Trump Reveals Oil Executives Aware of Venezuela Military Operation

President Donald Trump disclosed that heads of American oil companies were informed about the U.S. military’s operation in Venezuela prior to its execution. This revelation raised significant concerns, particularly as Trump’s administration had refrained from consulting with lawmakers, citing worries over potential leaks that could jeopardize operational security.

While speaking to reporters aboard Air Force One, Trump confirmed that he communicated with the oil executives “before and after” the military action. He expressed confidence in the capabilities of these companies, stating, “They want to go in, and they’re going to do a great job for the people of Venezuela.” His comments drew sharp criticism from various quarters, including politicians and veterans who felt undermined by the lack of legislative oversight.

Fred Wellman, an Army combat veteran and current congressional candidate in Missouri, expressed his outrage, stating, “He did not inform Congress, but he’s saying he informed the oil companies.” He highlighted the potential conflict of interest, noting, “The billionaire mega donor that just got control of Citgo. Our service members were used directly to move the interests of Trump’s donors.”

Critics emphasized the implications of Trump’s admission. Melanie D’Arrigo, executive director of the Campaign for New York Health, remarked, “The oil companies were notified before Congress. This is what an authoritarian oligarchy looks like.” Rep. Yassamin Ansari (D-Ariz.) echoed this sentiment, stating that the situation exemplified an authoritarian regime driven by oligarchs.

When questioned about the U.S. commitment to ensuring “free and fair” elections in Venezuela, Trump dismissed the notion, describing the country as a “mess” and a “dead country.” He prioritized the restoration of oil production, asserting, “We’re gonna have the big oil companies go in, and they’re gonna fix the infrastructure and they’re going to invest money.”

Despite Trump’s assertions, oil industry analysts remain skeptical about the willingness of U.S. oil companies to invest in Venezuela’s oil sector. Francisco Monaldi, director of the Latin American energy program at Rice University, explained that the political instability following the military operation complicates any potential investment. He noted, “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.”

Investment estimates to revitalize Venezuela’s oil infrastructure are staggering. Monaldi stated that to increase production from approximately one million barrels per day to four million barrels, the nation would require around $100 billion in investment over the next decade.

Legal experts have raised concerns regarding the legitimacy of Trump’s actions in Venezuela. Oona Hathaway, a professor at Yale Law School, commented, “I don’t think there is a legal basis for what we’re seeing in Venezuela.” She criticized the administration’s legal justifications, asserting that they do not adequately justify the military operation or the actions taken against President Nicolás Maduro.

In a statement, Elizabeth Bast, executive director of Oil Change International, condemned Trump’s military actions, arguing that they violate the U.S. Constitution’s delegation of war-making authority. She called for respect towards the sovereignty of Latin American nations, stating, “The Venezuelan people, not U.S. oil executives, must shape their country’s future.”

As the administration continued to issue threats towards other countries in the region, including Mexico, Colombia, and Cuba, editor-in-chief of Zeteo, Mehdi Hasan, likened Trump’s behavior to that of a mob boss, suggesting that it poses a significant legal threat. He concluded, “None of this is legal. Trump should be impeached by Congress and indicted at The Hague.”

The unfolding situation in Venezuela remains a focal point of international concern, as the implications of U.S. military action and involvement in the region continue to generate debate among lawmakers, legal experts, and citizens alike.