President Donald Trump on Sunday acknowledged that executives from major American oil companies were informed about the US military attack on Venezuela even before it took place, an admission that has intensified accusations that the administration prioritized corporate interests while deliberately excluding Congress from any role in authorizing or overseeing the operation.
Speaking to reporters aboard Air Force One, Trump was asked whether he had spoken with oil executives or possibly tipped them off about the operation. “Before and after,” the president replied. He then praised their prospective involvement, saying, “They want to go in and they’re going to do a great job for the people of Venezuela.”
The disclosure sparked immediate condemnation because the administration had refused to consult with US lawmakers in advance of the attack. According to the reporting provided, officials defended that decision by claiming that notifying Congress could have resulted in leaks that would compromise operational security. Critics responded that Trump’s own words undercut that justification.
“I can’t begin to tell you how insane this is,” said Fred Wellman, an Army combat veteran now running for Congress as a Democrat in Missouri. “He did not inform Congress but he’s saying he informed the oil companies.”
Wellman argued that Trump’s comments point to the use of military force on behalf of wealthy interests rather than national security. “Keep in mind who he means,” Wellman added. “The billionaire mega donor that just got control of Citgo. Our service members were used directly to move the interests of Trump’s donors.”
Others described the episode as emblematic of a broader political transformation. “The oil companies were notified before Congress,” said Melanie D’Arrigo, executive director of the Campaign for New York Health. “This is what an authoritarian oligarchy looks like.”
Trump’s remarks aboard Air Force One followed a weekend of public statements that repeatedly placed oil at the center of his plans for Venezuela. When questioned about whether “free and fair” elections were a priority, Trump dismissed the country as a “mess,” called it a “dead country,” and said the immediate focus would be on restarting oil production.
“We’re gonna have the big oil companies go in and they’re gonna fix the infrastructure and they’re going to invest money. We’re not going to invest anything; we’re gonna just take care of the country,” Trump said. “We’re gonna cherish the country.”
Asked which oil companies he had spoken with, Trump declined to name them, responding, “All of them, basically.” He added, “They want to go in so badly.”
Those comments echoed statements Trump made during a lengthy press conference on Saturday following the US assault on Venezuela, during which the word “oil” was mentioned dozens of times. The president vowed to unleash American fossil fuel corporations on the country, promising to begin “taking a tremendous amount of wealth out of the ground,” with a portion going to the United States “in the form of reimbursement” for what he described as “damages caused us” by Venezuela.
“We’re going to have our very large United States oil companies, the biggest anywhere in the world, go in, spend billions of dollars, fix the badly broken infrastructure, and start making money for the country,” Trump said, while suggesting that US troops could be deployed without congressional authorization to support such efforts. “We’re going to get the oil flowing the way it should be,” he added.
Critics pointed to those remarks as evidence that the assault on Venezuela and the abduction of its president were driven by a desire to control oil reserves believed to be the largest in the world. US Sen. Chris Van Hollen of Maryland said Trump’s own words make clear that the attack is “about trying to grab Venezuela’s oil for Trump’s billionaire buddies.”
Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont similarly condemned the operation, calling it “rank imperialism.” “They have spoken openly about controlling Venezuela’s oil reserves, the largest in the world,” Sanders said. “It recalls the darkest chapters of US interventions in Latin America, which have left a terrible legacy. It will and should be condemned by the democratic world.”
Despite Trump’s confidence, energy experts cautioned that rebuilding Venezuela’s oil sector would be enormously complex and costly. Francisco Monaldi, director of the Latin American energy program at Rice University, said political uncertainty alone could deter major investment. “The issue is not just that the infrastructure is in bad shape, but it’s mostly about how do you get foreign companies to start pouring money in before they have a clear perspective on the political stability, the contract situation and the like,” Monaldi told NPR.
The scale of the required investment is significant even under stable political conditions. “The estimate is that in order for Venezuela to increase from one million barrels per day that is what it produces today to four million barrels, it will take about a decade and about a hundred billion dollars of investment,” Monaldi said.
At present, Chevron is the only US-based oil giant operating in Venezuela. In a statement on Saturday, a Chevron spokesperson said the company is “prepared to work constructively with the US government during this period, leveraging our experience and presence to strengthen US energy security.” Other oil majors have remained largely silent, even as analysts question whether any company would commit to massive infrastructure spending amid the political instability triggered by what has been described as an unlawful military operation and the kidnapping of Venezuela’s president.
Some industry analysts nonetheless identified potential beneficiaries. Thomas O’Donnell, an energy and geopolitical strategist, told Reuters that “the company that probably will be very interested in going back [to Venezuela] is Conoco,” noting that an international arbitration tribunal has ordered Caracas to pay the company around $10 billion for alleged “unlawful expropriation” of oil investments. The Houston Chronicle reported that “Exxon, America’s largest oil company, which has for years grown its presence in South America, would be among the most likely US oil companies to tap Venezuela’s deep oil reserves,” along with fellow Houston giant ConocoPhillips, which also had failed contract attempts under President Nicolás Maduro and former President Hugo Chavez.
Legal scholars and human rights organizations have said the administration’s actions lack any lawful foundation. In an interview with The New Yorker, Oona Hathaway, a professor at Yale Law School and director of its Center for Global Legal Challenges, said there is no legal justification for the assault or the abduction of Venezuela’s leadership. “I don’t think there is a legal basis for what we’re seeing in Venezuela,” Hathaway said. “There are certainly legal arguments that the Administration is going to make, but all the arguments that I’ve heard so far don’t hold water. None of them really justify what the President seems to have ordered to take place in Venezuela.”
Amnesty International likewise warned that “the stated US intention to run Venezuela and control its oil resources” likely “constitutes a violation of international law.”
Elizabeth Bast, executive director of Oil Change International, said in a statement that Trump’s assault on Venezuela “defies the US constitution’s delegation of Congress’ war making authority and disregards international rules that prevent acts of war without debate or authorization.” In a separate statement included in the provided reporting, Bast said the escalation “follows a historic playbook: undermine leftist governments, create instability, and clear the path for extractive companies to profit.”
“The most powerful multinational fossil fuel corporations stand to benefit from these aggressions, and US oil and gas companies are poised to exploit the chaos and carve up one of the world’s most oil-rich territories,” Bast said. “The US must stop treating Latin America as a resource colony. The Venezuelan people, not US oil executives, must shape their country’s future.”
As Trump and other administration officials continued to threaten countries across the region, including Mexico, Colombia, and Cuba, media figures issued increasingly severe warnings. Zeteo editor-in-chief Mehdi Hasan described the administration’s conduct in stark terms. “This is the behavior of a mob boss but with nuclear weapons and the world’s strongest military. None of this is legal. Trump should be impeached by Congress and indicted at The Hague,” Hasan said.
At the center of the controversy remains Trump’s own admission that oil executives were briefed “before and after” the attack while Congress was deliberately kept out of the decision-making process. That disclosure has sharpened questions about constitutional war powers, accountability, and whether US foreign policy decisions are being shaped by democratic oversight or privileged corporate access.
COMMENTS