Donald Trump's Venezuela U-Turn Won't Put America First
nationalinterest.org -- Friday, August 15, 2025, 6:59:09 PM Eastern Daylight Time
Categories: U.S. Elections & Voting Rights, Foreign Policy & International Relations, Presidential Campaigns
By allowing Chevron to pump Venezuelan oil, the Trump administration is providing unearned breathing room for the Maduro regime.
In February, President Trump tore up the oil concessions given by former president Joe Biden to Venezuelan dictator Nicolás Maduro. This came after Maduro trampled his earlier agreement to hold free and fair elections in 2024, as well as his weaponization of immigration against the United States.
Now, just five months later, President Trump has allowed Chevron to resume operations in Venezuela, in what appears to be a near replica of the concessions made during the Biden era. Whatever the framing, the Trump administration's move is a return to the failed thinking of the Biden era. As long as Maduro continues to oppress his people at home and spread chaos at the Southern US border, any steps to legitimize his regime will damage the United States' long-term interest in South America.
The administration and its supporters are already going to great lengths to separate recent concessions from those granted under Biden. Senior State Department officials insist that the administration "will not allow the Maduro regime to profit from the sale of oil." Three Republican lawmakers from Florida, who led initial calls for President Trump to revoke licenses in February, have also endorsed the new framework. In a joint statement on X, they wrote, "No matter what the Maduro regime says, they will receive no benefits."
Yet, no matter how they spin it, the administration's U-turn is a gift to President Maduro. In addition to the absurd claim that Maduro would agree to a deal with zero benefit to his regime, there is clear historical evidence that even if no cash payments are made directly to the Maduro regime, oil swaps are still a boon. Maduro's state-controlled oil company, PDVSA, can collect significant sums in operational fees, such as permits before Chevron would be allowed to export from Venezuela. Similarly, paying Maduro in oil directly frees up money that otherwise would have been spent on imports, allowing Maduro to allocate more resources to propping up his regime.
The administration also insists that the recent prisoner deal agreed between the United States and Venezuela has nothing to do with renewed oil licenses. The deal freed 10 US detainees and 80 Venezuelan political prisoners in return for Maduro accepting 252 Venezuelans sent to El Salvador by the Trump administration in March after Caracas initially refused to accept the deportations. Given President Maduro's record of using illegal immigration as a bargaining chip, it is hard to believe that his regime's change of heart was not coerced at least in part by the potential benefits of an oil deal.
Given the timing of the prisoner deal, it seems likely that the Trump administration has conceded on Chevron licenses to facilitate further discussions on immigration, a higher priority. The administration was already reportedly split when the decision to revoke Biden-era licenses was made concrete in May. Special Envoy Richard Grenell and Secretary of State Marco Rubio were at odds over cutting a deal with Caracas, as Rubio ultimately felt that any short-term advantage of an energy or migration deal would be undercut by the long-term impact of legitimizing the Maduro regime.
Secretary Rubio was right in May when he dubbed the license concessions granted under Biden as "Pro-Maduro." It is a shame that the administration is no longer following his approach. Rubio now has the job of navigating an utterly incongruous US-Venezuela policy, whereby he maintains the economic lifelines of an illegitimate regime.
The Trump administration's U-turn on oil licenses signals to the Maduro regime that immigration is an effective tool to leverage against the United States. The maximum pressure approach adopted during the first Trump administration, which seemed to be returning in February, has given way to this transactional thinking.
Instead of opening the door for future cooperation, Maduro now knows that the administration can blink in the face of intransigence, especially given the importance of the immigration issue to the Trump administration's electoral base. The regime's gesture to free a relatively small number of political prisoners, especially given that up to 850 remain in captivity, is similarly open to future abuse.
U-turning on Chevron oil licenses is a case of myopic short-termism that benefits Caracas much more than Washington. The administration's disjointed Venezuela policy is now empowering Maduro's dictatorial regime, which has already cemented ties with the United States' enemies. In February, the Venezuela-hawks convinced President Trump of a fundamental truth: Maduro is not a good-faith negotiating partner. For the sake of the region's and the United States' long-term security and prosperity, the administration must return to this approach.
About the Author: Mackenzie France
Mackenzie France is a Young Voices contributor and director of strategy at the Pinsker Centre, a UK-based foreign policy think tank. He is also a Krauthammer Fellow at the Tikvah Fund.
Sign Our PetitionThe recent actions of the Trump administration regarding Venezuela represent a complex interplay of foreign policy, domestic politics, and longstanding power dynamics in Latin America. By allowing Chevron to resume its operations in Venezuela, the Trump administration is not merely engaging in a transactional relationship with the Maduro regime but rather perpetuating a cycle of U.S. interventionism that has historically undermined the sovereignty and welfare of Latin American nations. This move requires critical examination not only in the context of current geopolitics but also through the lens of historical injustices that have shaped U.S.-Latin America relations.
Historically, U.S. involvement in Latin America has been characterized by a pattern of intervention aimed at bolstering regimes that align with American economic and political interests, often at the expense of local populations. The overthrow of democratically elected leaders, such as Salvador Allende in Chile in 1973, exemplifies how U.S. foreign policy has favored strategic gains over the promotion of democracy and human rights. In the case of Venezuela, the U.S. has long sought to isolate and undermine the Maduro regime, viewing it as a stronghold of socialism that threatens U.S. interests in the region. However, the current concessions granted to Chevron are a stark reminder of how U.S. policy can often swing between aggression and accommodation, creating instability and confusion that ultimately harms the very people it professes to support.
Moreover, the present administration's framing of its concessions as a means to "not allow the Maduro regime to profit from the sale of oil" raises critical questions about the effectiveness of such an approach. Historical evidence suggests that sanctions and isolations rarely achieve their intended results; instead, they often entrench the power of authoritarian regimes. The reality is that even without direct cash payments, the operational fees and logistical benefits that Maduro's regime will glean from Chevron’s operations could very well bolster its authority, enabling further repression against dissenting voices within Venezuela. This situation echoes past experiences where U.S. sanctions have inadvertently strengthened the resolve of targeted governments, illustrating the complexities of international relations in which moral posturing can lead to unintended consequences.
The recent prisoner deal between the U.S. and Venezuela underscores an additional layer of political maneuvering. The release of detainees on both sides appears to be a calculated move, with the Trump administration seemingly leveraging economic concessions in exchange for political gains. This transactional nature of diplomacy often overlooks the human rights implications, reducing individuals to bargaining chips. Such actions are reminiscent of Cold War-era tactics, where human lives were sacrificed on the altar of political expediency. In this light, the administration's engagement with Maduro is not merely about oil; it is emblematic of a broader disregard for the foundational issues of democracy, human rights, and self-determination that are often invoked in discussions of U.S. foreign policy.
Furthermore, the ramifications of this U-turn extend beyond immediate diplomatic negotiations; they also speak to the larger narrative of immigration and border politics in the U.S. The association between oil concessions and immigration policy raises suspicions about the ethical considerations at play. The notion that Maduro’s regime would alter its immigration strategy in exchange for economic benefits serves as a reminder of how vulnerable populations are often caught in the crossfire of international diplomacy. Rather than addressing the root causes of migration—including economic instability and political repression—the U.S. continues to prioritize short-term political wins, further complicating the humanitarian crisis at the Southern border.
In conclusion, the Trump administration's approach to Venezuela through Chevron's renewed operations encapsulates the fraught dynamics of U.S. foreign policy in Latin America. It reflects a historical legacy of interventionism that often prioritizes economic interests over the promotion of genuine democratic governance and human rights. As discussions around this topic evolve, it is imperative to critically engage with these historical narratives and advocate for a foreign policy that respects the sovereignty and dignity of all nations, prioritizing justice and equity over expedient political maneuvering. By bringing these perspectives to discussions with opponents, one can illuminate the complexities and contradictions inherent in U.S. foreign policy, ultimately advocating for a more humane and constructive approach to international relations.
The recent shift in U.S. policy towards Venezuela under the Trump administration has sparked a heated debate about the implications of allowing Chevron to resume oil operations in the country. On the surface, this move appears to be a pragmatic approach to engage with a regime long criticized for its authoritarian practices. However, a deeper analysis reveals that this approach may unintentionally bolster the Maduro regime, undermining both the interests of the United States and the plight of Venezuelan citizens. The historical context of U.S.-Venezuela relations provides a crucial backdrop for understanding the significance of this policy change.
Historically, U.S. involvement in Latin America has been characterized by a complex interplay of interventionism, economic interests, and support for authoritarian regimes that align with American geopolitical goals. The legacy of the Cold War continues to shape U.S. foreign policy, often prioritizing the stability of regimes over the promotion of democracy and human rights. The Trump administration’s recent concessions to Venezuela echo this pattern, as the decision to allow Chevron to operate in the country can be seen as a tacit endorsement of Maduro's governance, despite his track record of oppression and election manipulation. This approach overlooks the deeper structural issues at play in Venezuela, including the need for genuine democratic reforms and respect for human rights.
Moreover, the administration's insistence that the arrangement will not benefit Maduro is deeply misleading. Despite claims that there would be no direct financial gain for the regime, historical evidence suggests otherwise. The operational fees associated with Chevron's activities can provide significant resources to a regime that has shown a willingness to exploit its own people for political gain. This raises critical questions about the ethical implications of U.S. foreign policy: should the pursuit of energy interests come at the cost of democratic principles and support for the oppressed? By prioritizing short-term energy needs, the U.S. risks entrenching a regime that systematically violates the rights of its citizens.
So, what can we as Americans do in response to this concerning development? First, it is crucial to advocate for a foreign policy that prioritizes human rights and democratic governance over mere economic interests. Engaging in grassroots activism, contacting representatives, and raising awareness about the plight of Venezuelans can pressure policymakers to adopt a more principled stance. Additionally, supporting organizations that promote democracy and human rights in Venezuela can help amplify the voices of those struggling against oppression. By aligning our advocacy efforts with the needs and aspirations of the Venezuelan people, we can foster a more authentic and effective U.S. foreign policy.
Lastly, it is essential to educate ourselves and others about the historical context of U.S. intervention in Latin America. Understanding the long-standing patterns of exploitation and interference helps us critically analyze current policy decisions. Engaging in informed discussions with those who may hold opposing views can also help bridge the ideological divide. By presenting well-researched arguments that highlight the consequences of supporting authoritarian regimes, we can challenge the narrative that prioritizes short-term gains over long-term stability and justice. Ultimately, a nuanced understanding of U.S.-Venezuela relations will empower us to advocate for a foreign policy that genuinely reflects the values we espouse as a nation.
To address the issues raised in the article concerning the U.S. government's oil dealings with Venezuela and the implications of the Trump administration's decisions, there are several actions we can take as concerned citizens. Here is a detailed list of ideas and actions you can personally undertake:
### 1. **Educate Yourself and Others** - **Action**: Stay informed about the political dynamics in Venezuela, the implications of U.S. foreign policy, and the consequences of oil concessions. - **Example**: Attend local talks or webinars about U.S.-Venezuela relations, human rights issues, and international oil politics. Share insights with friends, family, and community members.
### 2. **Sign Petitions** - **Action**: Support petitions that advocate for human rights in Venezuela and oppose U.S. concessions that benefit the Maduro regime. - **Example**: Use platforms like Change.org or MoveOn.org to find relevant petitions. For instance, petitions demanding that the U.S. government prioritize human rights over energy deals in Venezuela. - **Sample Petition**: Search for "Oppose U.S. Oil Deals with Venezuela" and sign.
### 3. **Contact Your Representatives** - **Action**: Write to your elected officials to express your concerns about U.S. policy towards Venezuela and its implications for human rights and democracy. - **Who to Write To**: - Your local U.S. Representative (find their contact information on [house.gov](https://www.house.gov)) - Your U.S. Senators (find their contact information on [senate.gov](https://www.senate.gov)) - **Example Email**: ``` Subject: Urgent: Oppose U.S. Oil Concessions to Venezuela
Dear [Representative/Senator’s Name],
I am writing to express my deep concern regarding the recent decision to allow Chevron to resume oil operations in Venezuela. This move not only legitimizes Nicolás Maduro's oppressive regime but also undermines the efforts of those fighting for democracy and human rights in Venezuela.
I urge you to prioritize human rights and democratic values over energy interests in your foreign policy decisions. Please take a stand against policies that could further empower a regime that oppresses its people.
Thank you for your attention to this critical matter.
Sincerely, [Your Name] [Your Address] [Your Email] ```
### 4. **Engage in Community Advocacy** - **Action**: Join local activist groups or organizations focused on Latin American human rights issues. - **Example**: Organizations like the **National Coalition for Human Rights in Venezuela** or local chapters of **Amnesty International** often have campaigns and initiatives that you can participate in.
### 5. **Social Media Advocacy** - **Action**: Use your social media platforms to raise awareness about the situation in Venezuela and the implications of U.S. foreign policy. - **Example**: Share articles, create informative posts or threads, and engage in discussions about the impact of oil deals on Venezuelan democracy and human rights. - **Hashtags to Use**: #Venezuela, #HumanRights, #NoOilForMaduro
### 6. **Attend Rallies and Events** - **Action**: Participate in or organize rallies that advocate for Venezuelan human rights and against U.S. concessions to the Maduro regime. - **Example**: Look for events hosted by local human rights organizations or social justice groups. Websites like Eventbrite or local community boards may list events.
### 7. **Support Venezuelan Communities** - **Action**: Contribute to organizations that provide support to Venezuelan immigrants and refugees fleeing the regime. - **Example**: Donate to or volunteer with groups like **Refugee and Immigrant Center for Education and Legal Services (RAICES)** or similar local organizations.
### 8. **Write Op-Eds or Letters to the Editor** - **Action**: Share your perspective on the issue in local newspapers or online platforms. - **Example**: Write a letter to your local newspaper emphasizing the importance of a principled U.S. foreign policy that prioritizes human rights over corporate interests.
### Conclusion Taking action on these points can help amplify the voices of those affected by U.S. policies in Venezuela and advocate for a foreign policy that respects human rights and democracy. By engaging in these activities, you can contribute to a broader movement for justice and accountability in international relations.