The agreement has produced sharply different readings: US and interim Venezuelan officials cast it as an investment-led recovery plan, while opposition figures and socialist critics see a transfer of national wealth that bypasses democratic legitimacy.

At the center of the dispute is a 100-year concession over 17 oil fields holding an estimated 65 billion barrels of crude—about one-fifth of Venezuela’s proven reserves. Supporters say the scale of the pact could revive a badly weakened industry; critics say its duration and political timing make it exceptionally hard to justify.

Washington has promoted the arrangement with North American Blue Energy Partners as a way to bring capital and production capacity into Venezuela. A US official said new output would generate royalties first for the interim authorities and eventually for an elected government, arguing that the goal was to leave behind “a more stable Venezuela.”¹ Delcy Rodríguez, Venezuela’s interim president, has likewise described the agreement as historic, projecting $100bn in investment and more than $200bn in tax revenue.

That case rests on the belief that economic reconstruction can proceed alongside a later political transition. US officials say talks between the government and opposition are expected to resume, and argue that a future elected administration should not inherit a country in crisis. But opposition critics question why an oil agreement of this magnitude has advanced before a clear election timetable or broader democratic guarantees.

Ricardo Hausmann, a Venezuelan economist aligned with the opposition, accused Washington of choosing “an unconstitutional agreement with an illegitimate and oppressive government” rather than first restoring constitutional order and democracy.² The criticism is not confined to opponents of the governing party. Rafael Ramírez, a former oil minister under Hugo Chávez, said the deal “hands over [the oil] and opens the doors to a new colonialism of the United States.”¹

Both camps acknowledge Venezuela’s oil sector needs enormous investment. Their divide is over who should control that recovery, how its proceeds are governed, and whether economic stabilization can credibly come before political change.