Trump says Venezuela stole US oil. History tells a different story.

-

• Venezuela nationalized its oil industry in 1976 through political consensus.
• US oil firms lost assets but were compensated; never owned Venezuela's oil or land.
• Trump's claim of Venezuela stealing US oil and land is historically inaccurate

Did our AI summary help?

When Donald Trump says Venezuela “stole” American oil, land and assets, he is tapping into a long-running grievance in US–Venezuela relations. But the historical record shows something more complicated and far less dramatic than outright theft, the Washington Post reported.

Venezuela, home to the world’s largest proven oil reserves, took control of its petroleum industry in 1976, nationalising foreign-owned operations after decades of political debate. American companies were affected, but they did not own Venezuela’s oil or territory, and they were not forcibly expelled from the country.

“Trump’s claim that Venezuela stole oil and land from the US is baseless,” said Francisco Rodríguez, a Venezuelan economist at the University of Denver.

How Venezuela took back its oil

For much of the early 20th century, Venezuela’s oil sector was dominated by foreign companies. Under dictator Juan Vicente Gómez, who ruled from 1908 to 1935, generous concessions left three foreign firms controlling nearly the entire industry. Oil soon accounted for more than 90 percent of Venezuela’s exports.

Successive governments, both conservative and progressive, sought to claw back control. A 1943 law forced oil companies to share profits equally with the state. By the 1950s, a cross-party political pact ensured oil revenues were distributed among Venezuela’s major political forces.

By the mid-1970s, nationalisation was widely expected. In August 1975, Congress passed legislation to bring the industry under state control. In January 1976, the government formally created Petróleos de Venezuela, or PDVSA, which took over exploration, production, refining and exports.

At the time, the move was relatively uncontroversial internationally. The United States, Rodríguez noted, preferred a stable oil supplier over a prolonged dispute.

What US companies lost — and what they didn’t

American oil companies operating in Venezuela did lose assets. Firms including ExxonMobil, Chevron and Gulf Oil saw their operations transferred to PDVSA.

But those companies never owned Venezuela’s oil reserves, which legally belonged to the state. Nor did they own Venezuelan land. The nationalization involved operational assets, not sovereignty.

The companies were compensated — though not to their satisfaction. Collectively, they lost about $5 billion in assets and received roughly $1 billion each, according to reporting from the time. None pursued major legal challenges, in part because there was no international arbitration mechanism available in 1976.

Chávez and a second wave of nationalization

Oil tensions resurfaced decades later under Hugo Chávez, who came to power in 1999 and sought to use oil revenue to fund a socialist transformation of the country.

In 2007, Chávez nationalized the last privately run oil operations in the Orinoco Belt, Venezuela’s largest oil-producing region. Some companies agreed to new contract terms. Others, including ExxonMobil and ConocoPhillips, refused and sought compensation through international arbitration.

By then, Venezuela had signed treaties allowing investors to sue foreign governments. Arbitration panels ultimately awarded ExxonMobil and ConocoPhillips billions of dollars — far less than they demanded, but more than Venezuela initially offered.

Venezuela has paid only part of those awards, citing economic collapse, corruption and the impact of US sanctions.

Oil decline and Trump’s accusations

Under Chávez’s successor, Nicolás Maduro, Venezuela’s oil production has collapsed. Exports that once reached 3 to 4 million barrels a day now hover below 1 million, most of it going to China.

The Trump administration has accused Maduro of using oil revenue to fund drug trafficking and criminal networks. Trump has argued that US companies should return to Venezuela, repair infrastructure and reclaim what he says was stolen.

But experts say that framing misrepresents history.

“It’s an odd argument,” Rodríguez said. “You go to court, the court rules on compensation, then sanctions make it impossible to pay — and then you accuse the other side of theft.”

A blockade with real consequences

Trump has imposed a partial blockade targeting sanctioned tankers, part of an effort to choke off Venezuela’s oil exports. Analysts say such a move could cripple the Venezuelan economy, which depends heavily on oil revenue.

But the impact on global oil markets would likely be limited. Supply currently exceeds demand, and Venezuelan crude represents a small share of global trade.

For Venezuela, however, the consequences could be severe.

“Over time, the impact is disastrous,” said Neil Atkinson, a former head of oil at the International Energy Agency.

The bottom line

Venezuela’s oil nationalisation was not an act of theft, but the result of decades of political consensus and global trends toward resource nationalism. US companies lost assets, received compensation and later pursued arbitration.

Trump’s claim may resonate politically. Historically, it does not hold up.