Communist Party calls deal ‘surrender of national assets’
The oil agreement announced by President Donald Trump and Venezuela’s acting President Delcy Rodríguez has prompted an unusual consensus of opposition from opposite ends of the country’s political spectrum, bringing together the traditional democratic opposition and orthodox Chavismo — the nationalist and populist left-wing political movement founded by Hugo Chávez.
Both sides have opposed the agreement, denouncing what they describe as a loss of sovereignty, a lack of institutional legitimacy, and extreme secrecy surrounding the negotiations.
The Communist Party of Venezuela, or PCV, issued a statement Tuesday denouncing the “handover of a significant portion of the nation’s main source of wealth” under terms that remain unknown to the country. The party criticized what it described as the complete lack of transparency surrounding the bilateral agreement. “The PCV categorically rejects this new and serious surrender of national assets carried out by the illegitimate and illegal triumvirate that exercises de facto power in Venezuela,” the party said, referring to the government led by Rodríguez, her brother and National Assembly President Jorge Rodríguez, and Interior Minister Diosdado Cabello.
President Donald Trump presented details of the oil agreement with Venezuela on Monday night, which he previously described as the largest in world history. According to a White House report, the United States secures “majority control over more than 65 billion barrels of proven oil reserves in Venezuela.” That amount significantly exceeds current U.S. domestic proven reserves, estimated at about 46 billion barrels.
The official statement said Venezuela’s interim authorities granted North American Blue Energy Partners, or NABEP, a private company already operating in the country and described by the White House as its second-largest private producer, 100-year concessions covering 17 strategic oil fields with approximately 65 billion barrels of reserves. NABEP plans to invest up to $100 billion in new oil infrastructure in Venezuela, which it said would boost economic growth and create thousands of jobs in the country.
For supporters of Chávez’s political legacy, the agreement represents a radical ideological betrayal and capitulation to the United States. In 2007, Chávez completed the nationalization of the Orinoco Oil Belt to reverse the commercial opening of the 1990s, requiring foreign corporations to relinquish operational control and majority ownership to state-owned oil company PDVSA. The policy sought to place the country’s energy wealth under state control and use oil revenue to directly finance the social programs of Chávez’s socialist project. Multinational companies that rejected the new terms imposed by Chávez, including ExxonMobil and ConocoPhillips, left the country and launched international claims seeking billions of dollars from Venezuela.
After Trump and Rodríguez announced the agreement, hard-line government supporters and nationalist left-wing groups took to the streets in central Caracas to demand a mandatory consultative referendum because of the agreement’s geopolitical significance. Protesters said granting majority control to a private U.S. operator dismantles the energy sovereignty achieved through the nationalizations. They also demanded the immediate release of Nicolás Maduro, who is being held in a New York jail.
On the other side of Venezuela’s political divide, traditional opposition parties have rejected the energy agreement, arguing that Rodríguez’s interim government lacks the constitutional legitimacy to commit the country’s primary source of wealth for the next 100 years. They also sharply criticized the Trump administration, accusing it of abandoning the longstanding demand for free elections and a democratic transition in Venezuela in exchange for immediate U.S. energy interests.
“We regret that the U.S. administration, instead of accelerating efforts to achieve political change through elections, continues seeking agreements with an individual and a criminal regime,” César Pérez Vivas, a former governor of Venezuela’s Táchira state, told NTN24.
Opposition leader María Corina Machado stopped short of directly condemning the agreement but said the viability of any energy project depends on the restoration of democracy. Speaking Monday at the Bled Strategic Forum in Slovenia, Machado said Venezuela is ready to become a key partner in Western energy security but warned that attracting large-scale investment and rebuilding the country will be sustainable in the long term only after the rule of law is restored and free elections are held.
Venezuelan economist Ricardo Hausmann, a Harvard University professor and former Venezuelan planning minister, commented on Secretary of State Marco Rubio on X following the presentation of the agreement, saying he chose to use U.S. power “not to free Venezuelans, but to go to bed with our oppressors.” Hausmann described the agreement as “an asset grab” and “an unconstitutional deal with an illegitimate and oppressive government.” He argued that the United States should have used its leadership to first restore constitutional order and democracy in Venezuela “and then deal with a legitimate government that could have made credible long-term commitments.” “This announced deal will not stand,” Hausmann warned.
From a technical and operational perspective, Evanan Romero, a former PDVSA director and former vice minister of energy, expressed surprise at what he described as the lack of a strong technical counterpart on the U.S. side. Romero told NTN24 that promises to immediately develop 17 strategic fields are “very far” from reality and carry excessive engineering risks given the deterioration of Venezuela’s infrastructure.
Meanwhile, Venezuelan human rights group Provea said on X that if the Trump administration and U.S. companies decide to “enter into opaque and unconstitutional agreements with Venezuelan authorities,” they will share responsibility for human rights violations that occur from that point forward.