By Horizonte Cubano News
The debate surrounding the enormous new oil arrangement between the United States and Venezuela has concentrated on barrels.
Sixty-five billion barrels.
Seventeen oil fields.
More than $100 billion in projected investment.
Hundreds of billions of dollars in potential Venezuelan government revenue.
But before debating whether this is the greatest petroleum agreement in history or one of its most controversial, there is a more fundamental question.
Who, legally, had the authority to commit the United States?
President Donald Trump announced the agreement.
Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth reportedly played central roles in negotiating it.
Venezuela’s interim president, Delcy Rodríguez, has publicly described its economic dimensions.
But negotiating an agreement and possessing legal authority to bind the United States are not necessarily the same thing.
And that distinction matters enormously.
Rubio Can Negotiate. But What Could He Sign?
The Secretary of State is America’s principal diplomatic officer.
Negotiating with foreign governments is unquestionably part of the State Department’s responsibilities.
If President Trump instructed Secretary Rubio to negotiate with Venezuela, there is nothing inherently unusual about Rubio conducting those negotiations.
But negotiation is only the beginning.
The important legal question is:
What did the United States ultimately agree to?
A diplomatic understanding?
A nonbinding political commitment?
An executive agreement?
A congressionally authorized executive agreement?
A treaty?
A commercial contract?
An equity investment?
A government guarantee?
A purchasing agreement?
Those are very different legal instruments.
And they do not necessarily derive their authority from the same place.
What About Pete Hegseth?
The participation of the Secretary of Defense raises another interesting question.
The Defense Department has legitimate interests in energy security.
The American military consumes enormous quantities of fuel.
National energy security can affect military readiness.
The Strategic Petroleum Reserve can also have national-security implications.
And the Pentagon possesses programs capable of supporting strategically important industries and investments.
But the Secretary of Defense does not possess unlimited authority to commit the United States to commercial transactions simply because a project involves national security.
If Hegseth participated in negotiations, the public should know:
In what capacity?
Was he representing the Defense Department?
Was he acting as a presidential negotiator?
Did he sign anything?
Did the Pentagon make commitments?
Did an agency within the Defense Department acquire financial interests?
Did the government guarantee financing?
Did the Pentagon commit to purchasing petroleum?
Those answers should be contained in government documents.
The President Has Broad Foreign-Affairs Power — But Not Unlimited Power
The President possesses enormous authority in foreign affairs.
Presidents negotiate with foreign governments constantly.
They recognize governments.
They direct diplomacy.
And throughout American history, presidents have entered international agreements without submitting every agreement to the Senate as a treaty.
These are often called executive agreements.
That distinction is extremely important.
Not every international agreement requires two-thirds approval by the Senate.
So it would be legally inaccurate to declare automatically that the Venezuela arrangement is invalid simply because the Senate has not approved it.
But the opposite claim would also be premature.
A President cannot necessarily convert any transaction imaginable into a binding American obligation merely by calling it an executive agreement.
The source of legal authority matters.
The Constitution Gives the Senate a Specific Role
Article II of the Constitution provides a clear procedure for treaties.
The President negotiates and makes treaties with the advice and consent of the Senate, provided two-thirds of the senators present concur.
If the Venezuela agreement is legally structured as an Article II treaty, therefore, the Senate unquestionably has a constitutional role.
But modern American foreign relations are more complicated.
Presidents frequently conclude executive agreements that do not go through the two-thirds Senate treaty process.
Some rest on presidential constitutional authority.
Others are based on authority previously granted by Congress.
Others are congressional-executive agreements approved through legislation.
Therefore the question is not simply:
Did the Senate approve the Venezuela deal?
The better question is:
What kind of agreement is it?
Without seeing the legal instrument, the public cannot answer that.
Follow the Authority
Every significant federal action should have a legal foundation.
If the administration claims authority to acquire an interest in a petroleum company, identify the statute.
If the government receives warrants or equity, identify the statutory authority.
If the Pentagon facilitates financing, identify the program and legislation authorizing it.
If the government agrees to purchase Venezuelan petroleum, identify the procurement authority.
If the Strategic Petroleum Reserve receives petroleum, identify the statutory mechanism.
If American taxpayers guarantee private investment, identify the appropriation and authorization.
If no federal funds are involved, demonstrate that.
This should not be difficult.
The administration undoubtedly has lawyers.
Those lawyers presumably examined the agreement.
There should therefore be legal memoranda explaining why each agency involved possesses the authority it is exercising.
Congress should request those documents.
Can the United States Government Own Part of a Private Oil Company?
This may become one of the most interesting questions surrounding the agreement.
Recent reporting indicates that the arrangement may involve a private company in which the United States government receives a financial or equity interest.
If that description is correct, we need considerably more information.
Which federal agency owns the interest?
Who holds the shares or warrants?
Who exercises voting rights?
Can the government appoint directors?
Who receives dividends?
Where does that money go?
Can the interest be sold?
What happens if the company becomes insolvent?
Does the United States assume liabilities?
What happens when Donald Trump leaves office?
A government ownership interest is not Donald Trump’s personal property.
It would belong to the United States.
That means it requires an institutional legal framework capable of surviving presidents.
Congress Controls the Purse
There is another constitutional principle that cannot be ignored.
Congress controls federal appropriations.
If implementing this agreement eventually requires federal spending, loan guarantees or new statutory authority, the executive branch may need Congress.
A President cannot simply create unlimited federal spending authority through an international agreement.
This becomes particularly important when administration officials speak about investment approaching $100 billion.
They say this will primarily come from private capital.
Fine.
Then identify it.
If American taxpayers are not financing the agreement, demonstrate how the financial structure works.
If government guarantees will encourage private investors, disclose those guarantees.
If federal programs will absorb political or financial risk, disclose those programs.
“Private investment” should not become a phrase used to conceal public risk.
Does the Senate Have the Right to Review It?
Yes — but we must be precise about what “review” means.
If this is a formal treaty, the Senate’s constitutional advice-and-consent function is directly triggered.
If it is an executive agreement, Senate approval by a two-thirds vote is not automatically required.
But that does not mean Congress becomes irrelevant.
Congress can conduct oversight.
Committees can hold hearings.
Members can request documents.
Congress can question Cabinet officials.
Congress can examine appropriations.
Congress can legislate within its constitutional authority.
And if implementation requires money Congress has not appropriated, Congress controls whether that money becomes available.
The House of Representatives also matters.
This should not be treated exclusively as a Senate question.
When appropriations, commerce, federal property or statutory authorities are implicated, the institutional role belongs to Congress, not merely the Senate.
Congress Should Ask Rubio and Hegseth to Explain
Secretary Rubio and Secretary Hegseth reportedly helped negotiate this arrangement.
Then Congress should invite them to explain it.
Not as political theater.
As constitutional oversight.
Ask Secretary Rubio:
What exactly did the State Department negotiate?
What document was signed?
Who signed it?
What legal authority supports it?
Is it binding under international law?
Can a future president terminate it?
Ask Secretary Hegseth:
What commitments did the Defense Department make?
Does the Pentagon own any interest in the project?
Will defense funds be used?
Will military petroleum purchases be involved?
Are federal guarantees being offered?
And ask both:
Where is the agreement?
A 25-Year Agreement Could Outlive Six Presidents
This is why congressional scrutiny matters.
Delcy Rodríguez says the bilateral energy arrangement will operate for approximately 25 years.
Twenty-five years is not a temporary presidential initiative.
Depending on election outcomes, that period could encompass six or seven presidential administrations.
Other reporting suggests that particular field-development rights could potentially extend considerably longer.
If those reports are accurate, some contractual rights could survive for generations.
That makes institutional legitimacy essential.
Donald Trump cannot guarantee who occupies the White House in 2030.
Marco Rubio cannot guarantee who will be Secretary of State.
Pete Hegseth cannot guarantee who will run the Pentagon.
Delcy Rodríguez cannot guarantee who will govern Venezuela.
Contracts designed to survive governments need stronger foundations than the personalities who negotiated them.
What Happens Under the Next President?
Imagine a Democratic president takes office after Trump.
Can that president cancel the agreement?
Imagine another Republican president disagrees with it.
Can that president terminate it?
Would the United States owe damages?
Could the private company sue?
Could Venezuela initiate international arbitration?
Could investors make claims?
What law governs?
What forum resolves disputes?
Those questions are impossible to answer responsibly without examining the actual legal documents.
And What Happens if Venezuela Elects a New Government?
The same problem exists on the Venezuelan side.
Representative María Elvira Salazar has already raised concerns about Delcy Rodríguez’s legitimacy.
If Venezuela eventually conducts competitive elections and a new government takes office, what happens to the agreement?
Can Venezuela reconsider it?
Would doing so constitute breach of contract?
Would compensation be required?
Could American companies sue Venezuela internationally?
Would the United States government defend the agreement?
Would American taxpayers become exposed?
A deal intended to stabilize Venezuela should not contain legal uncertainty capable of destabilizing Venezuela later.
This Is Why Transparency Matters
Horizonte Cubano News is not arguing that the agreement is unconstitutional.
We do not presently possess enough information to make that determination.
Nor should critics declare the agreement illegal merely because they dislike Donald Trump.
But supporters should not declare every legal question resolved merely because they trust him.
The Constitution does not operate on trust.
Government operates through authority.
So identify the authority.
Publish the relevant agreement.
Identify the signatories.
Identify the statutory basis.
Identify the corporate structure.
Identify the federal interest.
Identify the financial commitments.
Identify the duration.
Identify the termination provisions.
Identify the dispute-resolution mechanism.
And identify which obligations survive a change of administration.
Congress Should Review the Deal
A transaction involving potentially 65 billion barrels of petroleum, 17 Venezuelan oil fields, tens of billions of dollars in investment and long-term American government interests deserves congressional examination.
That does not mean Congress must reject it.
Congress might conclude that it is an excellent agreement.
Congress might decide additional legislation would make it stronger.
Congress might discover weaknesses that should be corrected.
Congress might determine that existing presidential authority is sufficient.
That is what oversight is for.
The objective should not be to defeat the agreement.
The objective should be to determine whether the United States entered it lawfully and whether it protects the American public.
One Simple Question
Secretary Rubio is a lawyer.
He understands the Constitution.
He spent years in the United States Senate.
He knows exactly what congressional oversight means.
That makes the question particularly appropriate:
Mr. Secretary, under what legal authority did the United States enter this agreement?
If the answer is straightforward, publish it.
If there is a statute, identify it.
If there is an executive agreement, identify its constitutional or statutory basis.
If there is a government contract, identify the contracting authority.
If Congress authorized the program previously, identify the authorization.
If Senate approval is unnecessary, explain why.
There is nothing unreasonable about asking these questions.
The American government may negotiate internationally.
But when American officials commit American power, American property or American money, the American people have a right to understand the legal foundation.
The bigger the agreement, the stronger the obligation to explain who had the authority to sign it.
Horizonte Cubano News — Analysis and commentary on constitutional government, Venezuela, Cuba, the United States and the future of the hemisphere.