While the Trump administration promotes investment in a post-Maduro Venezuela, major oil companies like ExxonMobil are publicly skeptical. Their stance that the country is "uninvestable" due to the absence of rule of law shows that political guarantees are insufficient without fundamental institutional reforms.

The US government controls Venezuelan oil sales and funnels monthly payments to Delcy Rodriguez's government. This unprecedented level of financial control benefits the regime by providing stability while giving the US leverage and access to oil, a shocking callback to colonial-era dynamics.

Contrary to assumptions, oil majors are cautious about re-entering Venezuela. They worry about a lack of legal certainty and the risk that any deals could be undone and heavily scrutinized by a future U.S. administration, making the investment too risky.

This deal is not primarily about securing oil for US consumption but about national security. By controlling Venezuela's vast reserves, the U.S. prevents rivals like China and Russia from accessing a strategic asset in the Western Hemisphere, effectively removing a key piece from their geopolitical board.

The U.S. strategy appears to be maintaining a weakened Chavista regime to ensure stability and access to oil, effectively turning Venezuela into a resource colony without genuine political change for its people.

To spur investment in Venezuela's risky environment, the U.S. administration may need to employ a "carrot and stick" approach with oil majors. This could involve offering capital guarantees to de-risk investments (the carrot) or threatening to revoke leases on U.S. federal lands for non-compliance (the stick).

In post-Maduro Venezuela, American pressure is primarily focused on liberalizing the economy for foreign investment, especially in oil. While this has resulted in some political shifts, the overwhelming priority is economic access for American interests, demonstrating a pragmatic rather than purely ideological approach to nation-building.

The US action in Venezuela is self-defeating even if the goal is oil. The resulting political instability and lack of legal guarantees mean no private oil major will make the tens of billions of dollars in investments needed to restore production to previous levels, capping output far below its potential.

Unlike the 20th-century Monroe Doctrine focused on ideology (anti-fascism/communism), Trump's version is a throwback to a more aggressive, 19th-century style of foreign policy. It unapologetically prioritizes the direct control of economic resources, like Venezuelan oil, over promoting democracy or good governance.