Donald Trump has claimed to have secured “THE BIGGEST OIL DEAL IN WORLD HISTORY,” asserting that the United States has gained majority control over more than 65 billion barrels of proven oil reserves in Venezuela at no cost to American taxpayers. The announcement came late on Friday, in a block-capital post on his Truth Social platform, and marks yet another bold assertion from the former president, whose track record of grandiose declarations has frequently diverged from reality. The deal, according to Trump, was brokered with the assistance of Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Secretary of War Pete Hegseth, alongside Venezuela’s interim president, Delcy Rodríguez. The agreement, which Trump claims “more than doubles American oil reserves,” involves private sector involvement and is described as a “historic transaction.” However, the specifics of the arrangement remain largely opaque, with the Trump administration providing minimal additional detail beyond the president’s public statements. The context of the deal is rooted in the recent military operation known as “Operation Absolute Resolve,” during which U.S. special forces abducted Venezuela’s former leader, Nicolás Maduro, and transported him to the United States. The operation, which took place in January, was based on an unsealed indictment accusing Maduro and his associates of conspiring with Colombian guerrillas to traffic narcotics to the U.S. Following Maduro’s removal, Rodríguez assumed leadership of Venezuela, under what Trump has described as a “safe, proper and judicious transition.” Under the new arrangement, Rodríguez has stated that the deal will facilitate the development of 17 strategic oil fields, with the potential to produce over 1.5 million barrels per day. She has framed the agreement as a boon for Venezuela, promising economic revitalization, job creation, and increased revenue of more than $209 billion. “Our country has the biggest oil reserves in the world,” she asserted in a televised address, emphasizing the need for investment and technological advancement to transform these resources into national prosperity. Despite these optimistic projections, the deal has drawn sharp criticism from both sides of Venezuela’s political spectrum. Opposition figures have condemned the agreement as a “massive land grab” by the “rapacious, mafioso United States,” while members of the Chavista movement, including former PDVSA chief Rafael Ramírez, have labeled it a “neocolonial” act. Ramírez accused Rodríguez’s administration of “driving a dagger straight into the heart of the homeland” by ceding control of 65 billion barrels of oil reserves to the U.S., a move he argues has never occurred in Venezuela’s history. Meanwhile, the legal and geopolitical ramifications of the deal remain unclear. Critics argue that the U.S. seizure of Venezuelan oil reserves without formal consent or compensation violates key principles of international law, including the sovereignty of nations and the prohibition of coercive measures. The situation is further complicated by the fact that the U.S. has not deployed troops or engaged in direct occupation of Venezuela, unlike the circumstances surrounding Saddam Hussein’s invasion of Kuwait in 1990. Trump’s repeated tendency to announce sweeping agreements, many of which have since collapsed, has raised skepticism about the legitimacy of this latest claim. His previous assertions, such as declaring a permanent disarming of Hamas or announcing major trade deals that never materialized, have underscored a pattern of hyperbolic rhetoric that often fails to align with tangible outcomes. The current oil deal, therefore, appears to fit squarely within this trend, with little evidence to suggest it will result in the promised economic transformation for either country. As the situation unfolds, the focus will likely shift to whether the deal translates into actual policy changes or remains another example of Trump’s penchant for theatrical diplomacy. For now, the deal stands as a provocative assertion of U.S. influence over Venezuela’s vast oil reserves, with the broader implications of such a move still uncertain.
★
Manteniamo le notizie oneste.
ObjectiveNews è finanziato dai lettori e senza pubblicità: ti mostriamo il bias invece di nasconderlo. Sostieni il giornalismo indipendente per 4 €/mese.
Diventa sostenitore
United Kingdom
