How should we evaluate Trump’s high-profile meeting with over twenty senior executives from major oil and gas companies on January 10, 2026?

Trump’s logic chain runs like this: force U.S. oil companies to fund infrastructure reconstruction in Venezuela—thereby triggering a massive surge in Venezuelan crude output, leading to global oversupply, pushing oil prices below $50 per barrel. Lower oil prices would curb U.S. inflation, securing Trump’s re-election (or victory in the midterm elections), while simultaneously collapsing Russia’s fiscal stability and forcing Putin to seek peace. Perfect? Too perfect—except for the corporations expected to foot the bill! ExxonMobil CEO Darren Woods shot back bluntly: “That’s an uninvestable situation.” (ExxonMobil’s assets in Venezuela had been expropriated twice.) Why is it uninvestable? What condition are Venezuela’s oil facilities actually in? That’s no oilfield—it’s more like a scrapyard. Pipelines rust so badly they crumble like crackers at a touch; spilled crude has turned lakes pitch-black; skilled technicians fled long ago, leaving only bureaucrats who do nothing but chant slogans. Restoring functionality would cost at least $100 billion—just to get started. Worse still, ConocoPhillips previously invested tens of billions there, only to have its assets seized outright by the Chávez and Maduro regimes. Now ConocoPhillips CEO Ryan Lance cautiously raised this old grievance, hoping Trump might help recover those losses. What did Trump say? “We won’t revisit who lost what in the past—that was your mistake.” Hear that? That’s what you call ‘robbing thieves.’ In Trump’s eyes, these energy giants got expropriated because they were foolish—and now that he needs them, they must dutifully pay up. It’s like Trump’s house being forcibly demolished, and the U.S. police chief telling Trump to rebuild it himself—and then gift it to the very person who tore it down—all in the name of ‘harmony and prosperity’! This is Trump’s open strategy: using others’ money to buy his own political achievements. If this scheme were merely about extracting money from corporate giants, it wouldn’t be the most ruthless part. The truly dangerous aspect is that Trump’s plan is actively undermining America’s energy independence. Let’s recall a basic fact: the U.S. is now the world’s top oil producer—thanks to shale oil. Yet shale oil extraction remains expensive. Though technology continues improving, the breakeven price for most U.S. shale wells still sits between $40 and $60 per barrel. So what happens if oil prices fall—as Trump intends—and stay below $50 long-term? I believe it would trigger a wave of bankruptcies across the U.S. shale industry. And those roughneck drillers in Texas? They’re Trump’s rock-solid base! Has Trump gone mad—sacrificing his own core supporters? No—he’s not insane. He’s simply making a far larger calculation. Between inflation and energy tycoons, Trump chooses the former—without hesitation. Because inflation kills *all* voters, whereas low oil prices only kill *some* American capitalists and oil workers. On the scale of electoral politics, Trump knows exactly where the weight lies. Moreover, there’s a subtle maneuver involved: Trump plans to swap Venezuelan heavy crude for U.S. light crude. Most U.S. refineries sit along the Gulf of Mexico. These refineries were originally designed to process heavy crude—because the U.S. historically imported heavy oil from Venezuela and the Middle East. Then came the shale revolution: America began producing vast quantities of light crude, overwhelming refinery capacity. As a result, refiners had to export light crude and import heavy crude just to blend and process it.

Subsidizing farmers, loosening restrictions on Russian diesel, urging Europe to release strategic reserves… Despite Trump’s ‘multi-pronged’ approach, diesel prices remain stubbornly high.

However, subsidies cannot directly affect market prices. Rob Larew, president of the National Farmers Union, criticized the move: “This is the second round of emergency aid this year, intended to offset losses that were entirely foreseeable. Trade disruptions and fuel-cost spikes linked to overseas conflicts have already pushed family farms into crisis—and one-time payments offer no stability for future planning.” The U.S. Department of Agriculture has yet to clarify how the funds will be allocated, when they will arrive, or whether congressional approval is required. Red-dyed diesel exemption: implementation remains ambiguous This month, Trump signed an executive order permitting truck drivers to use red-dyed diesel—normally reserved for off-road uses such as agricultural machinery—on public roads, and temporarily waiving certain federal tax-filing and recordkeeping requirements. Yet the IRS has *not* eliminated the federal diesel tax; it has only suspended related filing obligations and penalties through year-end—leaving gas stations and fuel retailers in limbo. David Fialkov, chief lobbyist for NATSO—the trade association representing America’s largest truck stop operators—said members appreciate Trump’s efforts to tackle diesel costs, but guidance remains “unclear,” carrying excessive risk. “Frankly, I don’t see how these red-dyed diesel announcements will have any meaningful impact on diesel prices,” he said. Russian diesel re-enters U.S. markets—geopolitical costs draw bipartisan criticism On the supply side, the Trump administration chose to ease sanctions on Russian diesel. According to shipping data from LSEG, the Maltese-flagged tanker *Agioi Fanendes* loaded 40,000 metric tons of ultra-low-sulfur diesel at Russia’s Baltic port of Primorsk on October 22, bound for the U.S., with arrival expected in New York on November 7. Kremlin spokesperson Dmitry Peskov confirmed the same day that, under a newly reached U.S.-Russia agreement, Russian diesel exports to the U.S. had officially commenced. Trump previously announced Russia would immediately export 300,000 tons of diesel, ramping up to 500,000 tons in November, and further expanding to 1 million tons thereafter. Russian Deputy Prime Minister Alexander Novak stated last week that Moscow expects to restore monthly diesel exports to the U.S. to their normal level of 3–3.5 million tons by year-end. Yet this move has drawn bipartisan criticism domestically. Sanctions originally aimed at curtailing Moscow’s energy revenues—and thereby weakening its ability to finance the war in Ukraine—are now being relaxed, with clear geopolitical costs. Analysts point out that the Iran conflict—not Ukrainian strikes on Russian refineries—is the primary driver behind the current diesel price surge; the latter’s impact, while real, remains comparatively limited. Edward Fishman, Director of the Maurice R. Greenberg Center for Geoeconomic Studies at the Council on Foreign Relations, remarked: “I view this more as a scapegoating maneuver to deflect responsibility than as a genuine pre-election effort to stabilize prices.” The White House blames high prices on “legacy issues,” while political pressure mounts.

Trump Says High Gas Prices 'Short-Term Pain' at Texas Rally

18 hours ago

President Trump addressed high gasoline prices at a Texas rally, attributing costs to the Iran conflict while promising relief from captured Venezuelan crude destined for local refineries like Citgo and ExxonMobil. He emphasized short-term economic pain for long-term gain.

bloomberg

2026-01-05

US to Send Oil Companies to Fix Venezuela's Infrastructure, Boost Output: Trump

2026-02-23

Chemicals mostly spared under new Trump tariff plan

2026-03-10

Oil prices tumble after Trump says Iran war may be nearing end

2026-03-10

Markets Rally, Commodity Prices Fall as Trump Predicts Short Conflict

2026-03-10

Trump Signals Ceasefire, Global Oil Prices Plummet