Trump Long Wanted to ‘Take the Oil.’ He Says He’ll Do It in Venezuela.
📅 January 4, 2026
✍️ Editor: Sudhir Choudhary, The Vagabond News
For years, President Donald Trump has voiced a blunt and controversial view of U.S. power abroad: if America is going to bear costs overseas, it should extract tangible economic benefits in return. Now, with Venezuela once again at the center of U.S. foreign policy, Trump is openly reviving one of his most provocative ideas—“taking the oil”—and signaling that Washington may seek direct control or influence over Venezuela’s vast energy resources as part of any effort to dislodge its current leadership.
The statement marks a dramatic escalation in rhetoric and intent. Venezuela holds the world’s largest proven oil reserves, yet its industry has been hollowed out by years of mismanagement, sanctions, and political turmoil. Trump’s renewed focus on Venezuelan oil reframes the crisis not only as a struggle over democracy or regional stability, but also as a contest for strategic resources in an era of intensifying global competition.
From Campaign Rhetoric to Policy Signal
Trump has long argued that past U.S. interventions were failures because America “got nothing” in return. During earlier campaigns and throughout his presidencies, he repeatedly criticized the Iraq war on those grounds, saying the United States should have “taken the oil” instead of spending trillions and losing lives.
Applied to Venezuela, the idea carries far-reaching implications. Administration officials have not released a detailed policy blueprint, but Trump’s remarks suggest that oil could become central to Washington’s leverage strategy—either as compensation for sanctions relief, as collateral in a post-Maduro transition, or as part of a broader reassertion of U.S. influence in the Western Hemisphere.
Supporters argue that such a stance is pragmatic. “Venezuela’s oil is the only real asset left,” said a former U.S. energy official. “If the United States wants to shape outcomes there, energy leverage is unavoidable.”
Legal, Ethical, and Strategic Concerns
Critics, however, warn that openly framing U.S. policy around resource acquisition risks crossing legal and moral red lines. International law is clear that natural resources belong to sovereign states, not foreign powers. Any attempt to “take” oil—whether through force or coercive arrangements—would invite global condemnation and likely provoke legal challenges.
Beyond legality, there is the issue of blowback. Trump’s “America First” base has traditionally opposed overseas entanglements, particularly those that resemble imperial ventures. While some supporters welcome the transactional clarity of tying intervention to economic gain, others see echoes of precisely the kind of foreign adventurism Trump once promised to end.
“Once you talk about taking oil, you’re no longer talking about pressure—you’re talking about occupation or control,” said a former U.S. diplomat. “That’s a line many voters don’t want crossed.”
Energy Markets and Global Repercussions
The global energy sector is also watching closely. Venezuela’s oil output has fallen to a fraction of its former levels, but its reserves remain a powerful symbol and a potential future supply shock. Any U.S. move that destabilizes production further could push oil prices higher, feeding inflation at home and abroad.
At the same time, Trump’s comments underscore a broader shift toward resource-driven geopolitics. With China and Russia aggressively securing access to energy and minerals worldwide, the administration appears increasingly willing to frame U.S. foreign policy in similarly explicit terms.
Yet Venezuela is not an easy prize. Rebuilding its oil sector would require billions in investment, technical expertise, and political stability—none of which can be conjured quickly. Even a friendly government in Caracas would face years of reconstruction before oil revenues could meaningfully flow again.
A High-Stakes Gamble
For Venezuela, the rhetoric reinforces fears that its future is being negotiated not around the welfare of its people, but around the value of what lies beneath its soil. For the United States, it represents a stark test of Trump’s worldview: a belief that power should pay for itself.
Whether this approach strengthens U.S. leverage or deepens resistance remains uncertain. What is clear is that by openly tying regime change to resource control, President Donald Trump has raised the stakes—politically, legally, and strategically. Venezuela is no longer just a humanitarian or democratic crisis in Washington’s narrative; it is an energy prize in a dangerous global game.
How that gamble plays out may define not only the next chapter in U.S.–Venezuela relations, but also the future contours of American power in a world where oil, once again, sits at the center of geopolitics.
Source: Reporting and analysis based on coverage by The New York Times and Reuters.
Tags:
Venezuela crisis, President Donald Trump, U.S.–Venezuela relations, oil geopolitics, energy security, America First policy, Latin America, regime change debate, global energy markets
News by The Vagabond News
