There is a larger principle at stake here.
The United States of America does not need a Venezuelan government that answers to Washington.
It needs a stable Venezuelan government that answers to the Venezuelan people.
That distinction should define American policy.
If the objective of the United States is genuinely to support democracy in Venezuela, Washington should not seek to replace one politically dependent system with another — one in which Venezuelan leaders remain in power because they are willing to accommodate American economic interests.
That would not be democracy.
It would simply change the direction of dependency.
Venezuela should have a government capable of cooperating with the United States while remaining accountable to its own Constitution, its own institutions and its own citizens.
Venezuela’s Oil Is Not the Personal Property of Those in Power
The Venezuelan Constitution establishes an important principle.
The country’s hydrocarbon deposits belong to the Republic.
They are public-domain assets.
They are not the personal property of Delcy Rodríguez.
They were not the personal property of Nicolás Maduro.
They are not the property of Donald Trump.
And they are not assets that any temporary group occupying political power should be able to dispose of without the legal authority required under Venezuelan law.
The Venezuelan people are ultimately the beneficiaries of that national patrimony.
That is why the legal structure of this agreement matters so much.
Investigate the Authority Before Judging the Agreement
We should not declare Delcy Rodríguez guilty of violating Venezuelan law before examining the evidence.
That would contradict the very rule-of-law principles we are demanding.
Instead, Venezuela’s competent institutions — including ultimately independent courts and legislative institutions capable of exercising genuine oversight — should determine:
What exactly was signed?
Who signed it?
Under what constitutional authority?
Did the agreement require approval from the National Assembly?
Was that approval obtained?
Does the agreement transfer ownership of petroleum reserves, or merely grant development and production rights?
What rights were granted to foreign governments or companies?
For how long?
What compensation does Venezuela receive?
What obligations does Venezuela assume?
And does the agreement comply with Venezuela’s Constitution and hydrocarbon laws?
Those questions should be answered with documents, not political speeches.
If Venezuelan Law Was Violated, There Must Be Accountability
And here the principle should apply equally to everyone.
If an independent investigation ultimately establishes that Delcy Rodríguez or any other Venezuelan official knowingly exceeded lawful authority, violated applicable Venezuelan law, improperly transferred public assets, engaged in corruption or committed another offense, that evidence should be presented to the appropriate judicial authorities.
The official should receive due process.
The government should present its evidence.
The defense should have the opportunity to respond.
And an independent court should decide.
If no violation occurred, that should also be established publicly.
That is the difference between justice and political revenge.
We should demand for Venezuela exactly what we demand for the United States:
Investigation before accusation.
Evidence before conviction.
Law before politics.
Washington Should Welcome That Scrutiny
The United States should not fear an independent Venezuelan examination of this agreement.
It should welcome one.
Because if the agreement is lawful, transparent and genuinely beneficial to Venezuela, independent scrutiny will strengthen it.
And if the agreement cannot survive examination under Venezuelan constitutional law, Washington should want to know that before American companies invest tens of billions of dollars.
Legal certainty protects American investors too.
A contract whose legitimacy depends entirely upon the continued political survival of Delcy Rodríguez is not a secure 25-year investment.
It is a political gamble.
Democracy Means Venezuelans Decide
The ultimate objective should therefore be simple.
Not an anti-American Venezuela.
Not a pro-American Venezuela.
A democratic Venezuela.
A Venezuela capable of selling petroleum to the United States.
A Venezuela capable of doing business with Europe.
A Venezuela capable of deciding which international partnerships serve its national interest.
And a Venezuela whose elected government can say no to Washington when Washington’s proposal does not serve Venezuelan citizens.
That is sovereignty.
The United States does not strengthen democracy by selecting foreign leaders who will obey it.
It strengthens democracy by respecting institutions capable of disagreeing with it.
Venezuela’s petroleum can create enormous opportunities for cooperation between our countries.
American companies can invest.
American refineries can purchase Venezuelan crude.
American technology can help rebuild Venezuelan production.
Venezuelans can benefit from jobs, investment, taxes and economic reconstruction.
There is nothing inherently wrong with any of that.
But the transaction must satisfy a fundamental test:
Does it serve the Venezuelan people under Venezuelan law?
Not Delcy Rodríguez.
Not Donald Trump.
Not a political party.
Not a group of connected businessmen.
The Venezuelan people.
If the answer is yes, publish the agreement and demonstrate it.
If the answer is no, Venezuela’s democratic institutions should have the power to reject it.
And if evidence ultimately establishes that public officials violated Venezuelan law in disposing of national resources, those officials should answer before Venezuelan justice — with evidence, due process and an independent court.
Because petroleum may be beneath Venezuelan soil.
But sovereignty resides with the Venezuelan nation.