When Donald Trump references Venezuela stealing US oil, he is likely referring specifically to Exxon Mobil’s oil.
The recent seizure of an Iranian oil tanker carrying Venezuelan oil by the U.S. serves as undeniable evidence that the ongoing U.S. aggression towards Venezuela is not driven by concerns over drug cartels but rather by the interests of major oil corporations.
Venezuela boasts the largest proven reserves of heavy crude oil globally, with an estimated 303 billion barrels, along with significant light crude reserves in the Western Hemisphere. The proximity of these vast oil reserves to the United States is particularly enticing, as Trump acknowledged in 2023:
Donald Trump confessed in 2023 that, during his first term, he aimed to overthrow Venezuela’s government to seize its oil:
“We would have taken [Venezuela] over. We would have gotten all that oil. It would have been right next door”.pic.twitter.com/hrygJQQU7B— Ben Norton (@BenjaminNorton) October 11, 2025
Trump’s fixation on appropriating foreign oil dates back even before his presidential tenure. In a 2011 explanation, he articulated why the U.S. should seize a significant portion of Libya’s oil following the assassination of its leader, Muammar Gaddafi, which plunged a resource-rich nation into chaos.
For those who believe the US-backed coup in Venezuela is about aiding its people, here’s Trump in 2011 discussing how regime change can be a method to exploit natural resources.
NOTE: 🇻🇪Venezuela holds the largest oil reserves in the world pic.twitter.com/3lyfd979Jd— The Resonance (@Partisan_12) December 1, 2025
The telling statement: “You know the old days, when you had a war, it was ‘to the victor go the spoils.’”
As evidenced by Senator Chris Murphy’s recent comments, Trump’s military actions against vessels in the Caribbean and Eastern Pacific lack any legitimate legal or national security rationale, yet they persist.
I just came out of the briefing with Sec. Rubio and Sec. Hegseth on the military strikes in the Caribbean and Eastern Pacific. Here’s what I learned.
Bottom line: there is no legal or national security justification for what they’re doing. Not even close. pic.twitter.com/8gUU0sHKwu— Chris Murphy 🟧 (@ChrisMurphyCT) December 16, 2025
Meanwhile, Julian Assange has taken legal action against the Nobel Foundation over its decision to award the peace prize to Maria Corina Machado, alleging that this serves as a tool for war and constitutes misappropriation under Swedish law.
JULIAN ASSANGE FILES CRIMINAL COMPLAINT AGAINST NOBEL FOUNDATION OVER “INSTRUMENT OF WAR” PEACE PRIZE
WikiLeaks Founder Alleges 2025 Award to María Corina Machado Constitutes Misappropriation, Facilitation of War Crimes Under Swedish Law, Seeks Freeze of 11 million SEK ($1.18… pic.twitter.com/OAH4mmvsph— WikiLeaks (@wikileaks) December 17, 2025
Despite the increasing inconsistencies within the narrative of war, particularly due to Trump’s contrasting proclamations, the call for military action is growing louder.
Trump has now explicitly stated that the U.S. intends to impose a comprehensive blockade on Venezuelan oil because it wants “ITS” oil back—oil that Hugo Chávez famously reclaimed in 2005 from foreign companies.
The blockade on sanctioned Venezuelan oil tankers, however, does not impede Chevron’s operations. According to the Wall Street Journal:
President Trump on Tuesday ordered a complete blockade of all sanctioned oil tankers going into and out of Venezuela, intensifying his administration’s efforts against Nicolás Maduro.
For Chevron, business continues as usual, with the company still sending oil tankers to the U.S. Gulf Coast intact amidst the rising tensions.
As highlighted by Sony Thăng in the tweet below, Trump’s forthright declaration of U.S. ownership of Venezuelan resources can be seen as “the most honest colonial confession of the 21st century.”
Donald, you just wrote the most honest colonial confession of the 21st century.
When you say Venezuela must “return” its oil, land, and assets to the United States, you are not talking about law.
You are talking about ownership.— Sony Thăng (@nxt888) December 17, 2025
Coming Full Circle
Additional motivations for the U.S. aggressive stance towards Venezuela include the country’s vast gold reserves, increasing in importance, as well as bauxite, coltan for batteries, natural gas, and fresh water.
Maria Corina Machado, the CIA-supported opposition leader, has indicated that a government post-Maduro would likely lead to rampant privatization and liberalization.
This aggressive policy is part of a broader U.S. strategy to reinvest itself in its so-called “backyard,” aiming to topple several left-leaning governments in the region, such as those in Cuba, Nicaragua, Colombia, and Honduras. The latest events represent another chapter in the U.S. effort to remove the Chavista government in Venezuela.
Venezuela’s strong alliances with Russia, China, Iran, and Cuba, coupled with its unwavering stance on Palestine, also factor into U.S. interests, as does the desire to restrict rival nations from accessing these resources. Former SOUTHCOM commander Laura Richardson emphasized this during her 2023 interview with the Atlantic Council.
Rare earth elements, lithium, oil, light sweet crude, copper, gold, the Amazon, and fresh water.
This is what the United States wants to plunder from Latin America and the Caribbean.pic.twitter.com/Q9Rh5XP0jB— Kawsachun News (@KawsachunNews) January 21, 2023
To add to the chaos, the Trump administration requires a distraction from recent scandals, and what better distraction than a new conflict—potentially yielding massive economic opportunities for the military-industrial complex?
However, the primary motivation remains oil, particularly essential for U.S. refineries, as reported by El País recently. This brings us back to Trump’s candid admissions regarding his intentions in Venezuela.
Note how the US government’s propaganda narrative has transformed:
Initially, the Trump administration claimed its war on Venezuela was about drugs—a blatant falsehood (the U.S. actually supports the most notorious drug traffickers in Latin America).
Now they admit the war is actually over Venezuela… https://t.co/pSoGQi3Ivk— Ben Norton (@BenjaminNorton) December 18, 2025
According to Vijaj Prashad, “A President Machado would promptly relinquish any claim to the Essequibo region and grant ExxonMobil total control over Venezuela’s oil reserves. This is undoubtedly the prize.”
Here’s an illustrative image encapsulating this situation:
— Mike Luckovich (@mluckovichajc) December 17, 2025
Trump’s allegations that the Maduro government has seized U.S.-owned oil, land, and assets exemplify a significant instance of projection. In reality, it has been the U.S.—particularly during Trump’s presidency—that has seized numerous Venezuelan assets, ranging from gold reserves to oil tankers and Citgo.
Even members of the Machado opposition are increasingly embarrassed by Trump’s assertions, as raised by Max Blumenthal during an interview. With Trump claiming a post-Maduro Venezuela would essentially belong to the U.S., how can they sell their already unpopular regime change narrative domestically?
The U.S. war on Venezuela is as unpopular in Venezuela as it is in the U.S.
An overwhelming majority of Venezuelans disapprove of U.S. military intervention and sanctions, according to independent polling by Datanalysis.
More evidence that this war is primarily a Florida Gusano project.pic.twitter.com/JWsMcYUVFa— Max Blumenthal (@MaxBlumenthal) December 18, 2025
One corporation poised to gain from the recent U.S. regime change efforts is Exxon Mobil. An article by Argentine geopolitical analyst Bruno Sgarzini sheds light on how the company has been funding influential think tanks that advocate for military interventions against Venezuela:
“The Brookings Institute and the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) are two primary think tanks we collaborate with,” stated Keith McCoy, a lobbyist for Exxon Mobil in 2019. McCoy was unaware that he was being recorded and revealed his reliance on these think tanks to sway Congress and the media against anti-fossil fuel legislation.
Even though the academic institutions denied any connection, Exxon Mobil provided $12 million to CSIS for its “Energy Security and Climate Change” programs, along with a further $5 million for its new headquarters. CSIS’ executive board includes Exxon’s CEO, Darren W. Woods, formerly Rex Tillerson, who was Trump’s Secretary of State.
CSIS research often appears in mainstream media like CNN, Fox News, and The Washington Post, impacting crucial congressional discussions that align with the interests of Exxon and other corporate donors. As Professor Brooke Williams noted in the New York Times:
“Think tanks act as ‘universities without students’ and exert significant influence over U.S. policy debates, often prioritizing corporate donor agendas while enjoying tax-exempt status without fully disclosing ties to corporate entities.”
According to CSIS, regular meetings with donor representatives facilitate discussions on pertinent issues, further cementing the organization’s influence.
A Guerrilla Lobby
CSIS’s alignment with Exxon Mobil’s interests does not come as a surprise. The New York Times has previously reported on think tanks amplifying Corporate America’s influence, arguably their primary function.
What is noteworthy, however, is that since Trump began mobilizing a considerable portion of the U.S. naval fleet towards the Caribbean, CSIS has launched a guerrilla lobbying campaign advocating for the removal of the Chavista government. This aligns conveniently with Exxon Mobil’s objectives, as articulated by Sgarzini:
In Foreign Policy, CSIS Director for Latin America Ryan C. Berg has supported “overthrowing Maduro without boots on the ground.” He has questioned the anti-war sentiments expressed by journalists like Tucker Carlson and former Trump advisor Steve Bannon.
“Distinct from a ground invasion, a regime collapse would entail targeted U.S. strikes on key centers of Maduro’s regime while minimizing risks to U.S. personnel.”
This narrative has been bolstered by military analyses by Mark Cancian, former U.S. colonel from the 2003 Iraq invasion, drawing parallels between current military deployments and past operations in Libya and Yugoslavia.
“The forces currently positioned are insufficient for an invasion, which would require at least 50,000 troops, likely more. Current naval and air assets, however, could facilitate air and missile strikes against Venezuela…”
This strategy serves as a psychological weapon to maintain the perception of an imminent U.S. attack and subsequently shape policy decisions.
CSIS has been active in discussing military options in Venezuela since Juan Guaidó’s controversial tenure began in 2019, hosting figures like the former head of Southern Command, Kurt Tidd, and other notable advisors linked to Latin American policy.
During the Biden administration, Berg criticized the oil licenses awarded to Chevron, Exxon Mobil’s main competitor. Following Trump’s return to power, he co-authored a report urging the reapplication of sanctions against Venezuela while revoking licenses permitting collaborations with PDVSA.
This event featured appearances by María Corina Machado, who has since called for harsher measures against Venezuela in various CSIS forums, reinforcing her refusal to negotiate with Maduro.
Initially, there was uncertainty about Trump’s direction regarding Venezuela. Trump even dispatched Richard Grenell to Caracas to engage in dialogue with Maduro about returning migrants. Maduro’s release of American detainees seemed to signal burgeoning relations with the U.S. But this prospect has shifted, especially with rising threats from hawkish factions around Trump.
After finalizing the deal with Grenell, the detainees were blindfolded, hooded, and handcuffed for their transfer. Grenell stated, “The only reward for Maduro was my presence: the first senior U.S. official to visit the country in years.”
This indicates a significant gesture of good will, yet Maduro’s contentment seemed more strategic given the prior tension involving regime change.
Richard Grenell may have intended to offer economic relief through sanctions adjustments, especially given recent positive projections for Venezuela’s economy. However, recent U.S. actions point in a markedly aggressive direction.
The influence of Secretary of State Marco Rubio and a belligerent group including neoconservatives suggests a preference for a militarized approach towards Venezuela. If Trump opts for war, it could destabilize U.S. oil companies like Chevron and impact refined oil supply from U.S. Gulf Coast facilities, especially if violence escalates in Venezuela.
However, this won’t affect Exxon Mobil, which ceased operations in Venezuela in 2007.
Exxon’s Long History in Venezuela
Exxon’s connection to Venezuela dates back over a century, as its predecessor, Standard Oil, entered the market in the early 1900s. By the 1930s, it had substantial stake in the Creole Petroleum Corporation while overseeing a significant portion of Venezuela’s oil output.
However, this dominance ended in 2005 when Hugo Chávez mandated that foreign oil companies convert their operating agreements into joint ventures, transferring majority control to the state-owned Petróleos de Venezuela (PDVSA). While most companies complied, Exxon refused, departing Venezuela in 2007. It subsequently sought $18 billion in damages through international arbitration, ultimately receiving a mere $1.6 billion.
Trump’s accusations about Venezuela stealing U.S. oil likely reference Exxon’s tumultuous history there. As noted by an NC reader, “Carlos Andrés Pérez nationalized Venezuelan oil in 1975, and this was a legitimate sovereign act. The oil on Venezuelan territory belongs to Venezuela, regardless of who extracts it.”
Exxon sought retribution by drilling in disputed waters off the coast of Essequibo, a territory claimed by both Guyana and Venezuela, where the disagreement traces back to the British Empire’s colonial actions in the 1800s.
The company was among the first to drill in the contested region, a move reported in 2017 by the Washington Post as a “perfect retaliation” by Exxon’s then-CEO Rex Tillerson, who later became Trump’s Secretary of State.
Rex Tillerson had assumed leadership of ExxonMobil shortly before Hugo Chávez mandated that foreign oil companies relinquish a significant share of their earnings.
Most complied; Tillerson did not.Chávez responded in 2007 by nationalizing ExxonMobil’s assets, claiming losses amounting to $10 billion. This nationalization significantly impacted Tillerson, perceived as a personal affront.
Only Tillerson didn’t just express anger; he sought vengeance.
In May 2015, shortly after the right-leaning President David Granger took office in Guyana, Exxon announced a monumental oil discovery off its coast, estimating 1.4 billion barrels of high-quality crude.
This find was transformative for Guyana, marking a turning point for a nation long characterized by poverty and isolation.
Nevertheless, controversy ensued as Venezuela insisted that the water—and its resources—were rightfully theirs.
Exxon’s drilling initiative, while a prudent business decision, bore the taint of retribution against Venezuela.
Maduro reacted furiously, attributing the dispute to a broader conspiracy fueled by ExxonMobil and its influence in U.S. government circles.
The potential for heightened conflict appears imminent, necessitating a coordinated effort to influence U.S. lawmakers and media. CSIS is positioned to advocate this military approach, potentially benefiting Exxon Mobil—an entity holding a longstanding grudge against Venezuela’s Bolivarian ideology.
