On September 4, former President Donald Trump announced an agreement with Venezuela to secure access to more than 65 billion barrels of oil, a figure that would more than double current U.S. proven oil reserves, estimated at around 81 billion barrels. Trump described the deal as historic, asserting that it would increase the American oil supply and substantially lower gas prices over the long term without costing American taxpayers.

However, scrutiny of the agreement reveals numerous complexities and challenges. While Trump claimed the deal incurs no expense to U.S. taxpayers, the United States has already invested approximately $5 billion in military operations related to Venezuela since August 2025. These operations have included an illegal invasion that resulted in the kidnapping of Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro and his wife on January 3, actions widely condemned as violations of international law.

The deal was struck with Delcy Rodríguez, an unelected Venezuelan president who assumed office following Maduro’s removal. Rodríguez is part of the same socialist regime accused of corruption and human rights abuses, though she reportedly has been more cooperative with the Trump administration. Critics argue this raises questions about the legitimacy of the agreement and the extent to which it truly benefits Venezuela’s population, given the nation’s entrenched cronyism.

Reports indicate the U.S. will partner with a private firm led by Alejandro Betancourt, an ally of Rodríguez. Betancourt has faced investigations by prosecutors in Zurich, casting further doubt on the deal’s integrity. The agreement grants the company access to 17 oil fields purported to contain the 65 billion barrels of reserves, but developing these would require multibillion-dollar investments and could take more than a decade to become operational.

Despite Trump’s claims that the deal will lead to lower gas prices, experts caution any impact on fuel costs would not materialize for years, assuming the project comes to fruition. The involvement of the Pentagon in financing development also raises legal concerns, with questions about the legality of military agencies participating in such commercial ventures.

Additionally, political uncertainty presents a significant risk. The shift in Venezuela’s leadership and its openness to cooperation with the United States may be fragile, potentially reversing if there are changes in either Washington or Caracas. Venezuela’s 1999 constitution declares national ownership of oil reserves and prohibits their sale, which could further complicate or nullify the deal under different political circumstances.

U.S. oil companies have historically been hesitant to invest in Venezuela due to the high costs and instability, though some, including Exxon, reportedly are exploring opportunities independently of government involvement. Legal experts and analysts agree that such complex arrangements should arguably remain in the private sector rather than be driven by the U.S. government.

Overall, the agreement faces substantial economic, legal, and political hurdles. Observers suggest it risks undermining Venezuela’s sovereignty, rewarding corrupt actors, and failing to deliver immediate or tangible benefits to the American public. The transaction highlights ongoing tensions surrounding U.S. policy toward Venezuela and the broader challenges of energy diplomacy in politically volatile regions.