President Trump took a bold, unmistakable step this week in Washington, pressing American oil executives to help rebuild Venezuela’s crippled energy industry and offering U.S. security guarantees as part of the deal. The president said he expects private companies to put up the money — at least $100 billion — while the U.S. would provide protections, not direct taxpayer payouts. This is the kind of decisive leadership that reasserts American influence and sends a message that our energy dominance will be defended.
Not every CEO was ready to jump at the offer, and that’s understandable given Venezuela’s history of expropriation and lawless contracts. ExxonMobil’s boss bluntly called the country “uninvestable” without sweeping legal and regulatory changes, and several majors are demanding ironclad investment protections before reconvening operations. That caution is prudent business, but it should not be used as cover for passivity from American industry or Washington.
Conservatives should cheer the administration’s push, because rebuilding Venezuela’s oil output under U.S. oversight could mean cheaper energy for Americans, more market leverage against hostile regimes, and thousands of good-paying jobs liberated by private enterprise. President Trump was clear that he wants the money to come from the companies themselves, not from the American taxpayer — a conservative principle of private investment, not bailouts. That distinction matters: let the giants of industry risk capital where there’s profit, and let the government do what it does best — secure the environment for success.
Still, legitimate hurdles remain and honest conservatives should acknowledge them, not paper them over. U.S. firms like ConocoPhillips and Exxon carry scars from past seizures and multi-billion-dollar claims, and any durable plan must address restitution and enforceable contracts before trillions in value are unlocked. The administration’s willingness to consider which companies may be allowed in — and under what terms — is the only realistic pathway to prevent American firms from being robbed again.
Expect the usual chorus from the left and globalists to howl about “economic imperialism” and criticize any American profit motive in Latin America. That predictable hand-wringing ignores the grim reality Venezuelans have lived under for decades and treats their resources as off-limits to freedom and prosperity. Conservatives should answer plainly: helping rebuild Venezuela’s industry under American rules restores liberty and opportunity, it does not steal sovereignty.
Practical economics will shape how fast this can move — oil prices, infrastructure rot, and on-the-ground security all determine whether billions make sense as investments. Analysts note global energy markets are softer than during past booms, and companies are rightly crunching numbers before committing; still, smart, targeted investments by nimble independents and majors could move the needle fast. The administration needs to keep the market realities front and center while continuing to use American clout to secure contracts that reward risk, not punish it.
If American companies step up, this could be a historic win for freedom-loving countries and for hardworking Americans who deserve lower prices and more jobs. But the deal must not become another taxpayer-funded rescue masked as foreign policy; private capital, enforceable legal protections, and American oversight are the conservative recipe for success. President Trump has opened the door — now it’s time for bold American businessmen to walk through it and show the world what free enterprise backed by American strength can achieve.
