Por Horizonte Cubano News

El petróleo de Venezuela no pertenece a un presidente, a un ministro, a un partido político ni a un grupo que circunstancialmente controle el poder.

Tampoco pertenece a Washington.

El petróleo venezolano constituye parte del patrimonio de una nación y de su pueblo. Por eso, cualquier acuerdo que pueda comprometer durante años una parte significativa de esa riqueza merece algo elemental en cualquier sociedad que pretenda llamarse republicana: transparencia, legalidad y rendición de cuentas.

La cuestión adquiere todavía mayor importancia cuando se afirma que existen entendimientos relacionados con petróleo venezolano y los intereses estratégicos de Estados Unidos.

La primera pregunta debería ser sencilla:

¿Dónde está el acuerdo?

La segunda es todavía más importante:

¿Quién lo firmó, bajo qué autoridad jurídica y cuáles son exactamente las obligaciones asumidas por cada parte?

¿QUIÉN PUEDE COMPROMETER A ESTADOS UNIDOS?

En Estados Unidos no basta con que una persona diga que está negociando “en nombre de Estados Unidos” para que automáticamente pueda comprometer jurídicamente a la nación.

La Constitución establece un procedimiento específico para los tratados internacionales. El presidente tiene facultad para negociarlos, pero un tratado requiere el consejo y consentimiento del Senado, con el voto favorable de dos tercios de los senadores presentes.

Al mismo tiempo, el sistema constitucional estadounidense también reconoce otras categorías de acuerdos internacionales, incluidos acuerdos ejecutivos que no necesariamente pasan por ese mismo procedimiento senatorial.

Por eso, antes de afirmar que determinado acuerdo petrolero es legal o ilegal, hay que conocer algo fundamental:

qué clase de instrumento jurídico es.

Si existe un acuerdo relacionado con petróleo venezolano que compromete al Gobierno de Estados Unidos, deben conocerse su naturaleza jurídica, la autoridad utilizada para celebrarlo, las obligaciones asumidas, las partes que lo suscribieron y, cuando corresponda, la participación del Congreso.

Y si no se trata de un acuerdo entre gobiernos, sino de contratos comerciales celebrados por compañías privadas, también debe decirse claramente.

Una empresa privada estadounidense puede realizar operaciones comerciales internacionales cuando la ley, las licencias y las sanciones aplicables lo permitan.

Pero una empresa privada no se convierte por ello en el Gobierno de Estados Unidos.

Esa diferencia es fundamental.

¿QUIÉN ES EL DUEÑO DEL PETRÓLEO?

También existe una pregunta que debe formularse desde Venezuela.

¿Quién tiene autoridad para comprometer los recursos petroleros venezolanos y bajo qué disposiciones de la Constitución y las leyes venezolanas?

Ningún funcionario debería poder disponer de los recursos nacionales como si fueran patrimonio personal.

Si Delcy Rodríguez, o cualquier otro funcionario venezolano, participó en acuerdos relacionados con los recursos petroleros del país, esos actos deben poder ser examinados conforme al derecho venezolano.

Eso no significa declarar culpable a nadie anticipadamente.

Significa exactamente lo contrario: exigir instituciones.

Si los actos fueron legales, que se demuestre.

Si existieron las autorizaciones necesarias, que se publiquen.

Si existen contratos, que puedan conocerse en la medida permitida por la ley.

Y si una investigación independiente determinara que cualquier funcionario violó las leyes venezolanas o excedió sus facultades, deberá responder ante la justicia con todas las garantías del debido proceso.

Eso es Estado de derecho.

VENEZUELA NO NECESITA CAMBIAR UNA DEPENDENCIA POR OTRA

Durante generaciones, América Latina ha denunciado gobiernos que subordinaban los intereses nacionales a los intereses de potencias extranjeras.

Ese principio no debería cambiar dependiendo de cuál sea la potencia extranjera.

Estados Unidos no necesita gobernantes extranjeros obedientes.

Necesita vecinos estables, instituciones legítimas, economías funcionales y gobiernos capaces de representar los intereses de sus propios ciudadanos.

Y Venezuela tampoco necesita sustituir una dependencia política por otra.

Un país soberano puede negociar con Estados Unidos.

Puede vender petróleo a compañías estadounidenses.

Puede recibir inversión extranjera.

Puede reconstruir su industria energética con capital internacional.

Puede establecer relaciones económicas profundas con Washington.

Nada de eso significa entregar su soberanía.

La diferencia está en las condiciones.

Una negociación entre naciones soberanas debe producir beneficios verificables para ambas sociedades, no simplemente para quienes se encuentran circunstancialmente sentados alrededor de una mesa.

¿DÓNDE ESTÁ EL CONTRATO?

Esta debería convertirse en una pregunta pública tanto en Caracas como en Washington.

Si existe un gran acuerdo petrolero, debe explicarse qué es.

¿Es un tratado?

¿Es un acuerdo ejecutivo?

¿Es un acuerdo comercial?

¿Es una licencia?

¿Es un contrato entre PDVSA y una compañía privada?

¿Participa directamente alguna agencia del Gobierno estadounidense?

¿Quién recibe el petróleo?

¿Quién paga por él?

¿A qué precio?

¿Dónde se depositan los ingresos?

¿Durante cuánto tiempo estarán comprometidos los recursos?

¿Existe alguna garantía relacionada con reservas petroleras venezolanas?

Estas preguntas no constituyen propaganda contra Estados Unidos ni contra Venezuela.

Son preguntas elementales de transparencia pública.

BOLÍVAR NO LUCHÓ PARA CAMBIAR DE AMO

Existe además una dimensión histórica que los venezolanos no deberían olvidar.

Simón Bolívar no cruzó montañas, organizó ejércitos y dedicó su vida a la independencia para que, dos siglos después, Venezuela simplemente cambiara una dependencia extranjera por otra.

Francisco de Miranda no dedicó décadas a imaginar una América libre para que los recursos de las nuevas repúblicas terminaran administrándose sin conocimiento de sus pueblos.

Antonio José de Sucre no combatió por una república sometida.

José Antonio Páez, con todas las controversias posteriores de nuestra historia latinoamericana, formó parte de una generación que peleó para que Venezuela pudiera decidir su propio destino.

Aquellos hombres tuvieron diferencias enormes entre ellos.

Pero compartían una palabra:

independencia.

Probablemente se revolverían en sus tumbas si contemplaran a cualquier generación de latinoamericanos entregando voluntariamente la soberanía que ellos conquistaron con sangre.

ESTADOS UNIDOS TAMBIÉN DEBE EXIGIR TRANSPARENCIA

Esta discusión tampoco debe convertirse en un ataque contra Estados Unidos.

Precisamente porque Estados Unidos es una república constitucional, sus ciudadanos tienen derecho a conocer bajo qué autoridad su gobierno compromete recursos, adopta obligaciones internacionales o establece acuerdos económicos estratégicos.

El Congreso tiene importantes facultades constitucionales sobre legislación, apropiaciones y comercio, mientras que el Senado posee específicamente el papel constitucional de consejo y consentimiento respecto de los tratados.

La separación de poderes existe precisamente para impedir que decisiones extraordinariamente importantes dependan exclusivamente de la voluntad de una sola persona.

Por eso la transparencia beneficia a ambos pueblos.

NEGOCIAR SÍ. ENTREGAR LA SOBERANÍA, NO.

Horizonte Cubano News no sostiene que Estados Unidos y Venezuela no deban negociar.

Sostenemos exactamente lo contrario.

Washington y Caracas deberían negociar.

Estados Unidos necesita estabilidad energética y económica en el hemisferio.

Venezuela necesita inversión, tecnología, mercados y reconstrucción económica.

Existe espacio para un acuerdo extraordinariamente beneficioso para ambas naciones.

Pero una verdadera negociación debe realizarse entre países que se respetan.

No entre amos y subordinados.

No mediante intermediarios cuya autoridad nadie puede explicar.

No mediante contratos secretos que comprometan riquezas pertenecientes a generaciones que todavía no han nacido.

Y mucho menos bajo la idea de que los recursos naturales de una nación pertenecen al grupo que controla temporalmente el palacio presidencial.

EL PETRÓLEO PERTENECE AL PUEBLO VENEZOLANO

Los gobiernos pasan.

Los presidentes pasan.

Los ministros pasan.

Los partidos pasan.

Pero Venezuela permanece.

Sus reservas petroleras forman parte del patrimonio nacional venezolano y cualquier administración de esos recursos debe realizarse conforme a la Constitución, las leyes y los intereses de Venezuela.

Si existe un acuerdo extraordinario entre Washington y Caracas, publíquense sus fundamentos jurídicos.

Explíquese quién negoció.

Explíquese quién firmó.

Explíquese quién autorizó.

Explíquese quién recibe el dinero.

Explíquese qué recibe Estados Unidos.

Explíquese qué recibe Venezuela.

Y entonces dejemos que los ciudadanos juzguen.

Porque después de más de dos siglos de independencia latinoamericana, existe un principio que no debería necesitar explicación:

Venezuela puede negociar con Estados Unidos, pero Venezuela no pertenece a Estados Unidos.

Y tampoco pertenece a quienes hoy gobiernan Venezuela.

Venezuela pertenece a los venezolanos.

---

Horizonte Cubano News — Análisis y Opinión

There is an uncomfortable historical question hanging over this entire debate.

More than two centuries ago, Venezuelans fought against Spanish colonial rule for the right to determine their own political destiny.

Francisco de Miranda dreamed of independence before independence seemed possible.

Simón Bolívar dedicated much of his life to breaking Spanish colonial power across northern South America.

Antonio José de Sucre became one of the great military leaders of that struggle.

José Antonio Páez fought in the campaigns that helped secure Venezuelan independence.

They differed politically. They disagreed about government, institutions and the future of the new republics they helped create.

But the fundamental principle for which their generation fought was unmistakable:

Venezuela should determine Venezuela’s destiny.

Imagine those men looking at their country today.

Imagine Bolívar being told that Venezuela possesses one of the greatest petroleum reserves on Earth — and then being told that decisions potentially affecting tens of billions of barrels may have been negotiated without the Venezuelan people being able to examine the complete terms.

Imagine Miranda asking who authorized the agreement.

Imagine Sucre asking under whose Constitution it was approved.

Imagine Páez asking whether Venezuela negotiated as a sovereign republic or whether political leaders negotiated from a position of dependence.

They might be turning in their graves.

Not because Venezuela is doing business with the United States.

Independent nations do business with one another.

Not because American companies want Venezuelan petroleum.

International commerce is not colonialism.

And not because Washington pursues American interests.

Every government has a responsibility to defend the legitimate interests of its own citizens.

The problem would arise if Venezuelan officials subordinated Venezuela’s national interest to the political interests of a foreign power.

That would contradict the very concept of sovereignty for which generations of Venezuelans fought.

Venezuela Should Not Exchange One Dependency for Another

For years, Washington criticized Venezuela’s close relationships with Cuba, Russia, China and Iran.

American officials argued that Caracas had allowed foreign governments to acquire excessive influence over Venezuelan affairs.

Then the standard must remain the same when the foreign power is the United States.

Venezuela should not belong politically to Havana.

It should not belong to Moscow.

It should not belong to Beijing.

And it should not belong to Washington.

Venezuela belongs to Venezuelans.

The United States does not need servants in Caracas.

It needs neighbors.

It needs reliable commercial partners.

It needs governments capable of negotiating agreements and honoring lawful contracts.

And above all, if Washington truly supports democracy, it should want a Venezuelan government strong enough to tell the United States yes when cooperation benefits Venezuela — and no when it does not.

That is what sovereignty looks like.

The Oil Is Venezuelan

This principle must remain at the center of the petroleum agreement.

The oil beneath Venezuelan territory is not the personal property of whoever occupies Miraflores.

It is not Donald Trump’s property.

It is not Delcy Rodríguez’s property.

It does not belong to a political party.

And it certainly should not become the private patrimony of politically connected individuals on either side of the agreement.

Venezuela may grant licenses.

Venezuela may enter joint ventures.

Venezuela may welcome American investment.

Venezuela may sell enormous quantities of petroleum to American refineries.

Those decisions can potentially benefit both nations.

But they must be made lawfully, transparently and in Venezuela’s national interest.

If an independent investigation eventually establishes that any Venezuelan official exceeded constitutional authority, violated Venezuelan law, engaged in corruption or improperly disposed of public resources, that person should face Venezuelan justice with full due process.

The same standard should apply in Washington.

If American officials acted within their lawful authority, publish that authority.

If congressional authorization was required, Congress should exercise its constitutional role.

If public money or property has been committed, the American people deserve to know how.

Neither government should fear scrutiny if the agreement is legitimate.

Independence Must Mean Something

Bolívar and the independence generation did not fight Spain so that, two centuries later, Venezuela could simply choose another capital from which its destiny would be dictated.

That would reduce independence to changing masters.

The better future is something entirely different.

A sovereign Venezuela.

A democratic Venezuela.

A prosperous Venezuela.

A Venezuela capable of cooperating closely with the United States without becoming subordinate to it.

A Venezuela whose petroleum wealth serves its citizens.

A Venezuela whose leaders answer first to Venezuelan law.

And a Venezuela where no foreign government — friend or adversary — gets to decide what Venezuelans themselves have the sovereign right to decide.

Bolívar fought for independence from an empire. Venezuela should never have to surrender its independence to obtain an investment.

What Would Bolívar Say?

There is an uncomfortable historical question hanging over this entire debate.

More than two centuries ago, Venezuelans fought against Spanish colonial rule for the right to determine their own political destiny.

Francisco de Miranda dreamed of independence before independence seemed possible.

Simón Bolívar dedicated much of his life to breaking Spanish colonial power across northern South America.

Antonio José de Sucre became one of the great military leaders of that struggle.

José Antonio Páez fought in the campaigns that helped secure Venezuelan independence.

They differed politically. They disagreed about government, institutions and the future of the new republics they helped create.

But the fundamental principle for which their generation fought was unmistakable:

Venezuela should determine Venezuela’s destiny.

Imagine those men looking at their country today.

Imagine Bolívar being told that Venezuela possesses one of the greatest petroleum reserves on Earth — and then being told that decisions potentially affecting tens of billions of barrels may have been negotiated without the Venezuelan people being able to examine the complete terms.

Imagine Miranda asking who authorized the agreement.

Imagine Sucre asking under whose Constitution it was approved.

Imagine Páez asking whether Venezuela negotiated as a sovereign republic or whether political leaders negotiated from a position of dependence.

They might be turning in their graves.

Not because Venezuela is doing business with the United States.

Independent nations do business with one another.

Not because American companies want Venezuelan petroleum.

International commerce is not colonialism.

And not because Washington pursues American interests.

Every government has a responsibility to defend the legitimate interests of its own citizens.

The problem would arise if Venezuelan officials subordinated Venezuela’s national interest to the political interests of a foreign power.

That would contradict the very concept of sovereignty for which generations of Venezuelans fought.

Venezuela Should Not Exchange One Dependency for Another

For years, Washington criticized Venezuela’s close relationships with Cuba, Russia, China and Iran.

American officials argued that Caracas had allowed foreign governments to acquire excessive influence over Venezuelan affairs.

Then the standard must remain the same when the foreign power is the United States.

Venezuela should not belong politically to Havana.

It should not belong to Moscow.

It should not belong to Beijing.

And it should not belong to Washington.

Venezuela belongs to Venezuelans.

The United States does not need servants in Caracas.

It needs neighbors.

It needs reliable commercial partners.

It needs governments capable of negotiating agreements and honoring lawful contracts.

And above all, if Washington truly supports democracy, it should want a Venezuelan government strong enough to tell the United States yes when cooperation benefits Venezuela — and no when it does not.

That is what sovereignty looks like.

The Oil Is Venezuelan

This principle must remain at the center of the petroleum agreement.

The oil beneath Venezuelan territory is not the personal property of whoever occupies Miraflores.

It is not Donald Trump’s property.

It is not Delcy Rodríguez’s property.

It does not belong to a political party.

And it certainly should not become the private patrimony of politically connected individuals on either side of the agreement.

Venezuela may grant licenses.

Venezuela may enter joint ventures.

Venezuela may welcome American investment.

Venezuela may sell enormous quantities of petroleum to American refineries.

Those decisions can potentially benefit both nations.

But they must be made lawfully, transparently and in Venezuela’s national interest.

If an independent investigation eventually establishes that any Venezuelan official exceeded constitutional authority, violated Venezuelan law, engaged in corruption or improperly disposed of public resources, that person should face Venezuelan justice with full due process.

The same standard should apply in Washington.

If American officials acted within their lawful authority, publish that authority.

If congressional authorization was required, Congress should exercise its constitutional role.

If public money or property has been committed, the American people deserve to know how.

Neither government should fear scrutiny if the agreement is legitimate.

Independence Must Mean Something

Bolívar and the independence generation did not fight Spain so that, two centuries later, Venezuela could simply choose another capital from which its destiny would be dictated.

That would reduce independence to changing masters.

The better future is something entirely different.

A sovereign Venezuela.

A democratic Venezuela.

A prosperous Venezuela.

A Venezuela capable of cooperating closely with the United States without becoming subordinate to it.

A Venezuela whose petroleum wealth serves its citizens.

A Venezuela whose leaders answer first to Venezuelan law.

And a Venezuela where no foreign government — friend or adversary — gets to decide what Venezuelans themselves have the sovereign right to decide.

Bolívar fought for independence from an empire. Venezuela should never have to surrender its independence to obtain an investment.

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.

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.

By Horizonte Cubano News

President Donald Trump calls it the biggest oil deal in world history.

Venezuela’s acting president, Delcy Rodríguez, calls it an agreement capable of helping revive the Venezuelan economy.

Representative María Elvira Salazar says the agreement can benefit both countries, although she argues that Rodríguez is the wrong person to guarantee its future.

Those are extraordinary claims surrounding an extraordinary transaction.

The numbers alone demand attention.

More than 65 billion barrels of proven Venezuelan oil reserves.

Seventeen strategic oil fields.

A Venezuelan production target exceeding 1.5 million barrels per day.

Potential private investment approaching $100 billion.

Potential Venezuelan government revenue measured in the hundreds of billions of dollars.

And some contractual rights reportedly extending for as long as 100 years.

If this truly is one of the largest energy agreements ever negotiated, there is a remarkably simple question that Americans and Venezuelans should be asking:

Where is the complete agreement?

This Is Bigger Than Donald Trump

Supporters of President Trump may believe this is an extraordinary strategic achievement.

Perhaps it is.

The agreement could eventually increase Venezuelan production, strengthen energy supplies in the Western Hemisphere, reduce Chinese influence and generate enormous revenues for a Venezuelan economy badly damaged by years of mismanagement, underinvestment and sanctions.

Those possibilities deserve serious consideration.

But an agreement involving tens of billions of dollars, enormous petroleum reserves and potentially century-long contractual rights cannot depend on whether one supports Donald Trump.

Trump will eventually leave office.

Venezuela will eventually have another government.

The oil will remain.

The contracts will remain.

And potentially billions of barrels will remain subject to arrangements negotiated today.

That is precisely why transparency matters.

What Exactly Does the United States Own?

Trump says the United States has secured majority control over more than 65 billion barrels of proven Venezuelan reserves.

That phrase requires explanation.

Does the United States government own petroleum reserves?

Does a private company own them?

Does Venezuela retain ownership while granting production rights?

Does the United States own equity in a joint venture?

Does Washington simply have preferential purchasing rights?

How much of the reported 55 percent American control represents actual equity?

How much represents contractual rights to purchase oil?

Those distinctions are not technical trivia.

They determine what the agreement actually means.

Venezuela says it retains sovereignty over its natural resources.

Washington says it has obtained majority control.

Both propositions might potentially coexist under a carefully structured production agreement.

But the public should not have to guess how.

Publish the structure.

Twenty-Five Years or One Hundred?

Another issue requires clarification.

Delcy Rodríguez has described a 25-year bilateral project involving 17 strategic oil fields.

Other reporting indicates that the newly created operating structure may possess rights involving those fields for 100 years.

Those are dramatically different periods.

Perhaps they refer to different layers of the transaction.

If so, explain them.

What lasts 25 years?

What lasts 100 years?

What happens after the first 25?

Can Venezuela terminate the arrangement?

Can the United States?

Can a future democratically elected Venezuelan government renegotiate it?

What penalties would apply?

A contract potentially binding generations of Venezuelans deserves answers to those questions.

Who Authorized Delcy Rodríguez?

Representative María Elvira Salazar has identified another fundamental problem.

She supports the economic concept but questions the person signing on Venezuela’s behalf.

That contradiction cannot simply be ignored.

If Delcy Rodríguez lacks sufficient democratic legitimacy to guarantee the agreement, then what legal authority allows her government to enter an agreement potentially affecting Venezuelan petroleum for decades?

That question matters regardless of whether someone supports or opposes Rodríguez.

International energy companies need legal certainty.

Banks need legal certainty.

Investors need legal certainty.

The Venezuelan people need legal certainty.

And the United States government should want legal certainty.

A $100 billion investment program cannot operate indefinitely on political assurances.

And Who Authorized Washington?

There is another side to the constitutional question.

What exactly has the United States government committed?

The President possesses broad foreign-policy authority.

The executive branch can negotiate with foreign governments.

Federal agencies possess numerous statutory authorities.

But if the United States government is acquiring an ownership interest, guaranteeing purchases, financing petroleum development or assuming financial obligations, Congress may have a role.

That depends on the actual structure.

Again:

Show the agreement.

If congressional authorization is unnecessary, explain the statutory authority.

If congressional appropriations will eventually be required, say so.

If private investors carry the entire financial risk, identify the mechanism.

Transparency would resolve much of this debate.

Who Is Putting Up $100 Billion?

This may be the biggest unanswered financial question.

Administration officials have spoken about approximately $100 billion in private investment.

Excellent.

From whom?

Which companies have committed?

How much has each committed?

Are these binding commitments?

Letters of intent?

Projected investments?

Government estimates?

Will American taxpayers guarantee any portion of the financing?

Will federal agencies provide loans?

Loan guarantees?

Insurance?

Preferential purchasing agreements?

What happens if private companies decide the risk is too great?

Venezuela’s petroleum infrastructure requires enormous investment.

Pipelines.

Electricity.

Drilling equipment.

Ports.

Upgraders.

Refineries.

Security.

Roads.

Housing and services for workers.

Environmental remediation.

Sixty-five billion barrels underground have enormous theoretical value.

But oil underground does not lower gasoline prices.

Oil must be financed, extracted, processed, transported, refined and sold.

That takes money.

And time.

Who Is the Private Partner?

The public also deserves clarity about the private companies involved.

If private businesses are receiving access to one of the largest petroleum reserves on Earth, their ownership should be transparent.

Who are the beneficial owners?

How were they selected?

Was there competitive bidding?

What experience do they have?

What financial capacity do they possess?

What relationships do they have with American officials?

What relationships do they have with Venezuelan officials?

What compliance requirements apply?

What anti-corruption protections exist?

These questions should not be considered hostile to the agreement.

They are necessary to protect it.

Venezuela’s Oil Belongs to Venezuela

Whatever contractual structure emerges, one principle should remain fundamental.

Venezuela’s natural resources belong to Venezuela under Venezuelan law.

Foreign investment can help develop those resources.

American companies can provide capital.

Technology can increase production.

Long-term purchasing arrangements can provide stability.

The United States can benefit.

Venezuela can benefit.

There is nothing inherently illegitimate about mutually beneficial petroleum commerce.

But investment is different from ownership of another country’s natural patrimony.

The agreement must make that distinction unmistakable.

Otherwise, opponents will understandably describe the arrangement not as investment but as appropriation.

María Elvira Salazar Has Identified the Agreement’s Central Contradiction

Representative Salazar says the agreement can bring prosperity, stability and security.

She also says Delcy Rodríguez and remnants of the Maduro system cannot represent Venezuela’s future.

Those two positions create an unavoidable question.

If Rodríguez cannot guarantee Venezuela’s political future, how can agreements negotiated under her authority guarantee Venezuela’s petroleum future for generations?

Salazar’s answer appears to be that free elections and democratic institutions are ultimately necessary to make the arrangement durable.

That is a reasonable argument.

But it also strengthens the case for transparency now.

A future Venezuelan democracy should not inherit a massive agreement it was never permitted to examine.

Democracy Cannot Begin With a Secret Contract

If Washington’s stated objective is eventually a democratic Venezuela, then the economic architecture being constructed today should be capable of surviving democratic scrutiny tomorrow.

Publish the contracts.

Publish the ownership structure.

Publish the financial commitments.

Publish the revenue-sharing formula.

Identify the companies.

Identify government guarantees.

Explain congressional authority.

Explain Venezuelan constitutional authority.

Establish independent audits.

Create anti-corruption safeguards.

And disclose how revenues will reach the Venezuelan people.

If the agreement is genuinely beneficial, transparency should strengthen it.

Follow the Money

Venezuela has already lived through decades in which enormous petroleum wealth failed to produce prosperity proportional to its resources.

That cannot happen again.

If production reaches 1.5 million additional barrels per day, where does the revenue go?

How much goes to Venezuela?

How much goes to operating companies?

How much goes to the United States?

How much services investment?

How much services debt?

How much reaches infrastructure, hospitals, electricity, schools and communities?

How will Venezuelans verify those numbers?

A new petroleum agreement should not merely change who controls the flow of money.

It should change the level of accountability surrounding that money.

This Could Be an Opportunity

Horizonte Cubano News is not arguing that the United States should reject Venezuelan oil.

Quite the opposite.

A transparent energy partnership could benefit both countries.

Venezuela needs enormous capital investment.

The United States wants secure energy supplies.

American companies possess technology and financing capacity.

Venezuelans need jobs and economic recovery.

There is room for mutual benefit.

But the larger the opportunity, the greater the obligation to establish legitimacy.

The Simplest Question

Donald Trump says this is the biggest oil deal in world history.

Then treat it like one.

Do not ask Americans to understand it from a social-media post.

Do not ask Venezuelans to trust promises.

Do not ask investors to guess.

Do not ask Congress to learn the details from newspapers.

And do not ask future generations to honor obligations they cannot examine today.

Publish the agreement.

Let Venezuelan constitutional lawyers examine it.

Let American lawyers examine it.

Let Congress examine it.

Let economists examine it.

Let petroleum engineers examine it.

Let investors examine it.

And above all:

Let the Venezuelan people examine what has been negotiated involving their country’s most valuable natural resource.

Perhaps the agreement really is historic.

Perhaps it really can help rebuild Venezuela.

Perhaps it really can benefit American consumers.

Perhaps it really can weaken China’s strategic influence in the hemisphere.

If so, transparency will not destroy the agreement.

Transparency will help legitimize it.

The bigger the deal, the stronger the case for showing the public exactly what was signed.

Horizonte Cubano News — Analysis and commentary on Cuba, Venezuela, the United States and the future of the hemisphere.