Major US oil companies have so far remained conspicuously silent after President Donald Trump claimed they are ready to spend “billions and billions of dollars” rebuilding Venezuela’s oil industry following the January 3 military operation that removed President Nicolás Maduro.
Trump has publicly suggested that American energy multinationals would be central to Washington’s plans to control, manage, and even “run” Venezuela’s oil sector. Yet no major US oil company has confirmed such commitments, and lawmakers from both parties are openly questioning the legality, intent, and endgame of the administration’s actions.
Are US oil companies really prepared to invest billions?
Despite Trump’s confident assertions, responses from US oil firms have been muted at best.
Chevron — the only major US oil company still operating in Venezuela — said it would merely continue to follow “relevant laws and regulations,” offering no endorsement of Trump’s vision.
A spokesperson for Chevron said:
“Chevron remains focused on the safety and wellbeing of our employees, as well as the integrity of our assets. We continue to operate in full compliance with all relevant laws and regulations.”
ExxonMobil, the largest US oil producer, did not respond to requests for comment, while ConocoPhillips said it was monitoring developments but that it was “premature to speculate” about future investments.
Trump, speaking at Mar-a-Lago, painted a far more ambitious picture. He said US companies would rebuild Venezuela’s “rotted” oil infrastructure, ramp up production, and sell “large amounts” of oil globally.
“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, adding that the companies would be “reimbursed,” without explaining how.
Who authorised the US to ‘run’ Venezuela’s oil industry?
Trump’s remarks have triggered sharp criticism on Capitol Hill, where lawmakers are questioning both the constitutional authority and policy rationale behind the administration’s claims.
Senator Chris Van Hollen, writing on January 4, 2026, openly challenged the idea that the United States should be “running” Venezuela, warning that Trump’s priorities appear focused on enriching elites rather than addressing domestic crises.
“At a time when he’s caused healthcare & other costs to skyrocket here at home, Trump bailed out Argentina & wants to ‘run’ Venezuela, including if necessary, w/ US boots on the ground,”
Van Hollen wrote.
“All he cares abt is enriching himself, big bankers, oil CEOs & the rest of his billionaire pals.”
Don’t be fooled: you can’t both claim this was simply the execution of an arrest warrant AND say the U.S. is now "running" Venezuela & grabbing its oil resources.
— Senator Chris Van Hollen (@ChrisVanHollen) January 3, 2026
Trump just admitted this was a clear regime-change play to enrich U.S. oil companies & his billionaire buddies. https://t.co/sIZJndhdHV
What is Trump’s actual plan for Venezuela?
Senator Adam Schiff raised an even broader set of questions, accusing the administration of avoiding transparency. In a detailed statement, Schiff demanded answers on how Trump plans to govern Venezuela, whether US troops would be deployed, and how the United States intends to control the country’s oil resources.
Among Schiff’s questions were: What happens if Venezuela’s remaining leadership refuses to cooperate? Will military assets be used to secure oil infrastructure? How would Washington respond if China or Russia cite this precedent to justify their own military actions abroad? And, critically, what is the exit strategy?
“How does this end?” Schiff asked.
Is this intervention really about oil?
Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene, in a post dated January 3, 2026, also expressed alarm — though from a different ideological angle — calling the operation a “clear move for control over Venezuelan oil supplies.”
Greene said Americans are increasingly “disgusted” by what she described as endless US military aggression driven by foreign economic interests.
“By removing Maduro this is a clear move for control over Venezuelan oil supplies,”
she wrote, linking the intervention to fears of future regime-change wars and warning that US taxpayers are ultimately forced to bear the cost.
Why is Venezuela’s oil sector so politically charged?
Venezuela holds the world’s largest proven oil reserves and about 17% of global reserves, according to the Energy Institute. Yet its production has collapsed over decades of nationalisation, corruption, sanctions, and underinvestment.
The country nationalised its oil industry roughly 50 years ago and fully seized remaining private operations in 2007. Chevron stayed under revised terms, while ExxonMobil and ConocoPhillips exited and later won billions of dollars in compensation through international arbitration. Venezuela has yet to fully pay those awards.
Trump has repeatedly accused Caracas of stealing American wealth and property and confirmed that a full US embargo on Venezuelan oil remains in place — even as he suggests American firms will soon reclaim and operate the reserves.
How much would it cost to revive Venezuela’s oil production?
Restoring Venezuela’s oil output to historical levels would require staggering investment.
Production, which once reached 3.5 million barrels per day in the 1970s, fell to around 1 million barrels per day last year — roughly 1% of global output. According to Rystad Energy, returning production to just 2 million barrels per day by the early 2030s would require about $110 billion in investment.
Jorge León, head of geopolitical analysis at Rystad, said he doubts companies will rush back.
“Before rushing back into the country, companies will want to see the country is stable enough,”
León said, noting lingering fears from the Chávez-era nationalisations.
Would oil companies really take the risk?
The question whether American oil giants will actively pursue investments in Venezuela has analysts divided. León stated that the world was facing an era of oversupply for its oil markets, which translates to plummeting oil prices. Such conditions make it likely for investors to be quite selective, considering they would much rather invest in places they already know.
But others see Venezuela as a rare prize. Tina Fordham, founder of Fordham Global Foresight, said the country represents “a huge opportunity” and predicted intense competition among oil majors for the best assets.
“There will be immense competition between them,”
she said.
Were oil executives consulted before the strike?
Trump’s confidence has led some analysts to believe oil executives may have been consulted ahead of time.
“My hunch is that, if President Trump said this publicly, probably there was already an agreement with the US companies,”
León said.
The White House, however, declined to say whether it spoke with US oil firms before the operation. Politico reported that administration officials recently told oil executives that compensation for seized assets would require returning to Venezuela and investing heavily.
Trump has hailed the January 3 operation as “one of the most stunning, effective and powerful displays of American military might and competence” in history. But in corporate boardrooms and foreign capitals alike, memories of post-regime-change chaos in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Libya loom large.
“The history of post-authoritarian transitions is long and non-linear,”
Fordham warned.
“Trump appears to have complete faith that, under him, things will be different.”
Whether US oil giants share that confidence — or are willing to bet billions on it — remains an open question.
