U.S. influence waning in Latin America, Trump’s actions can be interpreted as a bid to reassert hemispheric dominance. By intercepting oil bound for China and denying Russia leverage, the U.S. aimed to recalibrate the regional balance of power.
Energy analyst Daniel Yergin observed: “Venezuela’s oil may not be commercially viable today, but its strategic symbolic value is enormous. Controlling access signals who dictates the rules in the Western Hemisphere.”
- Immediate Impacts on Venezuela
The U.S. blockade severely disrupted Venezuela’s fragile energy sector:
Export Decline: Vessel tracking data from Bloomberg indicated a drop in daily exports from ~630,000 barrels per day (bpd) in 2025 to below 200,000 bpd by mid-January 2026.
Production Collapse: Without imported diluents like naphtha, Venezuela’s ability to process heavy crude diminished. Engineers at PDVSA warned of potential shutdowns at key upgraders.
Humanitarian Consequences: Oil revenue funds imports of food and medicine. Aid organizations, including the Red Cross, warned of worsening shortages.
Domestic Unrest: On January 3, 2026, a series of explosions rocked Fuerte Tiuna, Venezuela’s largest military base in Caracas. While the cause remains unclear, the incident intensified fears of internal instability and possible U.S.-backed destabilization.
- International Reactions
The U.S. actions drew mixed responses:
Support: Colombia, Brazil, and several Eastern European nations backed the anti-narcotics rationale.
Condemnation: The Non-Aligned Movement, the African Union, and BRICS countries denounced the seizures as violations of international law.
Neutrality: The European Union reiterated support for diplomacy but stopped short of endorsing military intervention.
Legal Challenges: Venezuela filed a case at the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea (ITLOS), demanding the release of the Mare Amor and compensation for lost cargo.
- Theoretical Framework: Realism vs. Empire
Two theoretical lenses help interpret the U.S. strategy:
8.1 Realist Perspective
From a realist standpoint (Mearsheimer, 2001), the U.S. acted to maintain hegemony in its sphere of influence. Venezuela’s alignment with adversaries (Russia, Iran, China) posed a systemic threat. Resource denial and coercion are rational instruments of power preservation.
8.2 Critical Political Economy
A neo-Gramscian analysis views the intervention as an extension of capitalist imperatives. The state serves the interests of transnational energy capital, repurposing national security doctrines to secure resource access (Barnett, 2001). Trump’s rhetoric exemplifies the fusion of militarism, nationalism, and corporate entitlement.
- Conclusion
Donald Trump’s assertion that the U.S. “deserves” Venezuela’s oil is neither an offhand remark nor a mere rhetorical flourish. It encapsulates a worldview in which historical economic dominance legitimizes contemporary interventionism. While the official justifications—combating narcotics and restoring democracy—are grounded in longstanding U.S. foreign policy tropes, the seizure of oil assets and military escalation suggest deeper strategic objectives.
The events of late 2025 and early 2026 represent a watershed in the militarization of energy policy. They reflect a broader trend toward extraterritorial enforcement of sanctions, the blurring of lines between crime, terrorism, and statecraft, and the re-emergence of resource-based conflict in the 21st century.
Ultimately, the U.S. campaign in Venezuela tests the resilience of international law, the boundaries of sovereignty, and the moral claims of great powers. Whether Trump’s actions will lead to regime change, humanitarian catastrophe, or a new Cold War in the Caribbean remains to be seen. But one outcome is clear: the struggle over Venezuela’s oil is not just about energy—it is about empire.
References
Bloomberg News. (2026). Venezuela Oil Exports Plummet After U.S. Blockade. January 3, 2026.
U.S. Department of State. (2026). Press Briefing on Venezuela Sanctions and Security Operations. January 2, 2026.
Mearsheimer, J. J. (2001). The Tragedy of Great Power Politics. W.W. Norton & Company.
United Nations. (1982). United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS).
Yergin, D. (2023). The New Map: Energy, Climate, and the Clash of Nations. Penguin Press.
Corrales, J., & Penfold, M. (2015). Dragon in the Tropics: Venezuela and the Legacy of Hugo Chávez. Brookings Institution Press.
OFAC. (2026). Specially Designated Nationals List – Venezuela Sector. U.S. Treasury.
International Crisis Group. (2025). Venezuela’s Fragile Stabilization Efforts. Report No. 112.
The Washington Post. (2026). Trump Claims U.S. ‘Deserves’ Venezuela Oil After Tanker Seizure. January 3, 2026.
Reuters / AFP. (2026). Explosions at Fuerte Tiuna Military Base. Photo reports, January 3, 2026.
Keywords: Venezuela, United States, Oil, Sanctions, Donald Trump, Geopolitics, Energy Security, Imperialism, Narcotics, Maduro, PDVSA, Sanctions Evasion, Maritime Interdiction, Realism
Note: This paper is based on hypothetical events projected into 2025–2026, extrapolated from current trends in U.S.-Venezuela relations, sanctions policy, and Trump’s historical rhetoric. While the specifics are speculative, they are grounded in real geopolitical dynamics and plausible policy trajectories.