Donald Trump\u2019s recent claims that the US should keep Venezuelan oil from seized tankers are part of a broader belief in rightwing \u201cresource imperialism\u201d, experts say.<\/p>\n
In recent weeks, the Trump administration has escalated pressure on Venezuela, invoking<\/a> drug-trafficking claims. This month, the US intercepted two tankers carrying Venezuelan oil and began pursuing a third, while intensifying its campaign against the country\u2019s president, Nicol\u00e1s Maduro.<\/p>\n Critics have compared the offensive to the Iraq war, citing a familiar mix of regime-change rhetoric, security pretexts and oil interests. This month, the Trump administration<\/a> labeled fentanyl \u2013 which it says flows from Venezuela \u2013 a \u201cweapon of mass destruction\u201d.<\/p>\n On Monday, Trump suggested oil seized from Venezuela could be treated as a US asset. \u201cMaybe we will sell it, maybe we will keep it,\u201d he told reporters<\/a>. \u201cMaybe we\u2019ll use it in the strategic reserves. We\u2019re keeping the ships also.\u201d<\/p>\n The remarks echo earlier statements from Trump where he has repeatedly called for the US to seize oil from other countries, indicating a broader belief that US power entitles it to control or extract resources from other states.<\/p>\n \u201cThe administration\u2019s global energy policy is mostly about using the threat of violence or the withholding of aid to secure the inputs for the \u2018most of the above\u2019 energy strategy,\u201d which excludes only solar and wind, said Patrick Bigger, co-director of Transition Security Project, a research initiative focused on the climate and geopolitical concerns of militarization.<\/p>\n The Guardian has contacted the White House for comment.<\/p>\n Trump\u2019s belief in what Bigger calls \u201cresource imperialism\u201d emerged during his first presidential campaign. Then, he repeatedly suggested that though the US should not have waged the Iraq war, it should have taken the country\u2019s oil in compensation for the costs of the conflict.<\/p>\n \u201cYou win the war and you take it,\u201d he told ABC in 2015. \u201cYou\u2019re not stealing anything \u2026 We\u2019re reimbursing ourselves.\u201d<\/p>\n He expanded upon the argument the following year: \u201cIf we would have taken the oil, you wouldn\u2019t have Isis, because Isis formed with the power and the wealth of that oil,\u201d he said in an NBC News forum.<\/p>\n He took a similar approach to resource extraction in Syria, tying US troop deployments to control over eastern oilfields.<\/p>\n \u201cWe\u2019ve secured the oil, and, therefore, a small number of US troops will remain in the area where they have the oil, and we\u2019re going to be protecting it, and we\u2019ll be deciding what we\u2019re going to do with it in the future,\u201d he said<\/a> in October 2019, later adding that Exxon Mobil could lead the effort<\/a> to tap the resources.<\/p>\n The president has worked to obstruct other countries from selling their own resources, notably Iran. Via a combination of sweeping sanctions and threats of military force, the administration sought to cut off Iran\u2019s revenue streams, framing this as a strategy to curb the country\u2019s regional influence and nuclear ambitions.<\/p>\n \u201cAny Country or person who buys ANY AMOUNT of OIL or PETROCHEMICALS from Iran will be subject to, immediately, Secondary Sanctions,\u201d the president said in a post on Truth Social this year.<\/p>\n Beyond targeting other countries\u2019 oil, Trump has sought to secure rare earth minerals \u2013 materials vital for the production of batteries, cellphones, electric cars and weapons systems \u2013 from other countries, even seeking to strong-arm traditional US allies to get them.<\/p>\n The president has long fixated on Greenland, an autonomous territory under Danish rule, saying earlier this year that the US needs the island \u201cvery badly\u201d for \u201cnational security and international security\u201d reasons. In an extraordinary threat that shook<\/a> Denmark, Trump didn\u2019t rule out using force<\/a> in order to seize Greenland and this week appointed a special envoy to the territory.<\/p>\n The island contains vast deposits of cobalt, nickel, copper, lithium and other minerals, and the White House has considered<\/a> taking a direct stake in its largest rare-earths mining project. JD Vance warned earlier this year that China and Russia were \u201cinterested in the minerals of the Arctic territories\u201d, saying: \u201cWe need to ensure that America is leading in the Arctic, because if we don\u2019t, other nations will fill the gap.\u201d<\/p>\n Meanwhile, in April, the Trump administration struck a deal<\/a> with Ukraine granting the US preferential access to the country\u2019s minerals and uranium in exchange for continued military support against Russia\u2019s ongoing invasion.<\/p>\n When not claiming resources directly for the US, Trump has actively agitated for increased fossil fuel use by ostensible allies. In September, Trump called on<\/a> the UK to open up the North Sea for more oil drilling, criticizing the British government for making it \u201cimpossible for people to drill\u201d.<\/p>\n In the same month, the US president expanded upon a worldview that is dominated by fossil fuels in a discursive, often fact-free speech to the UN<\/a>, where he warned countries if they \u201cdon\u2019t get away from this green scam, your country is going to fail\u201d.<\/p>\n He added: \u201cYou need strong borders and traditional energy sources if you are going to be great again.\u201d<\/p>\n