

SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.


Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
"Trump must not give these companies billions in handouts and stick American taxpayers with the bill," implored Sen. Elizabeth Warren.
ExxonMobil's CEO told President Donald Trump during a Friday meeting that Venezuela is currently "uninvestible" following the US invasion and kidnapping of President Nicolás Maduro, underscoring fears that American taxpayers will be left footing the bill for the administration's goal of exploiting the South American nation's vast petroleum resources.
Trump had hoped to convince executives from around two dozen oil companies to invest in Venezuela after the president claimed US firms pledged to spend at least $100 billion in the country. However, Trump got a reality check during Friday's White House meeting, as at least one Big Oil CEO balked at committing financial and other resources in an uncertain political, legal, and security environment.
“If we look at the legal and commercial constructs and frameworks in place today in Venezuela today, it’s uninvestable,” ExxonMobil CEO Darren Woods told Trump during the meeting. “Significant changes have to be made to those commercial frameworks, the legal system. There has to be durable investment protections, and there has to be a change to the hydrocarbon laws in the country.”
Exxon CEO: If you look at the commercial constructs, frameworks in place in Venezuela today, it's uninvestable. Significant changes have to be made to these frameworks, the legal system. There has to be durable investment protections and change to the hydrocarbon laws. pic.twitter.com/vpdH6ftfzm
— Acyn (@Acyn) January 9, 2026
There is also skepticism regarding Trump's promise of "total safety" for investors in Venezuela amid deadly US military aggression and regime change.
However, many of the executives—who stand to make billions of dollars from the invasion—told Trump that they remain eager to eventually reap the rewards of any potential US takeover of Venezuela's vast oil resources.
The oil executives' apparent aversion to immediate investment in Venezuela—and Trump's own admission that the American people might end up reimbursing Big Oil for its efforts—prompted backlash from taxpayer advocates.
"Trump must not give these companies billions in handouts and stick American taxpayers with the bill," Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) said on social media Friday. "And oil execs should commit now: no taxpayer subsidies, no special favors from the White House."
Sam Ratner, policy director at the group Win Without War, said Wednesday that "already today, Trump was saying that US taxpayers should front the money to rebuild Venezuelan oil infrastructure, all while oil companies keep the proceeds from the oil."
"This is not just a war for oil, but a war for oil executives," Ratner added.
Noting that "Big Oil spent nearly $100 million to get Trump elected in 2024," former US Labor Secretary Robert Reich—who served during the Clinton administration—described Friday's meeting as "returning the favor" and "oligarchy in action."
According to an analysis by the advocacy group Climate Power, fossil fuel industry interests spent nearly $450 million during the 2024 election cycle in support of Trump and other Republican candidates and initiatives.
Trump shows you his priorities–Big Oil companies.“Running” Venezuela is all about enriching his donors.The American people are done fighting foreign wars to pad the pockets of oil executives.
[image or embed]
— Rep. Jason Crow (@crow.house.gov) January 9, 2026 at 12:35 PM
Reich and others also noted that Trump informed oil executives about the Venezuelan invasion even before he notified members of Congress.
"That tells you everything you need to know: It was never about 'narcoterrorism' and always about oil," Rep. Dan Goldman (D-NY) said on Bluesky.
The legal watchdog Democracy Forward this week filed a Freedom of Information Act request demanding information about any possible Trump administration collusion with Big Oil in the lead-up to the Venezuela invasion.
Other observers shot down assertions by Trump and members of his administration that the attack on Venezuela and Maduro's ouster are ultimately about restoring democracy.
"Want to know who’s meeting with Trump this morning about Venezuela’s future?" Rep. Adelita Grijalva (D-Ariz.) asked on X.
"Not pro-democracy leaders," she said. "Oil and gas executives."
"Big Oil's climate deception has evolved from lying about the problem to lying about solutions," said the head of the Center for Climate Integrity.
A group that supports communities' efforts to hold Big Oil accountable for decades of deception related to the climate emergency released a report on Thursday after reviewing more than 300 advertisements from four fossil fuel giants since 2000.
Over the past decade, people across academia, civil society, Congress, and journalism have examined the evolving lies of oil and gas giants, which have long been accused of using Big Tobacco's playbook.
"Using evidence from congressional investigations, advertising, and public relations documents, independent journalism, and watchdog reports," the new analysis states, "Big Oil's Deceptive Climate Ads explains how the pervasive and misleading messaging in BP, Chevron, ExxonMobil, and Shell’s advertisements has not only misrepresented the companies' business practices, but, over the span of two and a half decades, effectively cultivated a larger, deceptive narrative that oil and gas companies are leaders in the fight against climate change, when in fact they are actively fueling climate catastrophe around the globe."
The Center for Climate Integrity (CCI) report notes that "while oil and gas companies and their trade associations publicly denied the risks and realities of climate change for decades, growing public understanding of climate science around the turn of the 21st century eventually meant that outright denial was no longer sufficient to protect their bottom line."
NEW: For 25 years, four oil giants sold false climate promises through deceptive ad campaigns.Our report examined 300+ ads from BP, Chevron, Exxon, and Shell from 2000-2025. Together they push a false narrative that Big Oil is leading climate solutions. In reality, they're fueling catastrophe.
[image or embed]
— Center for Climate Integrity (@climateintegrity.org) December 11, 2025 at 8:54 AM
"During this period, major oil and gas companies began to reposition themselves publicly as active partners in the fight against climate change, even while they continued to increase fossil fuel production, invest minimally in clean energy, oppose energy efficiency initiatives, and promote technically or economically infeasible solutions," the document details.
"To convey this misleading image to the public," the publication continues, "Big Oil companies carried out extensive advertising campaigns, inundating the public with messaging that creates an overall deceptive portrait of their true role in the climate crisis."
CCI sorted the ads across seven categories of deception: emissions reductions, renewables investments, individual action, natural gas, carbon capture and storage, hydrogen, and algae biofuels. The group found that "these skillfully crafted advertisements often include partially truthful statements but omit relevant contextual information to create an inaccurate or incomplete representation of the initiative, product, or technology they promote."
"For instance, advertisements that portray natural gas as beneficial for the climate because it 'lowers emissions' are misleading by omission, because although gas produces less CO2 and other pollutants than coal when burned, it still emits significant quantities of greenhouse gases, including CO2 and methane, that pose a serious threat to the climate," the publication points out. "This tactic, known as paltering, has been at the core of Big Oil companies' climate advertisements for the past 25 years."

The report also acknowledges the public response: "Market research shows BP's 'Beyond Petroleum' campaign increased brand favorability among US and UK audiences, leading viewers to associate the oil giant with efforts to reduce carbon emissions at a time when it was the largest producer of fossil fuels in the UK and North America. Chevron's 'Real Issues' campaign, which promoted its energy conservation initiatives and renewables investments, improved the company's reputation among ad-exposed audiences."
The publication comes as the climate emergency continues to worsen, with deadly impacts, and world leaders fail to take adequate steps toward "a just, equitable, fossil-free future." Meanwhile, communities continue to call for not only action to limit future global warming but also consequences for the big polluters that created the global crisis.
The report similarly concludes that "oil and gas companies—including BP, Chevron, ExxonMobil, and Shell—must be held accountable for the damages their deception has caused. As climate accountability lawsuits filed by communities across the US make their way through the courts, ongoing advertising deception by the four oil majors' in this report demands further scrutiny and investigation."
CCI president Richard Wiles echoed that demand in a Thursday statement: "Big Oil's climate deception has evolved from lying about the problem to lying about solutions. For two-and-a-half decades now, these companies have sold the public a false and misleading image of their industry as working to solve the climate crisis, all while doubling down on fossil fuels and making the problem worse."
According to Wiles, "Any business that floods consumers with such brazenly deceptive advertising must be held accountable."
One anonymous American military official told Axios that the US seemed to be revving up for "Noriega part two," suggesting a regime change war may be on the horizon.
Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro said the United States was pointing "1,200 missiles" at his country during a news conference Monday, and issued a stark warning that he was prepared to "constitutionally declare a republic in arms" should the US attack.
The US is set to raise the number of military vessels deployed near Venezuela to eight this week, which Maduro described as "the greatest threat that has been seen on our continent in the last 100 years."
Following an authorization by Trump to use military force against Latin American drug cartels, the Associated Press and CBS News report that "the US Navy now has two Aegis guided-missile destroyers—the USS Gravely and the USS Jason Dunham—in the Caribbean, as well as the destroyer USS Sampson and the cruiser USS Lake Erie in the waters off Latin America."
This week, an anonymous Defense Department official told the AP that, "three amphibious assault ships—a force that encompasses more than 4,000 sailors and Marines—would be entering the region this week."
"In response to maximum military pressure," Maduro told the international press, "we have declared maximum readiness to defend Venezuela," adding that the country "will never give in to blackmail or threats of any kind."
Though the US has not made any public threats to invade Venezuela, an unnamed official told Axios Thursday that Trump was planning something akin to "Noriega part two," referring to the US-led invasion of Panama, which overthrew its leader, Manuel Noriega, in 1989.
"The president has asked for a menu of options," the official added, "and ultimately this is the president's decision about what to do next, but Maduro should be shitting bricks."
Trump has a long history of calling for US intervention to overthrow the South American nation's government.
During Trump's first term, he repeatedly suggested that the US should invade Venezuela to take Maduro out—an idea that his top aides rebuffed.
Trump instead dramatically escalated sanctions on Venezuela, which many studies have shown contributed to the nation's historic economic crisis. Former Secretary of State Mike Pompeo explicitly acknowledged that the goal of these sanctions was to push the Venezuelan people to topple Maduro.
In 2023, following his first presidency, Trump lamented at a rally that the US had to purchase oil from Venezuela, saying that if he were in charge, "We would have taken [Venezuela] over; we would have gotten to all that oil; it would have been right next door."
According to Responsible Statecraft, lobbying groups in bed with Exxon Mobil have been leading the campaign for "maximum pressure" against Venezuela, with the goal of protecting the company's control of over 11 billion barrels of oil in neighboring Guyana, which has been referred to as a "petrostate" closely aligned with the oil giant.
US Secretary of State Marco Rubio made several posts in support of Guyana as it backed Trump's escalation with Venezuela.
As Joseph Bouchard and Nick Cleveland-Stout wrote:
Rubio has all but committed to a U.S. security guarantee for Guyana and Exxon. On a visit to Guyana in March, he warned Venezuela against attacking Exxon's oil fields. "It woultd be a very bad day for the Venezuelan regime if they were ever to attack Guyana or attack ExxonMobil," Rubio said then.
Prior to that, Rubio obliquely suggested in a Fox Business interview that there may be plans in the works to force Maduro out of power, saying the Venezuelan president was "going to have to be dealt with."
On Monday, Maduro said Rubio was leading Trump "into a bloodbath... with a massacre against the people of Venezuela."
Trump's deployment of warships to Venezuela is part of what he says is an effort to use military force against drug cartels, which his administration has dubbed terrorist groups.
Though Trump has named Maduro as a global drug kingpin and the leader of the Venezuelan Cartel de los Soles, Venezuelan Foreign Minister Yván Gil disputed that accusation Monday, calling it a "false narrative."
He cited the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime's 2025 World Drug Report, which says that Venezuela is not a major cocaine-producing or transit country.
This is backed up by data from the US Drug Enforcement Agency, which has found that 84% of the cocaine seized in the US comes from Colombia.
According to UNODC, "the majority of Colombian cocaine is being trafficked north along the Pacific coast," rather than trafficked through Venezuela. Just 2% of all the cocaine seized by UNODC is in Venezuela, ranking it sixth among Latin American countries.
"For there to be a drug cartel, either you produce (the drugs), you process it, or you traffic it," Venezuelan congresswoman Blanca Eekhout told CNN. "If there is no cultivation, production, or drug trafficking in Venezuela, how can there be a cartel? It's unsustainable."
As Trump's military threats have revved up, Maduro has mobilized tens of thousands of soldiers and several warships to prepare for a possible invasion.
This weekend, the streets of Caracas filled up with demonstrators opposing US aggression and supporting Maduro's military recruitment efforts. They were joined by supporters across the globe in cities including London, Johannesburg, Sydney, and Mexico City.
(Video: Forbes)
Even members of Maduro's opposition have harshly criticized the idea of US intervention. Henrique Capriles, a frequent critic and one-time presidential opponent of Maduro, told the BBC that although he opposes Maduro's antidemocratic actions in the most recent election, he wants to see the tensions between Venezuela and the US solved through negotiations rather than gunfire.
"There are no good wars; they're all bad. That's my position, and I'm not afraid to express it publicly," Capriles said. "Most of the people who want a military solution and a US invasion don't live in Venezuela. They don't even consider the consequences. Human lives are lost."