THE $13 BILLION RAKE FROM VENEZUELAN OIL — WHERE DID TRUMP HIDE THAT MONEY?
WASHINGTON CONTROLS $13 BILLION IN VENEZUELAN OIL MONEY — AND NO ONE CAN SAY EXACTLY WHERE IT WENT
The United States says the money belongs to Venezuela.
The Trump administration controls when it moves.
President Donald Trump has said America is making money from it.
And six months after Washington took command of Venezuelan oil exports, lawmakers still cannot produce a complete public accounting of what happened to an estimated $13 billion.
That is the controversy now moving from energy markets into Congress.
The money was generated from Venezuelan crude sold after the United States captured Nicolás Maduro in January, suspended parts of the sanctions system and placed the country’s oil revenue under American supervision.
The arrangement was presented as a temporary safeguard.
Washington said it would prevent corrupt officials, foreign creditors and hostile governments from seizing the proceeds. The funds would be held for Venezuela and released for salaries, medicine, policing, infrastructure and economic stability.
The administration also promised monitoring.
Secretary of State Marco Rubio said Venezuelan authorities would submit monthly budgets.
A senior State Department official later said KPMG was auditing the accounts and that quarterly reports would be provided.
Those reports have not been made public in a form that allows Congress, economists or Venezuelan citizens to follow the money from each barrel sold to each payment approved.
Financial Times calculations now estimate that more than $13 billion in oil revenue has been collected or placed under U.S. control since January.
The Trump administration says billions have gone back into the Venezuelan economy.
Venezuela’s own public tracking website records only one transfer: $300 million in March.
An American official said in April that approximately $3 billion had been sent.
Trump has said the United States recovered the cost of its military operation many times over and was “making a lot of money” from Venezuelan oil.
The January executive order, however, described the money as Venezuela’s sovereign property held by the United States only in a custodial capacity.
All of those statements cannot answer the same question without more detail.
How much money was collected?
Where is it being held?
How much has been released?
Who received it?
Who approved each payment?
And what portion, if any, has benefited the United States?
The administration may have lawful and strategic answers.
It has not provided a public ledger detailed enough to prove them.
THE $13 BILLION IS AN ESTIMATE
The first distinction is important.
There is no publicly available U.S. government statement declaring that exactly $13 billion is sitting in a single bank account.
The number comes from Financial Times calculations based on shipping data and estimates of Venezuelan crude prices.
The newspaper reviewed oil shipments recorded since January by Kpler, a maritime and commodity-data company.
It combined those shipment volumes with price assessments for several types of Venezuelan crude, including Merey, Boscan and Hamaca.
The value of shipments for which direct price estimates were available reached approximately $11.5 billion.
The Financial Times used historical pricing relationships to estimate the value of additional barrels not covered by the direct data.
That calculation pushed the likely total above $13 billion.
The estimate may not equal the exact net cash received.
Gross sales revenue can be reduced by transportation, storage, marketing, insurance, trading fees, discounts, operational costs and other payments.
Some cargoes may have been sold under different terms.
Some revenue may have flowed through separate arrangements authorized by U.S. licenses.
The administration could clarify the difference by releasing audited figures.
Until it does, the FT estimate is the strongest public attempt to measure the scale of the money.
The lack of an official total is itself part of the problem.
A government controlling another country’s most valuable national resource should not require journalists to reconstruct the proceeds from tanker movements and price databases.
HOW AMERICA TOOK CONTROL
The arrangement began after the U.S. military operation that captured Maduro and brought him to the United States to face criminal charges.
Washington then worked with interim leader Delcy Rodríguez to restart oil exports that had been constrained by sanctions and a U.S. blockade.
Venezuela possesses the world’s largest proven crude-oil reserves.
Its industry had been weakened by years of underinvestment, corruption, mismanagement, sanctions and the deterioration of state oil company PDVSA.
Oil remained essential.
Revenue from crude exports represented roughly a quarter of Venezuela’s economy and financed much of the government’s basic operation.
Trump announced that the United States would market and sell tens of millions of barrels that had been trapped by sanctions and logistical restrictions.
The Department of Energy said proceeds would initially settle in U.S.-controlled accounts at major international banks.
The administration hired or authorized commodity traders to move the oil to buyers.
Some sales went to American Gulf Coast refiners designed to process Venezuela’s heavy crude.
Other cargoes moved to international markets.
The structure gave Washington extraordinary control.
Venezuela supplied the resource.
Private traders handled transactions.
Banks held the proceeds.
The U.S. Treasury controlled whether money could be released.
The arrangement was designed to provide leverage over Rodríguez’s government while preventing the old Maduro network, China, creditors or sanctioned actors from capturing the revenue.
It also created an unprecedented accountability burden.
THE MONEY WAS CALLED VENEZUELA’S PROPERTY
Trump signed an executive order in January protecting the oil revenue from attachment by creditors and courts.
Venezuela owes enormous sums to bondholders, oil companies, China and others.
ExxonMobil and ConocoPhillips have longstanding claims related to nationalized assets.
Other creditors have spent years pursuing Venezuelan property, including the parent company of Citgo.
The executive order declared that the oil revenue was the sovereign property of Venezuela held by the United States for governmental and diplomatic purposes.
It said the funds should support peace, prosperity and stability in the country.
The administration argued that allowing creditors to seize the proceeds would undermine Venezuela’s transition and prevent money from reaching its people.
That protection may have been economically necessary.
A country cannot rebuild if every new dollar is immediately taken by old creditors.
The order also meant that normal legal claims could not easily reach the accounts.
That made public oversight even more important.
The money was shielded from courts because it was supposedly being preserved for Venezuelans.
The public therefore needs evidence that it was used for Venezuelans.
THE QATAR ACCOUNT
Early payments were routed through an account in Qatar.
Rubio said the offshore arrangement helped avoid legal complications and prevented creditors from seizing the money.
Qatar had served as an intermediary in talks between Washington and Caracas and had relationships with both sides.
The account was described as belonging to Venezuela but subject to U.S. sanctions controls.
Rubio told senators the United States did not own the money.
It controlled disbursement.
That distinction was meant to reassure lawmakers.
It also revealed the unusual nature of the arrangement.
Venezuela could not freely use its own revenue.
Its government had to submit spending requests.
The U.S. Treasury could approve or reject them.
Washington said this power would prevent funds from financing corruption, narcotics trafficking or hostile regimes.
Critics described it as a foreign government placing a nation’s treasury under political supervision.
One senator told Rubio the United States was taking and selling another country’s oil while deciding how the money could be spent for a population of approximately 30 million people.
Rubio’s answer was that the arrangement prevented systemic collapse while a political transition continued.
The argument was not resolved.
It became more urgent as the money accumulated.
THE FIRST $300 MILLION
Venezuela announced receiving an initial payment of $300 million in January.
Reports indicated that dollars were routed through authorized private banks and offered to importers purchasing food, medicine and other necessities.
The controlled distribution was intended to improve traceability and reduce the risk of cash disappearing through shell companies.
The transaction showed that the system could move money into Venezuela.
It did not demonstrate what happened to the billions collected afterward.
Venezuela later created a website intended to track transfers from the U.S.-managed oil arrangement.
According to the Financial Times, the site contains only one recorded entry: a $300 million transfer in March.
The discrepancy in timing may reflect separate descriptions of the same initial funds or later bookkeeping.
Either way, the public record is remarkably thin.
If billions have been transferred, the website does not show them clearly.
If the website is incomplete, Venezuelan authorities should explain why.
If the United States possesses a more accurate ledger, it should release it.
A tracking system with a single line cannot provide accountability for revenue measured in the tens of billions.
THE CLAIM THAT $3 BILLION WAS SENT
In April, senior State Department official Michael Kozak said approximately $3 billion in oil revenue had been sent to Venezuela.
He said KPMG was auditing the relevant bank accounts.
He also said the administration would provide quarterly reports.
Those statements offered the beginning of an oversight framework.
An independent auditing firm could verify balances, transfers and recipients.
Quarterly reports could allow Congress to compare oil sales with funds released.
Public summaries could protect commercially sensitive information while still showing where billions went.
Democratic members of the House Foreign Affairs Committee say they have not received the promised information.
No complete public KPMG audit has been released.
The administration may possess internal records.
The absence of public reporting prevents outsiders from reconciling the $3 billion claim with Venezuela’s $300 million tracking entry.
It also leaves a larger gap.
If roughly $13 billion was collected and $3 billion transferred, what happened to the remaining approximately $10 billion?
Some could remain in controlled accounts.
Some may have paid production, transportation and government expenses.
Some may have been released after April.
Some could be committed to reconstruction or oil-industry investment.
The public does not know.
That is not evidence that the money was stolen.
It is evidence that the administration has not shown its work.
TRUMP’S “MAKING MONEY” REMARK
The president made the controversy harder to explain when he described the arrangement in terms of American profit.
Trump said the United States had recovered the cost of the Venezuela military operation many times over through oil.
He also said America was “making a lot of money.”
Those remarks conflict with the narrowest description of the United States as a neutral custodian.
A custodian protects and distributes property belonging to someone else.
A party “making money” sounds like an owner, seller or beneficiary.
Trump may have been speaking broadly.
Venezuelan oil moving into the United States can benefit American refiners, traders, workers, consumers and the broader economy.
Lower-priced heavy crude can improve refinery margins.
U.S. companies can earn fees and contracts.
A stabilized Venezuela may reduce migration and strengthen regional security.
The administration may also have recovered direct operational expenses under terms not fully explained publicly.
But a president’s loose language matters when billions belonging to another country are under his control.
Congress needs to know whether U.S. agencies deducted costs.
It needs to know what those costs were.
It needs to know whether American companies received preferential treatment.
It needs to know whether any share of the sale proceeds entered the U.S. Treasury as revenue rather than remaining Venezuelan property.
Without those details, “making money” becomes an invitation to suspicion.
THE TRADING COMPANIES
The administration initially relied on major commodity traders Vitol and Trafigura to move Venezuelan oil.
Both firms possess global networks of tankers, storage facilities, banks and buyers capable of executing large transactions quickly.
Their experience made them practical partners.
Their history raised immediate concerns.
Vitol previously paid $135 million in U.S. criminal penalties to resolve allegations involving bribery in Latin American oil markets.
Trafigura pleaded guilty in a separate U.S. corruption case and agreed to more than $126 million in penalties and forfeiture.
The companies have said they strengthened compliance systems or were acting at the request of the U.S. government.
Past misconduct does not prove corruption in the Venezuelan arrangement.
It demonstrates why independent oversight was necessary from the first transaction.
The licenses and contracts were largely confidential.
The public did not know the traders’ full fees, profit margins or selection process.
The Washington Post reported that a senior Vitol trader had donated millions of dollars to political committees supporting Trump.
Vitol emphasized that the contribution was personal and not made by the company.
Again, the donation does not prove the contract was improperly awarded.
Secrecy makes it harder to disprove the suspicion.
Transparent bidding, published criteria and audited contract payments would provide stronger protection for the administration as well as Venezuela.
WHERE THE MONEY WAS SUPPOSED TO GO
Rubio told Congress that oil revenue would support basic Venezuelan government services.
Approved uses included police salaries, public payroll, medicine and health care.
Rodríguez said the money would flow into sovereign funds supporting health services and infrastructure, including the damaged electrical grid.
Later Treasury guidance created a broader system.
Companies operating in Venezuela were required to pay local taxes, permit fees and certain charges directly to the Venezuelan government.
Royalties, per-barrel levies and federal taxes were directed to Foreign Government Deposit Funds managed by the Trump administration.
The structure separated ordinary local obligations from revenue Washington wanted to supervise.
In theory, this could provide traceability.
Each category would have a designated destination.
In practice, the public needs reports showing the totals.
How much was paid directly to Caracas?
How much entered the controlled funds?
How much went to salaries?
How much purchased medicine?
How much supported PDVSA or private oil operations?
How much remains held?
Broad statements that money benefits the economy cannot replace a transaction-level audit.
THE EARTHQUAKES CHANGED THE URGENCY
Two destructive earthquakes struck Venezuela on June 24.
The United Nations estimated that damage to buildings and infrastructure alone could reach approximately $37 billion.
The disaster created immediate needs for housing, hospitals, electricity, roads and water systems.
The United States made hundreds of millions of dollars in relief available and deployed personnel to assist.
American officials also said money from the oil-revenue accounts would support reconstruction.
They did not publicly specify how much.
The disaster sharpened the central question.
Venezuela possesses billions in recently generated oil income.
Its citizens face a reconstruction crisis.
If the funds are available, why is there no transparent emergency allocation?
If much of the money has already been spent, where did it go?
If it remains frozen for legal or political reasons, what conditions must Venezuela satisfy before it can use the revenue?
The administration may reasonably require controls to prevent disaster money from being stolen.
That argument becomes stronger, not weaker, when the controls are visible.
A public reconstruction fund with published disbursements, contractors and audit results would reduce corruption risk.
A closed process invites allegations from every side.
THE ECONOMY DID NOT BOOM
Economists initially expected a major improvement in Venezuela after sanctions relief and full-price oil sales.
Before the January arrangement, Venezuelan crude was often sold at significant discounts to compensate buyers for sanctions risk.
Redirecting exports through authorized markets should have produced more revenue.
Oil production also began rising.
The government changed resource laws to attract private investment.
Despite those advantages, official first-quarter economic growth was reported at approximately 2.5 percent—the slowest rate in nearly five years, according to Venezuelan economist Francisco Rodríguez.
He argued that the muted performance could indicate the United States had not transferred all of Venezuela’s increased oil revenue back into the economy.
Other analysts later saw indications of stronger dollar inflows, suggesting some payments may have arrived with delays.
The earthquakes then disrupted the expected recovery.
Economic performance cannot prove where every dollar went.
Growth depends on infrastructure, confidence, production, inflation, credit and political stability.
The failure to produce a dramatic boom is not evidence by itself that money disappeared.
It increases the need for documentation.
When a country earns billions more but citizens see little improvement, people will ask who controls the cash.
THE ADMINISTRATION’S DEFENSE
The Trump administration says the system is working.
The State Department says billions have been disbursed into the Venezuelan economy.
Treasury says the United States is acting as custodian and releasing money for official expenditures, including government payroll and financial liquidity.
Officials say monitoring is underway to ensure the funds benefit Venezuelan citizens.
They argue that Washington’s control prevented oil income from returning to the corruption networks that hollowed out Venezuela under Maduro.
The arrangement also blocked China from receiving cargoes linked to oil-backed debt and prevented private creditors from dismantling the transition through asset seizures.
Those are substantial policy goals.
Venezuela’s previous oil system was notoriously opaque.
PDVSA became a vehicle for patronage, political control and corruption.
Simply returning unrestricted billions to institutions associated with the old regime could repeat the same disaster.
The United States may therefore have good reasons to release funds gradually.
Good reasons should be documented.
A transparent accounting would strengthen the administration’s defense.
The refusal or failure to publish one weakens it.
BIPARTISAN PRESSURE
Questions are not coming only from Democrats.
Republican Rep. María Elvira Salazar, who represents a South Florida district with a large Venezuelan community, has called for public reports showing where the money is going.
Democrats including Rep. Joaquin Castro accuse the administration of controlling Venezuelan oil revenue without adequate safeguards or congressional visibility.
Sen. Elizabeth Warren and colleagues have sought information from major banks about whether they were asked to participate in the transactions.
Lawmakers have raised concerns about the selection of traders, offshore accounts and the possibility that companies with political connections received favorable treatment.
The bipartisan nature of the pressure matters.
Opposition to Trump explains some Democratic rhetoric.
Republicans who support the administration still have a duty to protect the credibility of the transition.
Venezuelans who opposed Maduro did not campaign for one opaque oil system to be replaced by another.
They want evidence that national wealth is financing recovery rather than becoming leverage in private negotiations.
THE CREDITOR PROBLEM
The missing-money debate cannot ignore Venezuela’s extraordinary debt.
The country and PDVSA owe an estimated $150 billion to $170 billion when bonds, bilateral loans, arbitration awards and accumulated interest are combined.
China may be owed $13 billion to $15 billion through oil-backed loans.
ConocoPhillips and ExxonMobil hold large claims connected to past expropriations.
Bondholders and other companies have pursued Venezuelan assets for years.
If the controlled accounts were fully exposed, creditors could attempt to seize them.
That would satisfy legal judgments while depriving Venezuela of money needed for salaries, food and reconstruction.
Trump’s executive order was designed to prevent that result.
Shielding the funds does not eliminate the claims.
It postpones the reckoning.
Eventually, Venezuela will need a debt-restructuring plan.
Oil revenue cannot be permanently protected from every obligation while the government asks for new international investment.
Investors need predictable rules.
Creditors need a process.
Citizens need public services.
The $13 billion sits at the center of those competing demands.
THE QUESTION OF SOVEREIGNTY
The arrangement raises a basic question that goes beyond accounting.
Who owns Venezuela’s recovery?
Washington says the money belongs to Venezuela.
Washington also decides when Venezuela can spend it.
American officials call that leverage.
Critics call it neocolonial control.
The truth depends partly on what the system produces.
If supervision prevents corruption, funds hospitals and supports a democratic transition, the intervention may be defended as temporary stewardship.
If decisions remain secret, favored companies profit and Venezuelans cannot access their own revenue during a national emergency, the arrangement begins to resemble economic domination.
The United States cannot answer that criticism through declarations of good intent.
It must show the accounts.
THE LEDGER THE PUBLIC NEEDS
A credible report does not require revealing every commercially sensitive contract.
It should provide several basic figures.
Total barrels sold under U.S.-controlled arrangements.
Gross revenue generated.
Average realized price.
Trading, shipping, insurance and storage costs.
Amounts held in each country and financial institution.
Interest earned on balances.
Funds disbursed to Venezuelan government accounts.
Funds paid directly to vendors, employees or humanitarian organizations.
Amounts used for oil-industry operations.
Amounts used for earthquake reconstruction.
Any costs retained or reimbursed to the United States.
The names of independent auditors and the scope of their work.
A schedule for future reporting.
Without those facts, every political faction can invent its own explanation.
Trump supporters can claim the administration rescued Venezuela and profited America.
Critics can claim billions were stolen.
Caracas can blame Washington for economic weakness.
Washington can blame corruption in Caracas.
The absence of a ledger protects everyone from immediate accountability.
It protects no one’s long-term credibility.
WHAT “WHERE DID IT GO?” REALLY MEANS
The question does not necessarily mean $13 billion vanished from a bank vault.
The money may exist across several accounts.
Part may have been disbursed.
Part may remain protected from creditors.
Part may be paying the cost of producing and moving the oil.
Part may be reserved for future government budgets.
Part may be supporting reconstruction.
The scandal is not proven theft.
The scandal is that the public cannot independently determine the distribution.
That distinction should remain clear.
Accusing officials of stealing billions without evidence would repeat the same transparency failure in another form.
The responsible conclusion is narrower.
The Trump administration controls an enormous pool of foreign sovereign revenue.
Its public explanations have been inconsistent.
The promised reporting has been inadequate.
Congress has not received enough information.
Venezuelan citizens cannot follow the money.
Those facts justify investigation.
THE ONE NUMBER THAT EXPOSES THE GAP
Thirteen billion dollars estimated from sales.
Three billion dollars claimed by an American official as transferred.
Three hundred million dollars recorded on Venezuela’s public tracker.
Those numbers may describe different dates, categories or systems.
No public report reconciles them.
That is the heart of the story.
The administration can resolve much of the controversy without a courtroom, subpoena or partisan hearing.
Release the audit.
Publish the quarterly reports.
Show the balances.
Identify the approved expenditures.
Explain Trump’s statement that America is making money.
Until that happens, the questions will grow.
Venezuelans survived economic collapse, political repression, sanctions and the destruction of their oil industry.
They now face earthquake damage measured in tens of billions.
Their crude is again moving through global markets.
The revenue should be visible in hospitals, public salaries, infrastructure and recovery.
Instead, the most visible result is an argument over accounts most citizens cannot inspect.
Washington says it is protecting Venezuela’s money.
Caracas says money is arriving.
Trump says the United States is profiting.
Congress says it has been kept in the dark.
The oil tankers have left port.
May you like
The payments have been made.
The one thing that has not moved with the same speed is the truth about where the money went.
