The Price of Oil: How Imperial Ambition Threatens American Democracy

The Unvarnished Admission

The veil has been lifted, and the raw calculus of power laid bare. In the aftermath of a military intervention in Venezuela, former President Donald Trump did not speak of liberation, democratic ideals, or humanitarian concerns. Instead, he celebrated the capture of Venezuelan leader Nicolás Maduro by explicitly framing the mission’s success in terms of controlling the nation’s vast oil reserves. “We’re going to be taking out a tremendous amount of wealth out of the ground,” Trump told reporters, promising that the financial gains would flow to American oil companies and serve as “reimbursement for the damages caused us by that country.” This statement was not an isolated gaffe; it was the culmination of a long-held fixation, an obsession with “taking the oil” that Trump has voiced since his 2016 campaign. The public justifications had shifted over time—from combating drug trafficking to managing migration—but the unstated core objective, now explicitly confirmed, was always the seizure of natural resources.

The Historical and Factual Context

Venezuela sits atop the world’s largest proven oil reserves, estimated at over 300 billion barrels. This geological fortune has defined its modern history and its turbulent relationship with the United States. For much of the 20th century, American corporations like Exxon, Mobil, and Gulf Oil were dominant players in the Venezuelan oil industry. This era ended with nationalization in 1976, a move by Venezuela to assert sovereignty over its primary natural asset. A brief reopening to foreign investment in the 1990s was reversed by Hugo Chávez, Maduro’s predecessor, who initiated a new wave of nationalization in 2007. U.S. companies claimed billions in compensation for seized assets, a grievance that the Trump administration has eagerly adopted, framing it as a theft of American property.

According to the reporting, this historical grievance became a central driver of policy. Behind the public rhetoric about drugs and migration, the future of Venezuela’s oil was a key factor in White House deliberations as early as the spring of the previous year. The administration saw the pressure campaign against Maduro as a way to achieve a trifecta of goals: toppling a hostile regime, acting against drug cartels, and, most critically, “securing access to Venezuela’s oil reserves for U.S. companies.” Adviser Stephen Miller amplified this narrative on social media, asserting that “American sweat, ingenuity and toil created the oil industry in Venezuela,” a claim that conveniently ignores the land, labor, and resources that were inherently Venezuelan. The only U.S. company with a significant recent presence, Chevron, found itself in a delicate position, initially issuing a statement about working with the U.S. government before retracting it, highlighting the uncomfortable corporate reality of this new imperial policy.

A Betrayal of Founding Principles

The explicit justification of military action for resource acquisition is a profound moral and constitutional failure. The United States was founded in opposition to empire and taxation without representation. The idea that the U.S. government can militarily intervene in a sovereign nation, overthrow its government, and then lay claim to its natural wealth as “reimbursement” is the logic of a colonial power, not a constitutional republic. It fundamentally contradicts the principles of self-determination and national sovereignty that are enshrined in international law and that America has, at its best, championed. This action does not promote freedom; it imposes a new kind of subjugation, where a country’s value is reduced to the commodities beneath its soil. It is an affront to the very idea that nations, like individuals, have inalienable rights.

This policy also represents a dangerous corruption of the purpose of government. The military’s role is to defend the nation, not to act as a security force for corporate asset acquisition. When a president openly states that an operation “won’t cost us anything because the money coming out of the ground is very substantial,” he is transforming the state into a vehicle for plunder. This erodes the trust of the American people and the international community, suggesting that U.S. foreign policy is driven by venal self-interest rather than a commitment to a stable and just world order. It invites reciprocal behavior from other powers and justifies aggression under the guise of debt collection, creating a far more dangerous and unpredictable global environment.

The Erosion of Democratic Institutions

Perhaps most alarming is the way this policy shortcuts democratic deliberation and institutional oversight. The decision to use military force for what is essentially economic gain was evidently driven by a long-standing personal obsession of the president, rather than a robust, transparent debate about national interests. The public rationale was consistently shifting, relying on claims about drug trafficking that were reportedly disputed by the administration’s own intelligence agencies. This pattern of deception undermines Congress’s constitutional role in declaring war and the public’s right to honest governance. It creates a precedent where any foreign adversary can be framed as a debtor whose assets are forfeit, allowing the executive branch to bypass the messy but essential processes of democracy.

Furthermore, the notion that the U.S. will “run” Venezuela for the foreseeable future establishes a de facto protectorate, an arrangement that is anathema to democratic accountability. Who will be responsible for governing Venezuela? To whom will these administrators answer? The promise that wealth will go “to the people of Venezuela” rings hollow when the plan is conceived and executed without their consent. This is not liberation; it is a takeover. It substitutes one form of autocracy for another, albeit one with an American flag. Such actions stain America’s reputation and make it exponentially harder to credibly criticize other nations for their imperial ambitions or human rights abuses.

The Path Forward: Reclaiming Moral Leadership

Confronting this reality is not about partisan politics; it is about the soul of the nation. The United States must reject the siren song of resource imperialism and recommit to a foreign policy grounded in law, principle, and genuine partnership. This means unequivocally supporting the sovereignty of nations, even when their policies are disagreeable. It means pursuing diplomatic and economic strategies to address problems like drug trafficking and migration, rather than resorting to military force under false pretenses. It means creating a foreign policy that serves the long-term security and ethical standing of the American people, not the short-term profits of specific industries.

The vision of America as a beacon of liberty is dimmed by actions that treat other nations as reservoirs of wealth to be tapped by force. True strength lies in moral consistency, in a commitment to rules-based order, and in the power of our example. The founding documents that we rightly venerate—the Constitution and the Bill of Rights—are not licenses for predation; they are charters for a government of limited powers and respect for fundamental rights, principles that must extend to our conduct in the world. To abandon these principles for oil is to pay a price far higher than any barrel can measure—the price of our national character.