A sweeping oil deal between the United States and Venezuela, which President Trump has called the largest of its kind in history, continues to draw sharp criticism from multiple corners—including from within Trump’s own former ranks.
Elliott Abrams, who served as the U.S. special representative for Venezuela during Trump’s first term, has publicly questioned the agreement, arguing that Washington chose to prioritize access to Venezuelan crude oil over pushing for the country’s return to democratic rule.
According to Abrams, the deal—framed by the administration as a way to revive Venezuela’s battered energy sector—risks doing the opposite of what U.S. policy has long aimed for. Rather than weakening the authoritarian grip of Chavismo, the political movement founded by the late Hugo Chávez and now led by Nicolás Maduro, the agreement could end up reinforcing it by channeling much-needed revenue into government coffers.
Abrams reportedly warned that the arrangement is built on a fragile premise: it will only hold up as long as Venezuela’s current authoritarian system stays in place. Should democratic change actually take root in the country, he suggested, the deal itself would likely collapse.
His comments add to a growing chorus of skepticism—from analysts, opposition figures, and now former U.S. officials—about whether the oil pact serves broader American strategic and human rights goals, or simply secures short-term economic gains.
For the full report and additional context on the deal’s implications, read the original article at El Tiempo.
Source: Exfuncionario de Trump cuestiona pacto petrolero con Venezuela y advierte que fortalecerá al chavismo (eltiempo.com). English version produced with AI assistance.
Image: One-Fat-Man, BY-SA 2.0 (via Openverse).