Shades of the British in India, we depose a Leader favorable to our enemies, leaving the existing government compliant to our rule. Trump seized and deposed Venezuela’s leader and set up a colonial relationship with the remainder of his government.

Facing an overwhelming force, those in charge of the nation surrendered control of their primary asset, oil, to the U.S. We will take the oil and market it. Whatever amount we decide to share with Venezuela must be used to purchase U.S.-made goods.

These terms sound like our colonial relationship with King George’s Britain. Control of our trade lay with the mother country. We could only buy from British manufacturers. Our Declaration of Independence leaves no doubt about what we thought of the situation. Now, Trump has taken on George III’s mantle.

At least past colonial Empires went after places that produced stuff that didn’t compete with their home products. Tobacco, indigo, sugar, and tea didn’t grow in Britain or France. These mercantilist nations made money by selling colonial produce and by monopolizing the sale of manufactured goods to their colonies.

Isn’t someone in the present administration aware that the U.S. is the world’s top oil producer? It’s as if, when England was the largest wool exporter, it deposed a foreign leader to expand his nation’s wool production. One could see eliminating a competitor, but Trump only talks about rapidly expanding Venezuela’s output. Even crazy George III could see the flaws in this policy.

Trump’s theory is that if he can drive down oil prices to $50 a barrel, everything in the U.S. will be more affordable. With the price already below $60, there’s stress in our oil patch. Small to medium independent oil companies make up a large part of our domestic production. With less access to capital than the majors, they’re already cutting back. Drilling rig usage in the U.S. has dropped every month this year. As major donors to Trump and the Republicans, the idea of pumping more Venezuelan oil upsets these producers.

Nevertheless, Trump gathered a bunch of Big Oil executives in the White House to induce them to invest $100 billion to restore Venezuela’s production from today’s 800,000 bbls a day to its glory days, almost 4 million bbls a day.

The executives pushed back. ExxonMobil CEO Darren Woods said Venezuela is “uninvestable.” He noted that the company is still owed money for assets the country seized. Without assurances about the safety of investments and people, the plan is a non-starter.

Who do they make agreements with? Presently, the country is ruled by what Trump labeled “Narco-terrorists” who took their properties before. They prevented the winners of the last election from taking power. Still, many nations, including the U.S., recognize the opposition as the legitimate government. Someday, there may be a democratically elected government, but nobody knows when.

Even though the opposition claims to be the legitimate government, Trump only plans to speak with their leader, María Corina Machado, in the near future. Meanwhile, Trump is cutting multibillion-dollar deals with the current government. Her party won an overwhelming victory, but Trump doubts her popularity.

Given the vast sums involved, who then are oil companies supposed to deal with? Trump claims he’s in charge, but will he guarantee the safety of their investments and people? This tactic would put taxpayers’ billions at risk. Would he demand a cut of the business or golden shares as he has in the past?

In any case, Trump will be out of office in three years. A much longer timeframe is needed to bring a significant increase in Venezuela’s production. The Biden administration promised subsidies and other help to green energy firms, only to see Trump move to end them. Without congressional buy-in, a Trump executive order isn’t enough. Even then, a new administration may go in a different direction, leaving the oil companies looking like those abandoned windmills off our coast.

Why would these companies risk their capital in Venezuela when they can get better, safer returns in, say, Alaska or the Guyana-Suriname Basin?

Even if the U.S. is successful in bringing large volumes of Venezuelan oil to the market, it will be at the expense of our own producers and Canada. The latter ships their heavy crude, similar to Venezuelan oil, to the U.S. for refining. With the U.S. government having a stake in Venezuela’s oil, replacing Canada’s oil at our refineries is a given.

Canada will have no other option but to ship its oil to Asia, primarily China, which already refines heavy oils. How is Canada getting economically closer to China in our interest? Our already sour relationship would only get worse. With China replacing the U.S. as Canada’s major trading partner, what was once the world’s friendliest border could look a lot different.

While much of the media is debating the legality of Trump’s Venezuela actions, under international and U.S. law, does it really matter? We see International law violated regularly. Russia invades Ukraine. What court do you go to for redress?

Rather than high-minded discussions of international law or furthering democracy in the Western Hemisphere, the Godfather movies provide better insight into Trump’s motives in divvying up Venezuela’s oil. The president has always had an eye for other people’s oil.

I’m more concerned about the economic reasoning behind the Trump administration’s actions. With Trump’s goal of $50 a barrel, it only lowers oil prices by a few dollars. Any benefit to us is likely offset or exceeded by losses to our domestic oil industry. How is any of this America First?

Trump seems locked in the 1970’s, when we imported most of our oil and were at the mercy of the OPEC cartel. With the U.S. becoming the world’s largest producer, things have changed dramatically. Our policies should reflect the switch.

None of this should surprise this administration. The Energy and Interior Secretaries are both experienced oil and gas professionals. It’s impossible for them not to know the drawbacks and difficulties in upping Venezuela’s oil production. Yet, the president plows ahead. Did they discuss this with him? Did he understand and choose to ignore them? Where were they too afraid to tell him?

Whatever the answers, we have a President pursuing a nonsensical policy. I have yet to hear a logical presentation of how any of this benefits us. If you can make the argument, I’m all ears.

The last administration suffered from covering up a president with declining mental faculties. Could we be repeating the deception? Sometimes people retreat from reality into fantasy. Finding benefit for the U.S. in this oil policy is delusional.