HOUSTON — Oil companies and the world’s largest energy consumers face a significant challenge to rebuild global petroleum supply chains and inventories once the critical Strait of Hormuz bottleneck opens, Chevron CEO Mike Wirth said Monday. “We’ve got a lot of oil and gas now that is not flowing into the market,” Wirth said at the CERAWeek by S&P Global conference in Houston. “Physical supply chains don’t respond immediately, so even if the strait opens at some point, it will take time to rebuild inventories of the right grades of crude and the right types of fuel.” Wirth cautioned that Iran’s attacks on oil tankers and the broader damage of the Middle East war did greater damage to oil and gas markets than the Russia-Ukraine war. Asian nations are running low on diesel and jet fuel. The war has held up deliveries of LNG, fertilizer and other products. Part of the challenge, Wirth said, will be taking a read of the damage. It’s unclear how much production has been shut in, Wirth said, and how badly some facilities were damaged. At the same event, Energy Secretary Chris Wright reiterated to oil executives that he anticipated the global disruption to oil and gas flows would be “short-term,” but he encouraged companies to ramp up production. “Markets do what markets do,” Wright said. “Prices went up to send signals to everyone that can produce more: ‘Please, produce more.’”

The Trump administration may suspend sanctions on Iranian oil already at sea in a bid to clamp down on energy prices that have shot up amid the war in the Middle East, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said Thursday. It’s the latest play weighed by the administration to stabilize the oil market against price shocks since the U.S. and Israel launched their joint operation in February. The maneuver could free up 140 million barrels of Iranian oil for global use, Bessent said. “In essence, we will be using the Iranian barrels against the Iranians to keep the price down for the next 10 or 14 days, as we continue this campaign,” he said on Fox Business. It’s one of several “levers” Bessent said the administration has at its disposal, as Iranian attacks cripple the Strait of Hormuz, a critical waterway that carries roughly 20 percent of the world’s oil supply. The administration could also make more oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve available, Bessent added. The administration already started making 172 million barrels from the SPR available. “So we have lots of levers, we’ve got plenty more that we can do,” Bessent said. “Some countries are going to do more, the U.S. could unilaterally do another SPR release to keep the price down.” The White House has discussed adding up to 100 million more barrels to the administration’s pledge last week, said a person familiar with the plan who was granted anonymity to discuss conversations within the administration. “Some military advisers are concerned [about] draining so much, and are pushing for more like 50 million barrels on the concern that further destruction of oil and gas infrastructure in the [Middle East] region could leave the country vulnerable from a reserve standpoint,” this person said. A spokesperson for the Department of Energy — which controls the SPR — said in a statement following Bessent’s interview there were currently no plans for another release. “The United States has taken several actions thus far to mitigate disruptions to energy markets,” DOE spokesperson Ben Dietderich said. “While the U.S. continues to consider all options to keep markets supplied, there are currently no plans for an additional SPR release.” The White House did not immediately respond to a request for comment. Oil and product flows through the strait have plummeted from roughly 20 million barrels a day to just “a trickle,” the International Energy Agency reported last week, marking the largest supply disruption in history. U.S. gas prices are up by more than 85 cents per gallon from the start of the war. Bessent called the blockade a “temporary chokepoint” and implored American allies to help secure the strait. “They’re the ones who need this oil,” he said. “The U.S., we’re an oil exporter.” Trump, in the meantime, has skewered American allies, oscillating between calling for their assistance to insisting on Truth Social that “WE DO NOT NEED THE HELP OF ANYONE.” “We are intervening in markets by creating this excess supply with oil that’s on the water,” Bessent said Thursday.

A blue wave may already be cresting. Democrats have flipped 28 Republican-held seats in state legislatures across the country over the past 14 months, a sign that the GOP is indeed at risk of losing control of the House, and maybe even the Senate, in the midterms. Democratic wins have come even in deep red states, including Texas, Arkansas and Mississippi, and often by margins that make Republican leaders uneasy. “I’m ringing the alarm bell,” said Brendan Steinhauser, a Texas GOP consultant who has run campaigns for Republicans in the state, including Sen. John Cornyn and Rep. Dan Crenshaw. The results of these state-level elections reflect the immediate concerns of the electorate, provide a launching pad for the next generation of national leaders and could influence the future makeup of Congress through redistricting. They may also give both Republicans and Democrats a preview of the midterm battles to come. For Republicans, the results are a sign that they must do more to motivate low-propensity voters who helped carry President Donald Trump back to the White House, said a senior GOP campaign operative, who was granted anonymity because he didn’t have permission from the party to speak freely about the losses. “We’re the party of low propensity voters now,” said the operative. “How do we turn out these Republican voters in a midterm election?” One of the first signs that Democrats were building momentum came in August, when an Iowa Senate district swung more than 20 points to elect Democrat Catelin Drey. It was the second seat Democrats flipped in the state last year, and the moment that broke the Republican Senate supermajority in the General Assembly. Then in November, Democrats did it again: They flipped three of the six Republican-held districts in a Mississippi special election, again breaking a GOP Senate supermajority. “You are seeing people just vote for change,” said Brian Robinson, a GOP consultant in Georgia, where Republicans lost a seat in December. Robinson, an outside adviser for the state House GOP caucus, says Republicans are blamed for high prices because they’re in charge. “If it’s any one thing, it is [the] cost of living.” Robinson said, arguing that Trump will do something to reduce prices before the midterms. In recent weeks, the president has indeed taken steps, including by touting a pledge from tech companies to reduce energy costs associated with data centers and releasing 172 million barrels of oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. The Iran war, which has sent global oil prices skyrocketing, complicates that effort. After Democrats flipped 13 Virginia seats and five New Jersey seats in November, the Democratic Legislative Campaign Committee went back to reassess state races around the country. They expanded their 2026 target map to 42 chambers and invested $50 million in changing the makeup of state legislatures — the widest map and largest single-year budget DLCC has ever approved. Legislatures in Arizona and New Hampshire are now on the “flip” list, and the DLCC hopes to break or prevent GOP supermajorities in red states across the South and Midwest. Their success could give Democrats more state power over judicial nominees, protect the veto power of Democratic governors in states with GOP-led legislatures and hand Democrats greater influence over redistricting. Republicans, meanwhile, are waiting for the funding to hit. As of January, the RNC has just over $100 million and Trump’s MAGA Inc. PAC has $300 million. State Republicans say when that cash flows into midterm races, it will enable them to get low-propensity voters to vote. Turnout was a major point of discussion at an RNC conference call that Wisconsin GOP Chair Brian Schimming attended Tuesday, and he says Republicans will dedicate a lot of resources to motivate voters in November. “We’ve met with the White House more than once, and they keep track of the target states pretty closely,” said Schimming, adding he also expects Trump and Vice President JD Vance to stump in key Wisconsin congressional districts closer to the election. “They are big base motivators.” In the meantime, Democrats keep flipping state seats. The latest came Tuesday night, when Bobbi Boudman beat Republican Rep. Dale Fincher in a New Hampshire Senate seat that Trump won by 9 points. On March 24, voters will decide in a special election who represents the Florida state House seat that includes Mar-a-Lago. Democrat Emily Gregory, a small business owner who is running against Republican Jon Maples, a businessman, saw her total campaign earnings jump by nearly 75 percent between Jan. 9 and Feb. 12. In November, a national PAC connected Gregory with Drey, who flipped the Iowa seat in August. Drey advised Gregory to find the affordability issue that matters most to her district — the way energy costs resonate in New Jersey and property insurance does in Florida. “In this moment, we have all of the issues on our side. We have all of the momentum on our side,” Gregory recalled Drey telling her. “It’s just up to you as a candidate to get in front of every single voter you can and communicate that message.”

U.S. President Donald Trump may think his war in Iran is a boon for the oil industry — but his way of putting it is causing consternation. “The United States is the largest Oil Producer in the World, by far, so when oil prices go up, we make a lot of money,“ Trump wrote in a Truth Social post Wednesday as crude prices rose to $95 per barrel, a 40 percent increase from where they were before the U.S. and Israel attacked Iran nearly two weeks ago. Trump’s post highlights the industry’s complicated relationship with the president — and its messaging conundrum. While oil companies are benefiting financially from the nearly $30-per-barrel run up in crude prices since the war started, executives are also worried that volatile prices are making business decisions difficult, and high prices will generate public backlash. “The idea that the industry profits from war and death is not one a VP of public relations wants to promote,” said Mark Jones, political science fellow at Rice University’s Baker Institute. Trump’s post drew groans from some in the industry. “Oh, boy….” one energy industry strategist responded when shown Trump’s social media post. Trump’s message also feeds into a perception that oil companies are looking to gouge consumers, said a second industry official granted anonymity because he wasn’t authorized to speak publicly. “This highlights the complicated relationship the oil industry has with the president,” the industry official said. “President Trump’s overarching concern is always the price at the pump — and the lower the better. There is also some notion that the oil and gas industry secretly works to raise prices, which is a fundamental misunderstanding of how the industry works on a global and transparent market basis.” Trump’s post also plays into some voters’ cynicism about business in general and the oil industry in particular, said Mark Mizruchi, a University of Michigan professor who focuses on the economic and political behavior of large American corporations. “The interesting thing about Trump’s statement is that he inadvertently stated a belief that a lot of people have — that something like this happens and the oil companies will make a lot of money,” Mizruchi said. “It probably didn’t occur to him that people — including in the industry — weren’t happy about that” statement. The White House has maintained that the price of oil and gasoline — which has jumped 60 cents per gallon since the fighting started — will ultimately come down after the war because new supplies from Iran will come onto the global markets. “Ultimately, once the military objectives of Operation Epic Fury are completed and the Iranian terrorist regime is neutralized, oil and gas prices will drop rapidly again, potentially even lower than before the strikes begin,” White House spokesperson Taylor Rogers said. “As a result, American families will benefit greatly in the long term.” In the meantime, Rogers said, the administration “has and will continue working cooperatively with leaders in the energy industry to stabilize markets.” The war is already causing difficulty for the industry. Oil companies operating solely in the United States will get pure short-term profit from the spike in prices, but large international companies may have to shut down assets they’re operating in the Persian Gulf, white the supply shock afflicting Southeast Asia and Europe could also persuade countries to reduce their reliance on fossil fuels, Jones said. Andrea Woods, a spokesperson for the American Petroleum Institute, said in a statement that the industry is “focused on working with the administration to ensure safe and reliable operations in the region.” “Energy market volatility does not benefit anyone, including producers who rely on certainty and stability for long-term business decisions,” Woods said. The oil industry has had a volatile relationship with Trump since his first administration, one where they benefit from some of his policies — but also suffer under others, like tariffs. And while Trump is one of the industry’s biggest cheerleaders, he has also dragged them into politics in ways industry executives are not always comfortable with. Trump on the campaign trail made a point of asking oil industry executives for a billion dollars, but the industry overall contributed $75 million, according to an analysis of campaign contributions by the environmental communications firm Climate Power — less than Trump’s campaign received from SpaceX, the firm owned by billionaire Elon Musk. Harold Hamm, the chair and founder of oil company Continental Resources and an informal energy adviser to Trump in his first and second terms, initially backed Florida Governor Ron DeSantis in the 2024 presidential campaign. Trump also tried to push oil company executives into publicly supporting his administration’s military action against Venezuela and promising to quickly invest in drilling for oil in the country. That move met pushback from some executives who didn’t share Trump’s optimism on how easy it would be to revive Venezuela’s oil fields. Democrats and environmental groups wasted little time to use Trump’s post to slam the administration and the oil industry. “I’ve been saying forever that Donald Trump’s energy policy is to prioritize the interest of energy producers (high prices) over consumers (low prices),” Rep. Sean Casten (D-Ill.) said in an X post. “It appears he agrees with me.” “Instability makes oil prices soar,” Lorne Stockman, international research director at Oil Change International said in a press release response to the post. “As geopolitical tensions rise, Trump’s fossil fuel billionaire donors reap windfall profits while people are being killed and working people around the world face higher energy and food costs.” In Trump’s post, the president isn’t talking about families grappling with their bills, said Jesse Lee, a senior adviser at Climate Power. “Trump is talking about the people he cares about most — the oil and gas billionaires who spent millions of dollars to get him elected,” Lee said in an email. “Trump will always put his billionaire buddies first, and working families will always be left to pay the price.” Rising oil prices are expected to be a political liability for Republicans heading into midterm elections later this year. Even besides higher prices at the local gas station, the effect of increased crude costs will hit voter pocketbooks in a myriad of ways. Companies across a range of industries have started to implement energy surcharges to absorb higher fuel costs, Raymond James analyst Pavel Molchanov said in note to clients. “UPS and Maersk (shipping), Ecolab (chemicals), and Cathay Pacific (aviation) are among the firms unveiling surcharges this week,” Molchanov said in the note. “We expect more such announcements until oil prices cool meaningfully from four-year highs.”

The White House is considering waiving a century-old law that promotes the use of American vessels in maritime commerce, as the Trump administration faces rising fuel prices amid the ongoing war in Iran. White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt said in a statement that the administration may waive the Jones Act, a 1920 statute that requires cargo being moved by water between U.S. ports to be shipped on vessels that are built, owned and registered in the U.S. “In the interest of national defense, the White House is considering waiving the Jones Act for a limited period of time to ensure vital energy products and agricultural necessities are flowing freely to U.S. ports,” Leavitt said. “This action has not been finalized.” The development, which was first reported by Bloomberg News, comes as the White House faces growing political pressure over rising gas and oil prices, with Iran moving to choke off traffic in the critical Strait of Hormuz amid the U.S. and Israel’s ongoing war with the country. It also comes a day after the Trump administration announced it would release 172 million barrels of crude oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, joining more than two dozen member countries in the International Energy Agency’s biggest emergency oil release in history. The war has triggered the largest supply disruption in global oil market history, according to a Thursday report from the IEA, sending crude oil prices soaring to over $100 a barrel before later retreating. The Homeland Security secretary and the Defense secretary can request a waiver in specific circumstances that are in the “interest of national defense.” The federal government has in the past chosen to freeze the law in extreme circumstances that led to substantial supply disruptions, including Hurricane Harvey and Hurricane Maria. Trump administration officials have repeatedly said the rise in fuel prices is a small price to pay for the success of the war, with Leavitt saying Sunday the spike is “a short-term disruption for a long-term gain” during an interview on Fox News. The administration believes it can withstand the political pressure from a surge in prices for as long as a month, POLITICO previously reported. Suspending the Jones Act, however, could anger American-based shipbuilding and shipping interests. Since the White House is signaling the waiver will be temporary, the move, however, would likely not have a significant impact on the U.S.’s relatively small shipbuilding industry, but a waiver “would probably have a small but useful impact on prices,” said Peter Harrell, who served as the White House’s senior director for international economics under the Biden administration. Iran has warned that the war could send oil prices as high as $200 a barrel if the war rages on, but Energy Secretary Chris Wright said that was “unlikely” in a Thursday interview on CNN. Ari Hawkins contributed to this report.

President Donald Trump’s military campaign against Iran has Washington’s Asian allies scrambling to address an energy crisis that could destabilize many of their economies within weeks. And so far their appeals for guidance or assistance from the Trump administration are going unheeded. Asian countries are some of the most exposed to the energy crisis sparked by the Iran war because they rely heavily on oil and liquefied natural gas that passes through the Strait of Hormuz, which has effectively ground to a halt since the first U.S.-Israeli strikes on Iran two weeks ago. In that time, Japan, Thailand, Vietnam, South Korea and others have struggled to decode Trump’s yo-yoing statements about the goals of the operation and when it will end, according to three Asian officials and one former U.S. official who were granted anonymity to discuss the tensions. “We’re not receiving any communication from the Trump administration,” said one of the people, a Washington-based Asia diplomat. Asked what the Trump administration could do, the person said, “Ideally, just end the conflict.” Another one of the officials from an Asian country pointed out that there are actions short of that that the U.S. could take to ease the pressure on energy markets, such as enlisting other countries to participate in its effort to guarantee insurance for tankers transiting the Strait of Hormuz. The Trump administration has given no indication that it plans to take such actions. The International Energy Agency said Wednesday its member countries would release 400 million barrels of oil from their emergency stocks in the largest such reserves distribution in its history, but it’s unclear how much this will ease the pressure on Asian countries. Many Asian economies lack large domestic reserves and are thus particularly exposed to price spikes and supply disruptions. “Our oil reserves are enough for about one month of domestic consumption,” the Washington-based Asian diplomat said. President Donald Trump said Wednesday that Washington’s attacks on Iran’s navy should assuage concerns about the safety of ships transiting the Strait, but that does not to appear to have done much to ease jitters. The second Asian official said some of Trump’s comments suggesting he is digging in for a long conflict are ratcheting up concern. His country’s alarm level will be dictated, “by how long this goes on,” the official said. Trump said Wednesday that the U.S. has hit a significant number of Iranian military targets and suggested the war could be over quickly. He has also said it could take four to six weeks, but has also called for Iran’s “unconditional surrender,” which could take much longer. Countries across the Indo-Pacific are taking measures to limit the impact of a looming cut in oil and gas from the Persian Gulf if supplies don’t resume in the next two weeks. The Philippines and Vietnam have revived Covid-era work-from-home directives to ease consumer demand for gasoline. India has imposed a 20 percent cut in LNG supply to the country’s industrial sector, New Delhi announced Wednesday. The Japanese government announced Wednesday it will release some of its strategic petroleum reserves to compensate for a shortfall in imports. The U.S. could see long term effects of leaving its Asian allies to fend on their own. “Foreign embassies need and expect information that explains what the U.S. is doing, reassurance that this is a short-term problem and what our plan is to help,” said Scot Marciel, former principal deputy assistant secretary for the State Department’s Bureau of East Asian and Pacific Affairs during the Obama administration. “Not doing that just adds to a pretty strong sense in the region that the administration is not really making a lot of effort to be a good partner.” The White House said allies will ultimately benefit from what is a temporary disruption. “President Trump has been clear that these are short-term disruptions,” White House spokesperson Taylor Rogers said. “President Trump is in close contact with our partners around the world, and the terrorist Iranian regime’s attacks on its neighbors prove how imperative it was that President Trump eliminate this threat to our country and our allies.” The Trump administration has limited options to cushion the impact of the supply interruption on the economies of allies and partners in the Indo-Pacific. An oil commodity trader at a major U.S. investment bank said America’s LNG production is already running at maximum and there is no emergency flex capacity that American producers can bring to bear to supply Asia. “There is no short term, immediate thing that the U.S. can do for Asia — there is no pipeline or trucking that can get more gas from here to there,” said the trader, who was granted anonymity because they were not authorized to speak publicly about the issue. Last week the Trump administration said it would temporarily allow India to accept Russian oil. India, a larger refiner, also supplies petroleum products like gasoline and diesel fuel to other Asian countries. Asian countries are competing with each other as they try to pivot to other sources of oil and gas. The jockeying is hitting the wall of recent restrictions on output by regional refineries due to the lack of crude oil coming from the Persian Gulf. China could potentially wrangle a short-term easing in supply constraints in Asia if it taps its close ties with Tehran to ensure that China-bound cargoes pass through the Strait of Hormuz unmolested by Iranian forces. Those shipments may already be happening, according to CNBC reporting Tuesday. Trump has spent the past week attempting to cool nerves in the global energy market, as the price of oil has spiked by more than 29 percent since the U.S. and Israel first launched attacks on Iran. “I think you’re going to see great safety. We have decimated that country. They’re paying a big price now,” Trump said Wednesday, responding to a question about whether oil companies should transit the Strait. But Iran has continued to hit ships in the vital waterway. On Wednesday “unknown projectiles” hit and sparked a fire on a Thai cargo vessel in the Strait while two other ships were hit in the nearby Persian Gulf, the New York Times reported. The leaders of G7 countries — which includes Japan — agreed in a call on Wednesday to prepare for future freedom of navigation operations though such efforts are not possible now “as it remains an active theater of war,” according to a French account of the discussion. While the U.S. has been concerned that Iran has begun to lay mines in the Strait of Hormuz, Trump said Wednesday the U.S. believes Iran hasn’t yet done so. He said the U.S. has hit 28 mine-laying ships. Japan’s Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi will have the chance to raise her concerns and others on the continent when she arrives in Washington next week for a summit with Trump that was planned before the war broke out but has taken on new meaning amid the turmoil. “The president made a decision on Iran without consulting allies, and they’re bearing the brunt of it. So the president obviously needs to appreciate the cost that Japan will bear” when he meets with Takaichi next week, Rahm Emanuel, former U.S. ambassador to Japan, said.

President Donald Trump said Wednesday the U.S. will release crude oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, its boldest attempt yet to bring down oil prices that have spiked since the U.S. launched its war against Iran. “We’ll do that, and then we’ll fill it up,” Trump told Cincinnati news station Local 12 in an interview Wednesday afternoon. “I filled it up once, and I’ll fill it up again. But right now, we’ll reduce it a little bit, and that brings the prices down.” Trump did not specify how much oil his administration would release or the timing of the move. It comes after the International Energy Agency announced earlier Wednesday it would coordinate the largest release of reserves in the body’s history, consisting of 400 million barrels of oil, from its 32 members, which include the U.S., Japan, Germany, the U.K. and France. It was not immediately clear whether Trump’s announcement is a part of the IEA release or in addition to it. Interior Secretary Doug Burgum said earlier Wednesday afternoon that Trump had yet to decide whether to join the international effort. The Trump administration has initially ruled out tapping the reserve, a series of underground salt caverns in Texas and Louisiana. But Iranian attacks against oil tankers in the Strait of Hormuz have sent crude prices spiraling to four-year highs as vessels stop traversing the key waterway connecting Middle Eastern oil fields to the global market. Still, relief might be limited. The SPR currently holds 415 million barrels, according to the Energy Department, making it less than 59 percent full. The Trump administration only added modest amounts of oil back into the reserve after the Biden administration tapped it to calm markets after Russia invaded Ukraine. A part of the storage caverns also suffered damage as a result of those Biden-era drawdowns, which has challenged the effort to refill it. The reserve is designed to be able to release up to 4.4 million barrels of oil per day within 13 days of a presidential decision, according to the Energy Department. But analysts have said the actual flow rate may be far lower — perhaps 2 million barrels a day — due to physical constraints.

The Trump administration is weighing new tactics to drive regime change in Cuba, including imposing a total blockade on oil imports to the Caribbean country, three people familiar with the plan said Thursday. That escalation has been sought by some critics of the Cuban government in the administration and backed by Secretary of State Marco Rubio, according to two of the three people, who were granted anonymity to discuss the sensitive discussions. No decision has been made on whether to approve that move, but it could be among the suite of possible actions presented to President Donald Trump to force the end of Cuba’s communist government, these people added. Preventing shipments of crude oil to the island would be a step-up from Trump’s statement last week that the U.S. would halt Cuba’s imports of oil from Venezuela, which had been its main crude supplier. But there are ongoing debates within the administration about whether it is even necessary to go that far, according to all three people. The loss of Venezuelan oil shipments — and the resale of some of those cargoes that Havana used to obtain foreign currency — has already throttled Cuba’s laggard economy. A total blockade of oil imports into Cuba could then spark a humanitarian crisis, a possibility that has led some in the administration to push back against it. The discussions, however, show the extent to which people inside the Trump administration are considering deposing leaders in Latin America they view as adversaries. “Energy is the chokehold to kill the regime,” said one person familiar with the plan who was granted anonymity to describe the private discussions. Deposing the country’s communist government – in power since the Cuban revolution in 1959 – is “100 percent a 2026 event” in the administration’s eyes, this person added. The effort would be justified under the 1994 LIBERTAD Act, better known as the Helms-Burton Act, this person added. That law codifies the U.S. embargo on Cuban trade and financial transactions. Cuba’s embassy in Washington did not respond to a request for comment. A White House spokesperson did not address a question on whether the administration was considering blocking all oil imports into Cuba. Cuba imports about 60 percent of its oil supply, according to the International Energy Agency. It was heavily dependent on Venezuela for those imports until the Trump administration started seizing sanctioned shipments from that country. Mexico has more recently become the main supplier as Venezuelan crude shipments have dried up. Mexico, however, charges Cuba for imported oil and its shipments are not expected to fully ameliorate Cuba’s worsening energy shortage. Since the U.S. operation that captured Venezuelan leader Nicolás Maduro, the administration has turned its attention on Cuba, arguing that the island’s economy is at its weakest point, making it ripe for regime change soon. Trump and Secretary of State Marco Rubio, the son of Cuban immigrants, have each voiced their optimism that the island’s communist government will fall in short time given the loss of Venezuela’s economic support. Toppling the communist regime in Cuba would fulfill a nearly seven-decade political project for Cuban exiles in Miami, who have pushed for democracy on the island since Fidel Castro took power after ousting the dictatorship of Fulgencio Batista in 1959. Rubio has long been an advocate for tough measures against Havana in the hopes of securing the fall of the regime. Conditions on the island have indeed worsened, triggering blackouts and shortages of basic goods and food products. But the regime has weathered harsh U.S. sanctions — and the sweeping trade embargo — for decades and survived the fall of the Soviet Union after the Cold War. Meanwhile, concerns remain that the sudden collapse of the Cuban government would trigger a regional migration crisis and destabilize the Caribbean. Critics of the Cuban government will likely celebrate the proposal if implemented by the White House. Hawkish Republicans had already embraced the idea of completely blocking Cuba’s access to oil. “There should be not a dime, no petroleum. Nothing should ever get to Cuba,” said Sen. Rick Scott (R-Fla.) in a brief interview last week.

President Donald Trump’s promise to revive the Venezuelan oil industry drew praise from U.S. energy executives on Friday — but no firm commitments to invest the vast sums of money needed to bring the country’s oil output back from the doldrums. The lack of firm pledges from the heads of the companies such as Exxon Mobil, Chevron and ConocoPhillips that Trump summoned to the White House raised doubts about the president’s claim that U.S. oil producers were ready to spend $100 billion or more to rebuild Venezuela’s crude oil infrastructure. The country boasts the world’s largest oil reserves, but its production has cratered since the regime pushed most of those companies out decades ago. Exxon CEO Darren Woods offered the starkest assessment, telling Trump in the live-streamed meeting in the East Room that Venezuela is “uninvestable” under current conditions. He said major changes were needed before his company would return to the country, and that big questions remain about what return Exxon could expect from any investments. “If we look at the legal and commercial constructs and frameworks in place today in Venezuela today, it’s uninvestable,” Woods told Trump. “Significant changes have to be made to those commercial frameworks, the legal system. There has to be durable investment protections, and there has to be a change to the hydrocarbon laws in the country.” Still, Woods said he was confident the U.S. can help make those changes, and said he expected Exxon could put a technical team on the ground in Venezuela soon to assess the state of its oil infrastructure. Harold Hamm, a fracking executive and major Trump ally, expressed more enthusiasm but still fell short of making any commitments. “It excites me as an explorationist,” Hamm, whose experience has centered on oil production inside the U.S., said of the opportunity to invest in Venezuela. “It is a very exciting country and a lot of reserves — it’s got its challenges and the industry knows how to handle that.” Still, Energy Secretary Chris Wright pointed reporters after the meeting to a statement from Chevron — the only major U.S. oil company still operating in Venezuela — that it was ready to raise its output as a concrete sign the industry was willing to put more money into the country. Chevron currently produces about 240,000 barrels a day there with its partner, the Venezuelan state-run oil company Petróleos de Venezuela SA. Mark Nelson, Chevron’s vice chairman, told the gathering the company sees “a path forward” to increase production from its existing operations by 50 percent over the next 18 to 24 months. He did not commit to a dollar figure, however. Wright indicated that the $100 billion figure cited by Trump on Thursday was an estimate for the cost of reconstructing Venezuela’s dilapidated oil sector — rather than a firm spending commitment made by producing companies. “If you look at what’s a positive trajectory for Venezuela’s oil industry in the next decade, that’s probably going to take about $100 billion investment,” said Wright, who later told Bloomberg Television he is likely to travel to Venezuela “before too long.” Most of the nearly two dozen companies in attendance at Friday’s meeting expressed tepid support for the administration’s plan, though others indicated they were eager to jump back quickly. Wael Sawan, the CEO of the European energy giant Shell, said the company had been pushed out in Venezuela’s nationalization program in the 1970s, giving up 1 million barrels per day of oil production. Now it was seeking U.S. permits to go back, he said. “We are ready to go and looking forward to the investment in support of the Venezuelan people,” he said. Jeffery Hildebrand, CEO of independent oil and gas producer Hilcorp Energy and a major Trump donor, said his company was “fully committed and ready to go to rebuild the infrastructure in Venezuela.” Trump said during the meeting that companies that invest in Venezuela would be assured “total safety, total security,” without the U.S. government spending taxpayer dollars or putting boots on the ground. He indicated that Venezuela would provide security for the U.S. companies, and that the companies would bring their own protection as well. “These are tough people. They go into areas that you wouldn’t want to go. They go into areas that if they invited me, I’d say, ‘No, thanks. I’ll see you back in Palm Beach,’” Trump said of the oil companies. Before the executives spoke, Trump insisted that oil executives are lining up to take the administration up on the opportunity. “If you don’t want to go in, just let me know,” he said. “There are 25 people not here today willing to take your place.” Following the public meeting, the companies stayed for further discussions with administration officials behind closed doors. The president also dismissed speculation that the administration may offer financial guarantees to back up what he acknowledged would be a risky investment. “I hope I don’t have to give a backstop,” he said. “These are the biggest companies in the world sitting around this table — they know the risks.” Trump also laughed off the billions that Exxon Mobil and ConocoPhillips are owed for the assets seized by the Venezuelan regime decades ago. “Nice write-off,” he quipped. “You’ll get a lot of your money back,” Trump told ConocoPhillips CEO Ryan Lance. “We’re going to start with an even plate, though — we’re not going to look at what people lost in the past because that was their fault.” ConocoPhillips spokesperson Dennis Nuss said in a statement that Lance “appreciates today’s valuable opportunity to engage with President Trump in a discussion about preparing Venezuela to be investment ready.” The White House at the last minute shifted the meeting from a closed-door session in the Cabinet Room to a live-televised spectacle in the East Room. “Everybody wants to be there,” the president wrote of the oil executives on social media just ahead of the meeting. POLITICO reported on Thursday that the White House had scrambled to invite additional companies to the meeting because of skepticism from the top oil majors about reentering the country. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent acknowledged in an appearance Thursday that “big oil companies who move slowly … are not interested,” but said the administration’s “phones are ringing off the hook” with calls from smaller players. Bethany Williams, a spokesperson for the American Petroleum Institute, called Friday’s meeting “a constructive, initial conversation that highlighted both the energy potential and the challenges presented in Venezuela, including the importance of rule of law, security, and stable governance.” Venezuela — even with strongman Nicolás Maduro in custody in New York — remains under the rule of the same socialist government that appropriated the rigs, pipelines and property of foreign oil companies two decades ago. Questions remain about who would guarantee the companies’ workers’ safety, particularly since Trump has publicly ruled out sending in troops. Kevin Book, a managing director at the energy research firm ClearView Energy Partners, noted that few CEOs in the meeting outright rejected the notion of returning to or investing in Venezuela, instead couching any sort of presence on several conditions. Some of those might be nearer term, such as security guarantees. Others, like reestablishing legal stability in Venezuela, appear more distant. “They need to understand the risk and they need to understand the return,” Book said. “What it sounded like most of the companies were saying … is that they want to understand the risk and the return and then they’ll look at the investment.” Evanan Romero, a Houston-based oil consultant involved in the Trump administration’s effort to bring U.S. oil producers back to Venezuela, said international oil companies will not return to the country under the same laws and government that expropriated their assets decades earlier. “The main contribution that [interim president] Delcy [Rodríguez] and her government can do is make a bonfire of those laws and put it on fire in the Venezuelan Bolivar Square,” Romero said. “With those, we cannot do any reconstruction of the oil industry.” Zack Colman and Irie Sentner contributed to this report.

President Donald Trump’s Cabinet officials are scheduling their first formal calls with oil company CEOs to press them to revive Venezuela’s flagging oil production, four people familiar with the conversations told POLITICO. Calls that Energy Secretary Chris Wright and Interior Secretary Doug Burgum are planning with chief executives represent some of the first official outreach that the administration has made to the U.S. companies after months of informal discussions with people in the sector, these people said — days after President Donald Trump told reporters that “our very large United States oil companies” will “spend billions of dollars” in Venezuela. However, the companies’ executives remain wary of entering a socialist-ruled country that was plunged into political upheaval after U.S. forces took strongman Nicolás Maduro into custody over the weekend, following decades of neglect in its nationalized oil fields, according to market analysts and industry officials. Industry officials are also discussing what types of incentives would be needed to get them to return to the country, according to two industry officials familiar with the plans who were granted anonymity because they were not authorized to talk to the media. Those could include having the U.S. government signing contracts guaranteeing payment and security or forming public-private joint ventures. Even if they don’t yet have fully formed ideas for what would get them to invest in Venezuela, Trump’s insistence is difficult to ignore, said one former administration agency head who was granted anonymity to discuss the evolving matters. “Most companies have been thinking about this for a while. All of the big folks are probably thinking about it — and very, very, very hard,” the person said. “It’s a pretty powerful thing when the president of the United States says, ‘I need you to do this.’” Publicly, the White House expressed confidence. “All of our oil companies are ready and willing to make big investments in Venezuela that will rebuild their oil infrastructure, which was destroyed by the illegitimate Maduro regime,” spokesperson Taylor Rogers said in a statement. “American oil companies will do an incredible job for the people of Venezuela and will represent the United States well.” One person said the administration also “hopes” the American Petroleum Institute, the powerful trade association representing oil companies working in the United States, would form a task force to advise the White House on how best to revive Venezuelan oil production. “In nearly all cases, these calls are the first outreach from the administration on Venezuela,” the person said. API is “closely watching developments involving Venezuela and any potential implications for global energy markets,” group spokesperson Justin Prendergast said in response to questions. “Events like this underscore the importance of strong U.S. energy leadership. Globally, energy companies make investment decisions based on stability, the rule of law, market forces and long-term operational considerations,” Prendergast said. Trump told reporters on Sunday that he had spoken to U.S. oil companies “before and after” the military operation that seized Maduro and brought him to New York, where the former Venezuelan leader made his first court appearance on Monday. “And they want to go in, and they’re going to do a great job for the people of Venezuela, and they’re going to represent us well,” Trump continued. Industry executives on Monday told Reuters no such outreach had occurred to oil majors Exxon Mobil, ConocoPhillips and Chevron, all of which have experience working in Venezuela’s oil fields. Bringing Venezuela’s oil production — now around 1 million barrels a day — back to its glory-days’ height of 3 million barrels a day would require at least $183 billion and more than a decade of effort, industry analyst firm Rystad Energy said Monday. While the Venezuelan government might supply some of that money, international companies would need to spend $35 billion in the next few years to reach that goal. “Rystad Energy believes that around $53 billion of oil and gas upstream and infrastructure investment is needed over the next 15 years just to keep Venezuela’s crude oil production flat at 1.1 million” barrels a day, the firm said in a client note. “Going beyond 1.4 million [barrels a day] is possible but would require a stable investment of $8 [billion]-$9 billion per year from 2026 to 2040, on top of ‘hold-flat’ capital requirements.” ConocoPhillips spokesperson Dennis Nuss said in a statement that it would be “premature to speculate on any future business activities or investments,” but said the company is monitoring the “potential implications for global energy supply and stability” from the events in Venezuela. ConocoPhillips is continuing its efforts to collect more than $10 billion in compensation it was awarded in arbitration for the Venezuelan government’s seizure of the company’s assets in 2007, Nuss said. Exxon Mobil and Chevron did not respond to requests for comment. Oil field services companies Halliburton and Baker Hughes did not respond for comment, and SLB declined to comment. The only company to publicly indicate interest in Venezuela has been Continental Resources, a firm led by Trump ally and informal energy adviser Harold Hamm. Hamm told the Financial Times on Sunday that “with improved regulatory and governmental stability we would definitely consider future investment.” Continental, which played a key role in developing oil fracking technology, has never operated outside the United States — though it announced on Monday a deal in which it would buy assets in Argentina. People in the oil industry have said a major concern is that Venezuela is not stable enough to guarantee the safety of any workers and equipment they might send there. Companies are asking that the U.S. government contract directly with them before they commit to entering the country. “We need some boots-on-the-ground security and some financial security. That’s on top of the list,” said a second industry executive familiar with the talks who was granted anonymity to discuss private conversations. Trump’s decision to allow Maduro’s second-in-command, acting President Delcy Rodríguez, and other members of the regime to remain in charge of the country’s government has also made industry executives wary of taking on the job, this person added. Rodríguez and her family had been part of the Venezuelan government under Hugo Chávez in the mid-2000s when the regime seized the assets of foreign oil companies. Colombia, Canada, the EU and the United States have levied sanctions against her after accusing her of undermining the Venezuelan elections. “Who’s running the game here?” the second industry executive said. “If she’s going to be in charge — plus the guys who have been there all along — what guarantee can you give us that stuff is going to change? Those three issues — physical, financial and political security — have to be settled before anyone goes in.” Longtime Republican foreign policy hand Elliott Abrams, who served as Trump’s special envoy to Venezuela during his first term, said the president is “exaggerating” the likelihood that companies will return to the country, given the risk and capital required. “The president seems to suggest that he will make the decision, but that is not right — the boards of these companies will make the decisions,” said Abrams, who is now senior fellow for Middle Eastern studies at the Council on Foreign Relations. “I expect that you’ll see all of them now say, ‘This is fantastic, it’s a great opportunity, and we have a team ready to go to Venezuela,’ but that’s politics,” he added. “That doesn’t mean they’re going to invest.”