The Venezuela Oil Account: Donald Trump's Takeover of a Sovereign Nation’s Resources

Story by Yiannis Damellos

July 27, 2026

Trump says U.S. has sold more than $13 billion of Venezuelan oil since Maduro’s capture 

You can call it Imperialism, which involves using power to control or influence other countries. It may also be described as the Occupation or Control of Resource Extraction and Exports - after seizing control of those resources and trade mechanisms. If local institutions persist while real control is exercised externally, it can be termed Neocolonialism. Where I come from, we call it Looting or Theft. One thing is for sure: the actions of the U.S. in Venezuela—specifically, seizing control of exports and revenue streams—align with what many would label as “Resource Imperialism” or Coercive Control.

On paper, the Trump administration says it has done something “for the good” of Venezuela. In practice, the story coming out of Washington—and the numbers attached to it—adds up to something far more corrosive: the United States capturing the machinery of a sovereign state’s resource revenues and then holding those revenues under U.S. control while insisting it isn’t “taking” them.

According to reporting and administration statements, President Trump claimed the U.S. has collected more than $13 billion from the sale of Venezuelan crude since January, after a Jan. 3 operation captured former President Nicolás Maduro and the U.S. seized control of Venezuela’s oil exports. (thedailybeast.com)

“We’re taking in a lot of money”

This is the heart of the controversy: revenue that ordinarily would flow through Venezuelan state control is being routed through U.S.-managed structures.

The administration’s own officials have described a system in which oil proceeds are handled through accounts the U.S. controls. A State Department official (Michael Kozak) testified that about $3 billion had been disbursed from a Treasury account, with the money described as being used for things like payroll and supplies for Venezuela’s oil industry, along with other “approved uses.” (archive.ph)

Secretary of State Marco Rubio told Congress that the oil sales proceeds are audited by KPMG, and that the money is held in a Citibank account (and, as additional reporting describes, also connected to Treasury arrangements and an earlier Qatar-linked account). (thedailybeast.com)

If you’re looking for the phrase that best describes what’s happening, the closest match is not “financial oversight.” It’s external control of a sovereign revenue stream—control exercised by a foreign power with armed capacity.

“Custodial” is a political word, not a moral alibi

Supporters of the administration’s approach lean on legalistic framing: the money is supposedly Venezuela’s, held “custodially” by the U.S., and then released under conditions.

That framing shows up in both the administration’s public materials and in the testimony described by oversight-focused reporting. For example, the White House has published a fact sheet titled “Safeguards Venezuelan Oil Revenue for the Good of the American and Venezuelan People”—a claim that the system is meant to preserve funds rather than seize them. (whitehouse.gov)

But activists—and many critics—don’t accept “custodial” as a substitute for legitimacy. In a coercive scenario where the U.S. has seized export control after removing a head of state, the question isn’t merely who audits—it’s who has the leverage.

Even the Council on Foreign Relations has described the broader structure: the U.S. “took over” Venezuela’s oil industry and raised questions about where the money has gone, including the opacity of agreements and the conditionality of disbursements. (cfr.org)

Control over exports means control over sovereignty

Export revenue isn’t an abstract financial detail. It’s the circulatory system of a state’s ability to function.

And that’s why this arrangement is so politically explosive. If a foreign power can:

• capture export flows,
• route proceeds through accounts under its influence,
• authorize or delay disbursements,
• and impose compliance with its approvals,

then the dispute stops being about bookkeeping and becomes about who actually governs.

Even the energy secretary’s figures—such as the claim of roughly 150 million barrels sold since early January—illustrate the scale of what’s being moved and monetized. (semafor.com)

So what do you call it? The most fitting term is imperialism

This is not “oil trade” between partners. It’s not simply a sanctions regime where the target regime loses access. It’s described as a system where the U.S. gains leverage over the extraction-to-export chain following a military capture—and then manages the proceeds with auditors and government accounts.

Different analysts might use different labels—imperialism, neocolonial resource control, coercive extraction, or resource domination—but the common thread is straightforward: a dominant power controlling another country’s natural-resource revenues.

The missing piece: transparency that isn’t optional

What critics repeatedly demand is not vague outrage. It’s concrete transparency:

• how much is collected in total,
• what rules govern disbursement,
• what portion is retained versus released,
• and what oversight mechanisms ensure accountability.

The reporting around the $13 billion figure repeatedly emphasizes how little the public knows about where the money ultimately goes and how fully oversight functions in practice. (thedailybeast.com)

If this were a fully consensual, sovereign-to-sovereign arrangement, the moral argument would be weaker.

But when a state’s oil exports are controlled through a coercive intervention and the proceeds are handled through U.S.-controlled custody, what results is not “safeguarding.” It is external leverage over a sovereign resource system—and that, for critics, is exactly why this is among the ugliest forms of modern imperial practice.