Delcy Rodríguez, Venezuela’s interim president, has defended a contentious energy agreement with the United States, asserting that the deal does not compromise the nation’s ownership and control over its vast oil reserves, despite facing significant domestic criticism. Rodríguez, who stepped into power earlier this year following the removal of Maduro through a U.S. operation, addressed the Venezuelan public to refute allegations that she was relinquishing the country’s resources to American interests.
Rodríguez emphasized the transformative potential of the agreement, projecting it could generate over $209 billion in revenue. She argued that Venezuela’s substantial oil reserves, among the largest globally, are of little value without the necessary investment, technology, and infrastructure to harness them for the benefit of the Venezuelan economy. According to reports, the deal, which was negotiated in secrecy over several months, grants the U.S. significant control over a large portion of these reserves, notably more extensive than those in Saudi Arabia and Iran. The accord involves 17 critical oilfields with a production target exceeding 1.5 million barrels per day.
The announcement has sparked a wave of criticism from opposition leaders and even members within Rodríguez’s political faction. Detractors describe the agreement as an unprecedented transfer of national resources, with a former state oil executive condemning it as a betrayal of sovereignty. In response, protesters have taken to the streets of Caracas, decrying what they perceive as foreign exploitation, while social media platforms have been abuzz with users satirically suggesting a rebranding of the national oil company.
This development represents a significant shift for Rodríguez and her political allies, who have traditionally opposed any foreign dominance over Venezuela’s natural assets. Rodríguez herself has previously spoken out against such deals. Concerns have also been raised by opposition figures about the deal’s potential impact on the country’s democratic processes, with uncertainty lingering over the timing of future elections. Critics maintain that the true economic benefits of the agreement hinge on transparent governance and free elections, warning that without these, the deal’s foundation may remain fragile.