CHEVRON 3
ESTB 1 26 VENEZ
INAUG FREEDOM 250 BALLROOM?
---
steyer 5 26 takes max chevron $
COMMON DREAMS
Make no mistake about it: Corporate lobbyists are horrified that Tom Steyer might become California’s governor. To stop Steyer, corporate forces and their allies in the Democratic establishment have moved from now-disgraced Rep. Eric Swalwell to Xavier Becerra, former US Secretary of Health and Human Services. Becerra, who won praise from the right-wing Murdoch press for pocketing the maximum campaign donation from Chevron, is now bending to the will of private interests on healthcare, according to KQED public radio.
---
-=-=
AN THOM 20 26
...
Somebody seems to have misplaced fifty million dollars, and nobody in Trump’s orbit is in any hurry to find it. A decade ago, Congress set aside money for an America 250 celebration of our anniversary, but Trump ignored that (other than taking the money) and created his own, privatized “Freedom 250” celebration as a new grift to squeeze millions out of major donors like Chevron, United Airlines, and the defense giant RTX.
Now documents uncovered by the watchdog group PEER discovered that the events cost $128 million and at least $114 million of that came from our tax dollars, even though The Wall Street Journal says the “donors” kicked in at least $50 million and (my guess) probably much more. Trump passed out that money to his contractor friends with no competitive bidding whatsoever, and now refuses to say who gave him money, or how much, or even where the money went. Democrats suspect he just turned it into another slush fund for himself and his family; perhaps they should look for piles of cash in the bathrooms at Mar-a-Lago?
---
MMA
Fox used California's climate policies to deflect from gas price spike driven by Trump’s war on Iran
Special ProgramsClimate & Energy
Written by Evlondo Cooper
:{Published 03/23/26
Fox News and Fox Business coverage of rising gas prices nationwide has singled out California, blaming the state’s climate regulations for skyrocketing fuel costs while downplaying global oil shocks from the Trump administration’s war with Iran.
On February 28, the United States and Israel launched strikes on Iran, opening what has quickly become a large-scale and open-ended conflict, started without congressional authorization, that has been widely criticized as an illegal and unconstitutional war of aggression. The U.S. has joined Israel in targeting Iranian leadership as well as civilian and military infrastructure, while President Donald Trump has signaled an explicit willingness to pursue regime change. These attacks have triggered Iranian retaliation, including efforts to restrict transit through the Strait of Hormuz, one of the world’s most critical oil chokepoints, helping drive a sharp increase in global crude prices and U.S. gas costs.
Fox's coverage has largely echoed the Trump administration’s framing of the conflict and its economic fallout. Even when Fox has acknowledged that U.S. strikes on Iran have disrupted the global oil supply, that connection is not sustained. Instead, Fox’s coverage has dispersed attention about rising gas prices across a range of explanations, moving between domestic policy factors, claims that price increases will be temporary, and arguments that higher costs are a necessary “sacrifice.” Taken together, these talking points diffuse the link between Trump’s decision to launch the conflict against Iran and the resulting price spike, shifting scrutiny away from the source of the disruption.
However, the focus on California serves a distinct narrative function — by emphasizing the state’s climate regulations, Fox networks depict a global, war-driven supply shock through a familiar domestic political lens, recasting climate policy as part of the problem behind high gas prices rather than a solution to it.
Fox framed California’s high gas prices as a warning about Democratic climate policy during a war-driven price spike
Lying at the entrance to the Persian Gulf from the Sea of Oman, the Strait of Hormuz is one of the world’s most important oil trade routes, carrying roughly one-fifth of global supply. As the conflict with Iran continues to escalate and shipping through the strait is disrupted, oil prices have soared above $100 per barrel and gas prices have risen sharply across the United States. Analysts have described the conflict as a major supply shock, and the International Energy Agency has called it the largest oil disruption in history.
Rather than linking rising prices to the disruption in global oil supply, segments on Fox News and Fox Business repeatedly shifted attention to California’s long-standing fuel costs, presenting them as evidence that Democratic climate policy is responsible for higher prices.
During the March 9 episode of Fox Business’ *Varney & Co.*, Stuart Varney, introducing Chevron executive Andy Walz, warned of an “economic collapse in California under Gov. [Gavin] Newsom’s climate policy.” Walz picked up the thread, claiming California could eliminate in-state refining and increase dependence on foreign fuel sources. He continued by describing the state as “heading down a path of relying on imports” and predicted that its climate policies could add another $1.20 per gallon to gas prices, which “hurts the people that can least afford it the most.”
On March 11, Fox Business’ *The Evening Edit* acknowledged rising global oil prices tied to the Iran war but pivoted to California, highlighting soaring in-state gas prices. The segment featured a clip from an earlier interview with Interior Secretary Doug Burgum, who assailed California's climate policies and concluded that the state has “restricted supply and killed their own economy.”
Later that day, Fox News @ Night reinforced the same frame, with guest and former Trump adviser May Mailman claiming that California's policies are designed “not just to make gas more expensive, it's to make gas unavailable. … So when President Trump says he's brought oil prices down, he has created the policies that have allowed energy dominance to thrive in this country.”
On March 14, Energy Secretary Chris Wright invoked the Defense Production Act to order the restoration of drilling operations off the California coast, describing the move as necessary to strengthen domestic supply and energy security. The order provided a new policy rationale for arguments already circulating on Fox.
On March 16, *The Big Money Show* broadened the argument beyond California, with co-host Dagen McDowell pointing to Democratic-led states more generally and claiming that gas taxes imposed “in the name of Mother Nature and climate” are driving up fuel costs for working Americans. On the March 17 episode of The Ingraham Angle, host Laura Ingraham opened an interview with Sable Offshore chairman and CEO Jim Flores by pointing out that California, under Republican leadership in the 1980s, produced “a million barrels a day.” Now, Flores claimed California's declining oil production was “the reason why Trump invoked the Defense Production Act … to make sure that our military is well-fueled.”
By March 18, the narrative framing had hardened further. During the March 18 episode of *The Evening Edit*, host Elizabeth MacDonald lamented that “gas is headed to $8 a gallon in parts of the state, … but now California Democrats are suing to stop the Trump White House from reopening a pipeline offshore from Santa Barbara.” Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA) agreed with a statement from Wright that California had “strangled its own oil and gas production.” He continued, “We used to be a net exporter. We can produce all of our own oil and natural gas. We've chosen to shut them down, to regulate them out of business,” before concluding, “We clearly are a state in a downward spiral.”
That same framing persisted in the days that followed. During the March 21 episode of Fox Business' The Journal Editorial Report, host Paul Gigot acknowledged that the Iran war was disrupting global energy markets but quickly pivoted to California, telling viewers that gas prices are “much higher” in the state because “Gavin Newsom’s anti-fossil fuel policies make the state more dependent on foreign oil.”
This coverage treats California’s climate measures as unjustified drivers of higher prices, portraying the state as expensive, constrained, and vulnerable. In reality, California's gas prices are often higher than other states' because of policies aimed at cutting pollution, addressing climate change, and reducing reliance on volatile fossil fuel markets. But these regulations are not driving the current spike in gas prices, which follows weeks of U.S. and Israeli strikes on Iran that have disrupted the entire region. Oil markets responded. Prices followed. This is a global supply shock driven by war, not a sudden change in California policy.
Fox used California to redirect blame away from Trump’s war on Iran and U.S. reliance on the fossil fuel economy
Fox's focus on California gas prices comes as another long-running Fox narrative breaks down. For years, the network argued that U.S. “energy independence” would shield Americans from global oil shocks. The current spike, driven by disruptions in the Strait of Hormuz despite record domestic production, directly contradicts that claim. Rather than reckon with that failure, Fox has largely ditched the “energy independence” framing that was so central to its narrative explanation for price spikes under the Biden administration.
Now, the Trump administration’s decision to launch a new conflict in the Middle East becomes less central to how rising prices are understood on Fox, replaced by a familiar domestic argument about Democratic governance. However, this shift does more than redirect blame; it cuts against the reality that energy shocks like this one are a direct consequence of our reliance on fossil fuels and the vulnerable supply routes that sustain them. This is not an abstract risk — it is already happening now, and the global community is increasingly alarmed for the future.
By recasting a war-driven price spike as the product of climate policy, Fox turns that reality on its head, treating a crisis rooted in fossil fuel dependence as evidence against moving away from it.
---
---
AN GRIST 1 26
On Saturday, hours after U.S. forces in Caracas killed at least 80 people and kidnapped Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro, Donald Trump sounded less like a wartime commander than a developer surveying a newly acquired property. The country’s future, he told reporters at his Mar-a-Lago resort, belonged to “very large United States oil companies,” which would soon be pumping “a tremendous amount of wealth out of the ground.”
The land in question includes the largest proven oil reserves on Earth — at some 300 billion barrels, roughly 17 percent of global totals. But after years of political turmoil and U.S. sanctions, Venezuela accounts for barely 1 percent of global crude production. “It’s true that they know the oil is there,” said Samantha Gross, the director of the Energy Security and Climate Initiative at the Brookings Institution. “But the aboveground risks are huge.”
Chevron is the only major U.S. firm still operating in Venezuela, after other oil giants pulled out in 2007 when former president Hugo Chávez nationalized the industry. By continuing to operate as a minority partner under the state oil company’s terms, Chevron preserved its infrastructure, personnel, and legal foothold — giving it geopolitical leverage in the ongoing tug-of-war between the United States, China, and the Maduro government. “We play a long game,” CEO Mike Wirth explained in November at a U.S.-Saudi investment summit in Washington.
Today, Chevron is uniquely positioned in the aftermath of the invasion: Its leadership and board have long orbited Republican circles, with deep ties to the Trump administration and a history of big GOP donations. “Chevron’s in [Venezuela],” Trump said on Saturday, but “they’re only there because I wanted them to be there.” The company did not respond to requests for comment.
When Trump returned to office, his administration revoked Biden-era licenses that had allowed the oil major to operate in Venezuela despite the sanctions. Though told to stop producing by April, the company made no attempt to wrap up contracts, pull out personnel, or wind down supply chains. Francisco Monaldi, director of the Latin American energy program at Rice University, said in March that it appeared “Chevron is very confident it can obtain an extension.”
Behind the scenes, executives were busy meeting with Trump and top officials, spending almost $4 million on lobbying in the first half of the year to keep their Venezuelan foothold alive. In March, Wirth joined Trump in the Oval Office, hashing out how to tweak or extend Chevron’s license. The president finds Wirth’s TV appearances entertaining, regularly calling him after cable news appearances. The CEO followed that blitz up with private sit-downs with Secretary of State Marco Rubio, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, and staffers from the National Security Council, making the case for his company’s continued presence in the country.
By July, the gamble had paid off. The administration issued a new license, letting Chevron resume operations in Venezuela. As it did so this fall, the company saw record-breaking production and earned $3.6 billion in its last reported quarter. Though Venezuela accounts for just 100,000 to 150,000 barrels daily — a sliver of Chevron’s production — that oil is heavy, the kind the company’s Gulf Coast refineries are designed to process. Having access to Venezuelan crude can help those facilities run more efficiently, increasing supplies and reducing costs.
Just before Chevron celebrated its renewed lifeline, it scored another victory: After years of wrangling with the Federal Trade Commission, it finally acquired Hess Corporation, one of the biggest independent oil producers in the United States. Last year, the agency had banned CEO John Hess from joining Chevron’s board as part of its anti-trust review, alleging that he had colluded with OPEC representatives to fix oil prices.
That victory, however, did not occur in a vacuum. The Hess family is a major donor to the Republican party and contributed more than $1 million to Trump’s first inauguration. (Chevron, for its part, donated $2 million to the president’s 2025 ceremony.) Hess — whom Trump has called “a friend of mine for a long time” — petitioned the FTC to revisit its decision. The agency later reversed course, unlocking the deal. On July 18, Chevron officially closed its $53 billion merger, and Hess took his seat on the board.
This bought Chevron’s entry into what many analysts call the decade’s most consequential oilfield, in Guyana, Venezuela’s neighbor. In 2015, Exxon Mobil announced a huge reserve off the tiny country’s shoreline. That discovery catapulted Guyana — a nation of fewer than 1 million people — into the petroleum spotlight. Hess’ 30 percent stake in the project was a key part of Chevron’s recent acquisition.
Thanks to Trump, one of the largest remaining political obstacles to the Guyana project was just removed. Maduro had challenged Guyana’s control over the offshore area. Venezuela has periodically claimed the territory since the 1960s under a long-running border dispute. As production in the region ramped up in 2019 and as Venezuela’s own industry faltered, Maduro escalated his attacks, sending naval ships into Guyanese waters and vowing Venezuela would take “all necessary actions” to stop its development — rhetoric remarkably similar to what Trump used to justify his own actions against Maduro this week.
But though Trump claims he spoke with oil companies before and after the invasion, taking over the Venezuelan government may have been more than the industry bargained for. “There aren’t oil companies just running to get rid of tens of billions of dollars right now to rebuild the Venezuelan industry,” David Mares, the former Institute of the Americas Endowed Chair for Inter-American Affairs at the University of California San Diego, told Grist. “It’s not even clear there’s a legitimate government in place to make the contracts they sign for legal.”
Then there’s the question of Venezuela’s tangled debt. Petróleos de Venezuela, S.A., the state oil company, has racked up more than $150 billion in liabilities over decades of defaults and expropriations. Creditors — from energy companies like ConocoPhillips to so-called “vulture funds” that bought defaulted contracts at deep discounts — have pursued arbitration against the country, and won court rulings for damages that remain unpaid. China has been the country’s largest foreign lender, loaning it more than $60 billion over the years. Only some of that has been repaid, mostly in the form of oil exports. As Mares notes, “As soon as Venezuelan oil starts to flow, some of those claimants can attach the proceeds, and they’re going to demand their money back.”
Experts warn that returning to even modest levels of production would require upgrading Venezuela’s aging infrastructure, a process that would require massive investment and political stability — conditions that have eluded Caracas for years and seem unlikely to materialize anytime soon. “There is no realistic prospect of immediately increasing Venezuela’s crude output,” Gus Vasquez, the head of oil pricing in the Americas for commodity markets analyst Argus Media, wrote in an emailed statement. “Venezuelan oil infrastructure would take years and possibly hundreds of billions to bring up to something close to its former capacity. Repairing refineries would be even harder.”
Chevron’s existing assets give the company a very different calculus than newcomers would face. But the timing could not be worse: Global crude oil prices have steadily declined over the last several years, recently dropping below $60 a barrel — approaching the break-even point for many American operators. That’s been driven by global supply surpluses and by weakening demand, as renewable energy prices drop. “I think what we’re seeing is that the days of the oil and gas industry being the growth engine of economies is well behind us,” said Trey Cowan, an oil and gas energy analyst at the Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis.
Despite these structural shifts, Gross notes, “Trump has a very old-school way of thinking about resource economics,” as a blunt lever of power. As companies like Chevron have found, aligning with his priorities can bring financial and regulatory advantages, even if they are not supported by broader market conditions. This week, the company’s stock jumped 6 percent.
On TruthSocial on Tuesday, Trump announced that Caracas would be “turning over” between 30 and 50 million barrels of “sanctioned oil” that will then be sold. “[T]hat money will be controlled by me,” he wrote. Trump hopes to lower oil prices to $50 a barrel, which would squeeze shale producers and destabilize the U.S. oil industry. On Wednesday, the Department of Energy issued a brief announcement elaborating, as Chevron entered talks with the administration to increase its operations and resell oil to other refiners. The statement declares the U.S. will sell the sovereign nation’s crude on the global marketplace and describes the proceeds as going to “U.S.-controlled accounts at globally recognized banks,” an unusual setup that bypasses the U.S. Treasury. The money is vaguely promised to serve both Americans and Venezuelans, and the arrangement will be indefinite. “You’re going to see, probably, a growth in Chevron activities there quickly,” Secretary of Energy Chris Wright said on Thursday.
Senate Democrats have launched an investigation into the Trump administration’s communications with oil companies, which they claim occurred 10 days before the invasion, while Congress was not briefed. “The suggestion that taxpayers could pay the cost of rebuilding Venezuela’s oil infrastructure raise serious concerns about how the Trump administration engaged with the oil companies prior to his decision to use military force,” they wrote. Gross says to the extent Trump can be described as a populist, it is largely a performance — one “he might play on TV” — but she added that typically, “When you see populist governments take over oil industries, it doesn’t usually turn out well.”
In all the turmoil, what no one appears to be asking is what is good for Venezuela. “The saddest part of this is that unwinding the Maduro regime does not seem to be a part of what Trump policy is aiming for,” said Cynthia Arson, former director of the Woodrow Wilson International Center’s Latin American Program. In its statements after the strike, the White House has largely overlooked questions about a democratic transition, sidelining concerns about human rights abuses and the treatment of political prisoners.
Even when oil starts flowing, a new Venezuelan government will likely struggle to meet public expectations while attracting foreign investment. Before Chávez, the country’s oil contracts typically gave the government around 50 percent of revenue, helping fund social programs and the middle class. U.S. oil majors, by contrast, often offer royalties around 12 percent.
The contrast highlights just how fragile and uncertain the path ahead is: Years of economic collapse, which have driven millions abroad, have left those remaining struggling with profound political and social upheaval that can’t be solved by oil alone. “If good things happen, they’re going to take time,” Gross said. “Bad things could actually happen pretty quickly.”
This article originally appeared in Grist at https://grist.org/energy/how-chevron-played-the-long-game-in-venezuela/.
Grist is a nonprofit, independent media organization dedicated to telling stories of climate solutions and a just future. Learn more at Grist.org
---