Connect with us

America

US controls $13 billion in Venezuelan oil revenues with little transparency, raising congressional concerns

Published

on

The Trump administration has generated more than $13 billion in revenue from Venezuelan oil sales this year but has provided almost no public explanation regarding the final destination or usage of these funds.

The Financial Times (FT) calculated Venezuela’s estimated oil revenues using data on crude oil shipments from the country since January, compiled by the shipping and data analytics platform Kpler.

To determine these figures, the FT utilized price assessments from the pricing agency Argus Media for Merey crude—an extra-heavy grade produced in Venezuela—as well as Boscan and Hamaca, two less common Venezuelan crude grades.

The pricing data does not cover all varieties of Venezuelan petroleum and begins only from February onward.

The value of the barrels shipped since January for which direct price estimates are available currently stands at approximately $11.5 billion.

However, based on historical pricing trends, it is estimated that the barrels without established price assessments bring the total figure to more than $13 billion.

The Venezuelan government established a website to track the revenue generated from US-managed oil sales, but the site currently contains only a single entry: a $300 million transfer completed in March.

The US seized control of Venezuela’s oil exports and suspended certain sanctions in January, after removing Nicolás Maduro and installing Vice President Delcy Rodríguez as leader.

Oil revenues account for approximately one-quarter of Venezuela’s GDP. The easing of sanctions was widely expected to provide a significant boost to an economy that was in crisis even before the devastating earthquakes that struck the country last month.

However, six months after the US seized control of the funds, economists point out that evidence of an economic recovery in Venezuela remains relatively weak.

This lack of recovery is seen as a potential sign that Washington is not returning the entirety of the revenues to Caracas.

Washington has offered contradictory explanations regarding what it has done with the money, ranging from a presidential executive order describing its role as maintaining “calm” to statements by President Donald Trump asserting that the US has “made a lot of money” from Venezuelan oil.

US lawmakers from both political parties have begun pressing the administration to clarify where the money has gone and what measures are in place to prevent corruption during its allocation.

Joaquin Castro, a prominent Democratic Congressman, told the FT that Congress has been “kept in the dark” on the matter.

“Trump’s intervention in Venezuela has been about oil, power, and corruption from the very beginning; billions of dollars in Venezuelan oil revenue are being controlled by the Trump administration without transparency or safeguards,” Castro said.

During a hearing on Tuesday, Representative María Elvira Salazar, a Republican from South Florida, called for the public release of reports on these funds, emphasizing “the importance of transparency regarding where the money is going.”

The fate of Venezuela’s oil revenues has become an even more urgent issue following two devastating earthquakes on June 24. The UN estimates that the cost of damage to buildings and infrastructure alone will reach $37 billion.

Benjamin Gedan, a former senior official responsible for Latin America at the White House during the Obama administration, said that Democrats could investigate the oil funds if they win control of one or both chambers of Congress in November.

“This would be a really juicy target. You can anticipate a lot of subpoenas and requests for testimony regarding the distribution of Venezuelan oil revenues,” Gedan said.

Shortly after the January intervention, President Trump stated that the revenues would be under his control. Since then, the administration has issued a series of conflicting statements on how the oil funds might be utilized.

The initial executive order issued in January stated that the funds belong to the government of Venezuela and would be held in US government accounts in a “fiduciary and official capacity.”

Conversely, the US Department of Energy stated that the funds would be distributed “for the benefit of the American people and the Venezuelan people.”

In June, Trump stated that the US had recovered the cost of its military operation in Venezuela “28 times over” through oil, adding that the US “also made a lot of money.”

“It took 48 minutes to win that war. We brought out millions of barrels of oil,” Trump said.

In April, senior State Department official Michael Kozak said that approximately $3 billion in oil revenues had been sent to Venezuela and that the accounting firm KPMG was auditing the bank accounts.

Kozak stated that the administration would submit quarterly reports on the funds, but Democrats on the Foreign Affairs Committee say they have received no information since then.

US officials indicate that control of the oil funds is being used to exert pressure on Rodríguez, who currently governs the country partly under instructions from Washington.

During a congressional hearing last Wednesday, Kozak said: “It is their money but… they need our permission.”

The official noted that funds have been released to cover expenses such as public sector salaries and oil industry equipment.

The State Department stated that under this system, “billions of dollars have been injected into the Venezuelan economy,” adding that “financial monitoring continues to ensure the funds benefit the Venezuelan people.”

Given that Venezuela was forced to sell its oil at a steep discount on international markets to bypass US sanctions until January, many economists expected the country to experience a robust economic recovery this year. The government introduced a new resource law to encourage oil and gas investment, and production has increased this year.

However, Francisco Rodríguez, a Venezuelan economist at the Center for Economic and Policy Research in Washington, pointed out that the official first-quarter growth rate was 2.5%, representing the lowest level in five years.

“Venezuela likely did not grow faster in the first quarter, despite rising oil revenues, because the US did not transfer all of the increased oil revenues to the Venezuelan government,” Rodríguez said.

José Guerra, a Venezuelan economist and former opposition lawmaker, said that oil revenues should be significantly higher than in recent years. “Where is the money? There is no transparency, and the US government is not giving us information,” he said.

Alejandro Grisanti, director of Ecoanalítica, a consultancy specializing in Venezuela, noted that there have been signs of large-scale dollar inflows over the past two months.

Grisanti expected the economy to accelerate in the fourth quarter of the year, but said the earthquake would likely delay this recovery until the middle of next year.

Since the earthquake, Rodríguez has been lobbying for access to funds held abroad, including assets held by the IMF and Venezuelan gold held in the custody of the Bank of England pending the outcome of a lawsuit.

The US has set aside a $386 million aid package for disaster relief and has deployed hundreds of troops to Venezuela to assist with relief efforts.

John Barrett, the US Chargé d’Affaires in Caracas, stated this month that money from the oil revenue accounts has also been “allocated for this specific reconstruction effort,” though he did not specify the amount.

US officials noted that the estimated oil revenue figure does not include revenues from mining exports, a portion of which has also been collected by the government.

America

Wealthy Americans drive surge in New Zealand golden visa demand

Published

on

More than 700 wealthy foreign nationals have applied for New Zealand residency under the country’s “golden visa” programme over the past 14 months, compared with just 115 applications during the previous three years.

Applicants are required to invest at least NZ$5 million in local funds, companies or charitable organisations within three years.

A further 127 people have applied under a separate programme that requires an investment of NZ$10 million in passive assets such as bonds for five years.

The surge followed a relaxation of rules governing property purchases, investment requirements and the amount of time applicants must spend in the country to qualify.

According to the Financial Times (FT), the increase in applications for the right to live, work and study indefinitely in New Zealand has coincided with a period of geopolitical uncertainty that has made the country’s security and remote location increasingly attractive.

Dozens of countries around the world, from Portugal to the US, offer preferential immigration treatment in exchange for investment or, in some cases, cash payments.

Many have had mixed experiences with such schemes. Ireland, Malta and Australia have scrapped their programmes because of insufficient demand or concerns over abuse.

In New Zealand’s case, Prime Minister Christopher Luxon hopes the visas will attract more foreign investment and help reverse a “brain drain” that threatens the country’s economic growth.

Although tourists often fall in love with New Zealand and dream of moving there, many young New Zealanders leave in search of better economic opportunities.

According to Luxon, New Zealand start-ups have already begun benefiting from the policy.

“While everyone else around the world is tightening restrictions, we’ve opened the doors and our start-ups have benefited enormously from the capital flowing in, as well as from the knowledge and technical expertise these investors have brought,” he said.

Since the programme was comprehensively overhauled in April 2025, applicants from North America, Europe and Asia have committed a combined NZ$4.8 billion, through investments of either NZ$5 million or NZ$10 million each.

That figure is comparable to the NZ$14.8 billion in foreign investment recorded during the first quarter of this year.

Lachlan Nixon, co-founder of venture capital firm Motion Capital, said the programme had become “a badge of honour in Silicon Valley”.

Data show that 277 applications have come from Americans, with Californians showing particularly strong interest in obtaining New Zealand residency.

“A massive influx of capital is coming, but what really matters is the quality of the people now investing in the New Zealand economy,” Nixon said. He added that 40% of a recent NZ$27 million fundraising round for high-growth New Zealand companies came from 30 holders of “golden visas”.

According to Luxon, companies benefiting from the programme include critical minerals firm Zethos, which appointed European steel industry veteran Francesc Rubiralta to its board.

Nixon said other companies backed under the programme include seed oil protein producer Miruku and magnesium mining company Aspiring Materials.

In the mountain town of Queenstown, a preferred destination for many applicants, locals refer to billionaires such as Peter Thiel and Anthony Malkin, whose foundation owns New York’s Empire State Building, as “the secret residents on the hills”.

Most prefer to keep their wealth and presence private. Thiel’s citizenship was inadvertently revealed during a parliamentary debate, while Malkin’s presence became public after fireworks he set off on New Year’s Eve sparked grass fires.

According to Cotality, their arrival has made Queenstown New Zealand’s most expensive property market, with a median home price of NZ$1.8 million, double the national average.

Under the visa programme’s rules, participants may purchase only residential properties worth more than NZ$5 million, a provision designed to prevent their presence from distorting the broader housing market.

“There are a lot of billionaires here. They just wear gumboots,” one property adviser said.

However, doubts remain about the programme’s benefits. Sam Stubbs, chief executive of pension fund Simplicity, said people should make “genuine investments” in the country rather than seek special treatment in exchange for “a small amount of money” invested in a venture capital fund.

“Heaven comes at a price. It’s a price we all pay,” Stubbs said.

Some applicants have also voiced concerns. Courtney Andelman, who runs a venture capital fund in Santa Barbara with her husband Jim, successfully obtained a visa last year and now visits New Zealand regularly.

“There’s something magical in the air and the water. It’s an incredibly healthy place,” Andelman said.

However, she said she wanted to settle in a smaller South Island city such as Nelson, where her investments could have a greater impact, but found very few properties worth more than NZ$5 million.

She also complained that under New Zealand’s tax rules, if her family spends more than 183 days a year in the country, their worldwide income becomes subject to New Zealand taxation.

Andelman said she loved New Zealand but expressed concern and issued an implicit warning.

“How to make every dollar achieve its highest and best use is a question we constantly ask ourselves. If New Zealand doesn’t offer the best value, we’ll go somewhere else. Every one of those dollars is mobile.”

Continue Reading

America

Oil industry lobbies White House to avert potential Trump export ban

Published

on

Oil industry executives and White House officials are engaging in a new push to prevent any move by the administration to restrict US oil exports.

According to a report by Politico, industry representatives say these efforts extend to the White House Domestic Policy Council, the National Energy Dominance Council, the Department of Energy, and Chief of Staff Susie Wiles.

Trump believes that oil prices could harm the Republicans’ chances of maintaining control of Congress in the November mid-term elections.

“Everyone from the industry and within the administration is working hand in hand to prevent this,” an energy industry executive said.

The individual added that White House officials had not formally raised the idea, “but everyone knows Trump will act like Trump again.”

The White House maintains that export restrictions are not on the agenda.

White House spokesperson Taylor Rogers said in a statement: “While the President and the entire energy team are taking various measures to mitigate temporary disruptions in the energy market, the administration has been very clear: there is no plan to impose restrictions on oil and gas exports.”

White House representatives did not confirm whether industry lobbyists had approached specific agencies or officials to discuss the export issue. Department of Energy representatives did not respond to queries.

However, although administration officials have guaranteed since the early days of the Iranian war that an export ban was off the table, Trump’s directive to the Department of Justice in June to investigate oil companies on charges of price gouging put the sector on high alert.

Concerns within the industry mounted after Trump stated on Monday that oil giants Exxon Mobil and Chevron were making “too much money.”

Industry executives now fear Trump may try to make a move against them by restricting fuel export activities abroad, which have boomed since the start of the US-Israeli war against Iran.

Another industry official said the sector had reiterated its concerns regarding export controls to the White House “very recently.”

The Trump administration has already tried several different approaches to lower prices that enjoy broader support from the oil industry.

These include the release of millions of barrels of oil from the country’s strategic petroleum reserve and the temporary suspension of the Jones Act to make it easier for non-American vessels to transport oil and natural gas between US ports.

Energy Secretary Chris Wright, a former oil company CEO, and Vice President JD Vance have repeatedly opposed the idea of limiting or banning exports.

Wright stated in May that the administration had “definitely” ruled out the option of banning diesel exports.

Mike Sommers, president of the American Petroleum Institute, said he was “confident” Trump understood the need to maintain oil exports, recalling that early in the crisis, the president had encouraged other countries to buy American oil:

“The administration has repeatedly expressed that they are opposed to [export controls]. Therefore, I do not think there is any change in their stance at the moment. Frankly, it feels as though we have to clarify this issue every three weeks.”

In a note sent to clients on Tuesday, consultancy firm ClearView Energy stated that the moment for the White House to take a step toward limiting fuel exports “might be approaching.”

The firm noted that former President Joe Biden had considered imposing export restrictions ahead of the 2022 mid-term elections following a “long summer of high petrol prices” caused by the war in Ukraine.

US crude oil exports increased by approximately 30% compared with last year, reaching nearly 3.5 million barrels per day by the end of July.

Shipments of refined products such as diesel, petrol, and other types of oil rose by 20%, exceeding 8 million barrels per day.

Opponents of exports argue that sending these cargoes abroad leads to rising prices domestically.

However, the oil and gas industry contends that closing the door to exports would harm the domestic market and cause their production to decline.

“Export bans may seem politically attractive, but ultimately they will lead to the exact opposite of the intended effect,” said a refining industry lobbyist who noted they were in contact with the White House on the matter, arguing that cutting off American exports from international markets would mean “a decline in US production, supply shortages, further upward pressure on domestic prices, and even greater disruptions in the global market.”

Chet Thompson, president and CEO of the American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers, stated that export controls would force US refiners to produce less petrol because they would lose commercial channels to ship other surplus fuels, such as diesel, produced during the process.

Continue Reading

America

US and Ukraine restore intelligence sharing to former levels

Published

on

Three US senators have reported that intelligence sharing between Washington and Kyiv has reached its former level. The White House declined to disclose details of the current intelligence relationship, emphasizing that President Donald Trump remains focused on ending the conflict.

American senators reported that intelligence sharing between the US and Ukraine has returned to its previous level.

According to a report by Politico, the senators offering this assessment include Democratic Senator Mark Warner, a long-standing advocate for increasing aid to Ukraine.

Commenting on the matter, Warner said: “I don’t want to get into details, but things have improved.” Republican senators John Cornyn and Roger Wicker stated that information sharing has accelerated during a period of “strategic importance”.

Democratic Senator Tim Kaine also noted that he has observed signs of a revival in information sharing between the US and Ukraine.

The White House did not disclose details regarding the current state of its intelligence-sharing relationship with Ukraine. However, in comments to Politico, it emphasized that US President Donald Trump is focused on contributing to the termination of the conflict.

A White House official told Politico: “The President and his team remain committed to playing a constructive role in ending the war between Russia and Ukraine and remain optimistic that we will ultimately reach a peace agreement.”

Last autumn, the Financial Times reported that Trump had issued instructions to prepare for sharing intelligence data that could assist Ukraine in conducting strikes deep inside Russian territory.

Russian authorities are demanding that Western nations cease providing military aid to Ukraine, emphasizing that such assistance will not prevent Moscow from achieving its military campaign objectives.

Last year, the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs requested that the US side clarify information regarding the transfer of intelligence data to Ukraine.

According to statements from the Kremlin, Russia has long been aware that the US and NATO countries collect intelligence and transfer it to the Ukrainian military, noting that this is “not a new development”.

Nevertheless, Russian President Vladimir Putin warned that Russia will not tolerate attacks by the Armed Forces of Ukraine and will continue to respond forcefully.

In June, President Vladimir Putin announced that Russia is prepared to conduct negotiations with Ukraine on the basis of the agreements reached in Istanbul.

According to Putin, the parties must also take into account the agreements reached between Moscow and Washington in Anchorage, the situation on the front line, and the conditions for a settlement previously set out by Russia.

Continue Reading

MOST READ

Turkey