Former US President Donald Trump's administration has been accused of formulating a radical plan to seize control of Venezuela's vast oil wealth, with a senior US senator likening the scheme to theft 'at gunpoint'.
'Insane Plan' to Control Oil Proceeds
The explosive allegations emerged following a revelation from the US Department of Energy, which detailed a proposed scheme. The plan aimed to take indefinite control of all proceeds from Venezuelan oil sales. According to the proposal, these funds would be held in accounts controlled by the United States, with their use determined for what was described as the benefit of both the American and Venezuelan people.
Democratic Senator Chris Murphy was scathing in his criticism of the proposed policy. He publicly denounced the strategy as 'insane' and stated it was tantamount to 'stealing the Venezuelan oil at gunpoint'. The strong condemnation highlights the controversial and aggressive nature of the alleged plot.
Long-Term Ambitions and Military Action
Supporting the context of these allegations, new footage has surfaced showing the moment the US Coast Guard stormed Venezuelan tankers in a pre-dawn operation. This military action underscores the tangible pressures applied to Venezuela's key economic sector.
Furthermore, Donald Trump himself indicated ambitions for a prolonged US involvement in the South American nation. He suggested a long-term US presence in Venezuela was necessary, with the explicit goal of 'rebuilding' the country by utilising its own oil profits. This statement aligns with the broader accusation of redirecting Venezuela's primary national resource for purposes dictated by Washington.
Implications and Fallout
The allegations, dated Thursday 8 January 2026, paint a picture of an unprecedented economic and geopolitical strategy. If enacted, such a plan would have fundamentally reshaped Venezuela's sovereignty and the global oil market. It represents a stark escalation in the long-standing tensions between the US and the Venezuelan government.
The use of military force in maritime operations, combined with a formal proposal to commandeer a nation's central financial asset, sets a dramatic precedent. The fallout from these accusations continues to stir significant debate regarding international law, resource sovereignty, and the limits of foreign intervention.
