Unlock the White House Watch newsletter for free

Your guide to what Trump’s second term means for Washington, business and the world

US refiners are braced for a surge in Venezuelan crude that would make them early winners of President Donald Trump’s extraordinary plans for an energy-led regime change in Caracas.

Shares in America’s top refining groups jumped on Monday as traders bet their US Gulf Coast operations could snap up big volumes of Venezuelan heavy crude as Washington looks to ease sanctions and revive production.

Valero, the biggest US importer of Venezuelan crude, closed 9 per cent higher. Phillips 66 added 7 per cent and Marathon Petroleum 6 per cent. 

“Our refineries in the Gulf Coast of the United States are the best in terms of refining the heavy crude,” said US secretary of state Marco Rubio on Sunday. “I think there will be tremendous demand and interest from private industry if given the space to do it.”

Trump this weekend touted the “tremendous amount of wealth” that could be generated by American oil companies returning to Venezuela’s oil sector after US forces captured President Nicolás Maduro and transported him to the US to face trial on drug-trafficking charges. 

That has sparked a burst of interest among energy investors keen to return to Venezuela — home to the biggest oil reserves in the world — decades after expropriations by Caracas led most to abandon the country. 

A flurry of executives was expected to arrive in Miami on Tuesday, where US energy secretary Chris Wright will pitch the benefits of channelling billions of dollars into reviving Venezuelan oil output, which has fallen from 3.7mn barrels a day in 1970 to less than 1mn b/d today as a result of chronic mismanagement, corruption and sanctions. 

While any investment by US companies in rejuvenating Venezuelan oil production could take time, Gulf Coast refiners are well positioned to hoover up crude shipments as soon as sanctions are eased and more import permits are granted, something analysts say could happen quickly. 

“Near-term, Gulf Coast refiners could be among the biggest winners of shifts that could occur here,” said Dylan White, principal analyst for North American crude markets at consultancy Wood Mackenzie. 

“The investment side of the coin in Venezuela is much more slow moving. It’s turning a very slow ship and it involves high-level decisions from a number of companies,” he said. “[But] sanctions policy changing in the US could change the economic benefits for US Gulf Coast refiners tomorrow.”

American refiners and traders import about 100,000-200,000 b/d of Venezuelan crude, down from 1.4mn b/d in 1997. Under current US sanctions, Chevron is the only American producer allowed to operate in the country and imports of Venezuelan crude are heavily restricted.

As much as 80 per cent of Venezuelan exports had been bound for China before the US imposed a naval embargo last month. Much of that could be quickly rerouted to the US if sanctions were lifted.

“The natural proximal home for a lot of those Venezuelan heavy barrels would be the refining complex of the US Gulf Coast,” said Clayton Seigle, senior fellow at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, adding that the fact that the facilities were equipped to process Venezuelan heavy oil could explain “some of the short-term stock market reactions that we observed”.

Valero, Philips 66 and Marathon did not respond to requests for comment on their plans.

US refineries were largely set up before the shale revolution made America the world’s biggest oil producer. Almost 70 per cent of US refining capacity is designed primarily to handle the heavy grades common in Venezuela, Canada and Mexico rather than the light, sweet variety found in Texas oilfields, according to the American Fuel and Petrochemical Manufacturers.

Consultancy S&P Global Energy estimates that from 1990 to 2010, US refiners spent about $100bn on heavy crude processing capabilities, just before the fracking boom sent American production soaring.

“This finally gets some of the [return on investment] back,” said Debnil Chowdhury, Americas head of refining and marketing at S&P, of the potential for a return to significant imports of Venezuelan heavy oil.

“We had a system that was kind of running de-optimised for the last 10-15 years. And this allows it to get a little bit closer to what it was designed for — which means slightly higher yields, higher margins.

“You get to basically use your asset more how it was designed because you’re getting the feedstock it was designed for.”

Data visualisation by Eva Xiao in New York

Why it matters: Council members are split over whether Washington’s move upholds accountability – or undermines a foundational principle of international order.  

Some delegations argue the action was exceptional and justified; others warn it risks normalising unilateral force and eroding state sovereignty.

Setting the tone, the UN Secretary-General cautioned that international peace and security rest on all Member States adhering to the UN Charter – language that framed a debate likely to expose deep and lasting divisions inside the chamber in New York – all as the Venezuelan leader appeared in a downtown federal courtroom just a few miles away.

US: Law-enforcement operation, not war

The United States rejected characterisations of its actions as military aggression, describing the operation as a targeted law enforcement measure facilitated by the military to arrest an indicted fugitive.

Ambassador Michael Waltz said:

• Nicolás Maduro is not a legitimate head of State following disputed 2024 elections.
• Saturday’s operation was necessary to combat narcotics trafficking and transnational organised crime threatening US and regional security.
• Historical precedents exist, including the 1989 arrest of Panama’s former leader Manuel Noriega.

“There is no war against Venezuela or its people. We are not occupying a country,” he said. “This was a law-enforcement operation in furtherance of lawful indictments that have existed for decades.”

Venezuelan Ambassador Samuel Moncada addresses the Security Council.

Venezuela: Sovereignty violated; a dangerous precedent

Venezuelan Ambassador Samuel Moncada described his country as the target of an illegitimate armed attack lacking any legal justification, accusing the US of bombing Venezuelan territory, the loss of civilian and military lives, and the “kidnapping” of President Nicolás Maduro and First Lady Cilia Flores.

“We cannot ignore a central element of this US aggression,” he said. “Venezuela is the victim of these attacks because of its natural resources.”

Calling on the Council to act under its Charter mandate, he urged that:

• The US be required to respect the immunities of the president and his wife and ensure their immediate release and safe return;
• The use of force against Venezuela be clearly and unequivocally condemned;
• The principle of non-acquisition of territory or resources by force be reaffirmed; and
• Measures be adopted to de-escalate tensions, protect civilians and restore respect for international law.

Concern over use of force

Several Council members and others invited to take part expressed deep concern over the US military action, grounding their positions firmly in the UN Charter.

Colombia, Brazil, Mexico, Chile and Panama, underscored their region’s long-standing declaration as a zone of peace and warned that unilateral military action risked destabilising the Western hemisphere and aggravating displacement flows.

• Colombia, in its first intervention as an elected Council member, rejected “any unilateral use of force” and cautioned that civilians invariably pay the highest price.
• Brazil said the bombing and seizure of a head of State crossed an “unacceptable line,” warning of the erosion of multilateralism.
• Mexico stressed that externally imposed regime change violates international law regardless of political disagreements.

Ambassadors also cited a worrying human rights situation inside Venezuela and the suffering of civilians, highlighting the need to ensure compliance with international law:

• The United Kingdom highlighted years of suffering endured by Venezuelans – poverty, repression and mass displacement – while underscoring that respect for the UN Charter and the rule of law is essential for global peace and security.
• Denmark and France acknowledged the imperative to combat organised crime and protect human rights – but warned that counter-narcotics efforts and accountability must be pursued through lawful, multilateral means.

A wide view of the Security Council meeting on the situation in Venezuela.

Regional voices backing US action

A smaller group of countries from the region took a different view.

• Argentina praised the US operation as a decisive step against narcotics trafficking and terrorism, arguing that the operation and Mr. Maduro’s removal could open a path toward restoring democracy, the rule of law and human rights in Venezuela.
• Paraguay also welcomed Mr. Maduro’s removal, calling for the immediate restoration of democratic institutions and the release of political prisoners, while urging that the transition proceed through democratic means.

Charter credibility at stake

Russia and China delivered some of the strongest criticism, characterising the US action as armed aggression and warning against the normalisation of unilateral force.

This position was echoed by countries beyond the Americas – including South Africa, Pakistan, Iran and Uganda – which warned the selective application of international law risks undermining the entire collective security system.

Representatives of Moscow and Beijing called for the immediate release of President Maduro and stressed the inviolability of head-of-State immunity under international law, framing the situation as a test of whether Charter principles apply equally to all States.