The oil agreement reached between the administration of U.S. President Donald Trump and Venezuela’s Interim President Delcy Rodriguez is not merely an economic arrangement pertaining to the energy sector; it signals a geopolitical shift that could directly impact the future of U.S.-Venezuela relations, the political transition process in Venezuela, and U.S. policy toward Latin America.[i] The agreement, which covers the operation of a significant portion of Venezuela’s oil reserves, emerged as a result of the convergence of the parties’ differing needs within a specific historical context. While energy security and long-term access to oil resources take precedence for Washington, the need for economic resources and ensuring the political continuity of the current administration are decisive factors for Caracas. For this reason, the agreement in question establishes an asymmetrical yet mutually dependent relationship between the two countries that goes beyond a classic economic partnership.
From Washington’s perspective, one of the principal motivations behind the agreement is energy security. The decline of US strategic petroleum reserves to their lowest level in four decades, combined with geopolitical uncertainties centered on Iran that have heightened risks in global energy markets, has significantly increased the strategic value of Venezuelan oil. President Trump’s announcement that a portion of the oil obtained under the agreement will be used to replenish the US Strategic Petroleum Reserve confirms this approach. Therefore, Venezuelan oil is regarded not only as a commercial commodity but also as a strategic asset capable of strengthening America’s energy resilience against potential international crises.
The agreement is also closely linked to US domestic politics. Ahead of the November 2026 midterm elections, high energy prices remain among the most significant economic concerns of American voters. Although Venezuelan oil is unlikely to reduce gasoline prices directly in the short term, the Trump administration presents the agreement as a political achievement that could pave the way for lower energy prices in the future. In this respect, foreign policy and energy policy become integrated with the needs of domestic electoral politics. Accordingly, the oil agreement concerns not only relations between Caracas and Washington but also the competitive dynamics of US elections.
For Venezuela, the primary driving force behind the agreement is economic necessity. Restoring the production capacity of the country’s oil sector requires substantial foreign capital, advanced technology, and major infrastructure investments. The parties’ projected investment of approximately 100 billion US dollars demonstrates the scale of this requirement.[ii] The Caracas administration expects that increasing oil revenues will alleviate the country’s prolonged economic difficulties and restore the state’s fiscal capacity. Thus, from the perspective of the Rodríguez administration, rapprochement with Washington represents not an ideological shift but rather a strategy for economic and political survival.
At this point, the most significant political consequence of the agreement becomes apparent. It is evident that just as the Delcy Rodriguez administration needs economic recovery, the Trump administration also needs a stable counterpart capable of ensuring the agreement’s implementation. Thus, a paradoxical alignment of interests is emerging between the two administrations. Rodriguez needs Washington to secure economic resources and international support; Trump, meanwhile, needs a government in Caracas that will adhere to the agreement in order to maintain long-term, preferential access to Venezuelan oil. This relationship of mutual need links the political futures of the two leaders to a certain extent.
Nevertheless, the dependency between the parties is not symmetrical. Owing to its economic, military, and diplomatic capabilities, the United States occupies the stronger position in the relationship. Venezuela’s substantial need for financing and investment limits Caracas’s bargaining power. Although both parties benefit from the continuation of the agreement, the costs of its collapse would be considerably higher for Venezuela. While Washington possesses the capacity to access alternative energy sources, Caracas faces far greater difficulty in securing an alternative investment and financing partner comparable to the United States in the short term.
One of the most controversial aspects of the agreement concerns its potential impact on Venezuela’s democratic transition. For years, US pressure on Nicolás Maduro’s government was justified through narratives emphasizing democracy, human rights, and the fight against narcotics trafficking. However, Washington’s apparent prioritization of oil resources in Venezuela’s new political period raises questions regarding the credibility of its previous normative discourse. In particular, the Trump administration’s cooperation with Rodríguez strengthens criticisms that the United States now places greater emphasis on energy interests than on democratic transformation.
This development may also have significant implications for America’s image across Latin America. Within the region’s historical memory, US interventionism has long been associated with the control of natural resources and the protection of economic interests. Given that Venezuela possesses the world’s largest proven oil reserves, Washington’s acquisition of direct economic interests in the country’s oil sector following military intervention has the potential to reinforce this historical perception. As a result, the gap between the United States’ democratic rhetoric and its economic interests in Venezuela becomes increasingly visible.
On the other hand, it is still premature to conclude that the oil agreement will completely eliminate Venezuela’s democratic transition. Different priorities continue to exist within the US administration regarding Venezuela. A policy divergence has emerged between Secretary of State Marco Rubio’s emphasis on democratic transition and institutional reforms, and President Trump’s economically and energy-oriented approach. Therefore, Washington’s Venezuela policy cannot be regarded as one-dimensional. Nevertheless, if the Trump administration derives substantial economic benefits from its relationship with the Rodríguez government, its incentive to support a rapid change of power in Caracas may gradually diminish.
Another important dimension of the agreement for Rodríguez lies in its capacity to generate political legitimacy. A tangible improvement in Venezuela’s economic conditions is widely regarded as one of the most effective means of increasing public support for the current administration. Should oil revenues be directed toward public spending, wages, and social policies, economic performance may become a key source of political legitimacy.
In conclusion, the Trump–Rodríguez oil agreement represents a shift in US–Venezuela relations from ideological confrontation toward pragmatic cooperation based on shared interests. While Washington seeks to secure energy security, stable oil supplies, and favorable domestic economic expectations, Caracas aims to obtain investment, increased oil revenues, and political continuity. The intersection of these interests creates a strong yet asymmetric relationship of mutual dependence. At the same time, the deepening of economic cooperation may strengthen the current administration’s economic and political capacity rather than accelerate Venezuela’s democratic transition.
[i] Vidal Liy, Macarena, and María Martín. “El pacto del petróleo: el negocio que ata a Trump y a Delcy Rodriguez”, El País, https://elpais.com/america/2026-08-31/el-pacto-del-petroleo-el-negocio-que-ata-a-trump-y-a-delcy-rodriguez.html, (Date Accessed: 06.09.2026).
[ii] Ibid.
