On Sunday, President Donald Trump revealed that American oil companies were informed of the U.S. military’s planned attack on Venezuela before it occurred, a move deemed “brazenly illegal” by scholars. This admission drew criticism due to the administration’s failure to consult Congress, which was not informed due to concerns over operational security. Trump stated, “Before and after” the operation, oil executives were aware, adding that they “want to go in” to help Venezuela. Critics, including Rep. Yassamin Ansari and Army veteran Fred Wellman, highlighted the troubling implications of informing oil companies over Congress, painting the situation as indicative of an “authoritarian regime.”
Trump described Venezuela as a “mess” and shifted focus onto getting oil flowing, suggesting that private companies would fix the country’s infrastructure without U.S. government investment. Industry experts, however, cautioned that political instability and infrastructure challenges would deter oil companies from investing significantly in Venezuela.
Legal experts, including Yale’s Oona Hathaway, asserted that there was no legal justification for the military action or the kidnapping of Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro. Elizabeth Bast of Oil Change International underscored that Trump’s actions contravene the constitutional separation of war-making powers. As Trump continued to threaten other nations in the region, observers likened his behavior to that of a mob boss, calling for congressional impeachment and international accountability.
