What If Washington Recalibrates?
Trump, Venezuela, and the Future of Guyana’s Oil
eyesonguyana
Amsterdam, 16 February 2026–The territorial dispute between Guyana and Venezuela over the Essequibo region is no longer a dormant nineteenth-century border quarrel. It now sits at the heart of one of the most consequential energy transformations in the Western Hemisphere. Since 2015, when ExxonMobil announced major offshore discoveries in Guyana’s Stabroek Block, the country has emerged as the world’s fastest-growing oil producer per capita. Production has surged beyond one million barrels per day projections for later this decade, placing Guyana squarely on the global energy map.
But alongside that economic rise has come renewed geopolitical tension. Venezuela has revived its historical claim over the Essequibo region — a territory representing about two-thirds of Guyana’s landmass. Caracas argues that the 1899 arbitral award establishing the border was unjust. Georgetown maintains that the award is legally binding and has taken the matter to the International Court of Justice (ICJ), which has affirmed its jurisdiction to hear the case.
Against this backdrop, a provocative question arises: what if a future U.S. administration under Donald Trump were to see strategic advantage in aligning more closely with Venezuela — perhaps even signaling openness to its territorial ambitions — in pursuit of energy deals or geopolitical leverage?
To date, the United States has supported Guyana’s sovereignty and emphasized peaceful resolution through international law. U.S. naval cooperation exercises with Guyana and diplomatic statements warning against Venezuelan aggression have reinforced that stance. ExxonMobil, one of the largest American companies, is deeply invested in Guyana’s offshore development. On the surface, there appears little incentive for Washington to pivot away from Georgetown.
Related Posts:
However, global energy politics are rarely static.
Trump’s first presidency demonstrated a transactional approach to foreign policy, with energy security and deal-making often central. Venezuela possesses the world’s largest proven oil reserves but has been crippled by sanctions, underinvestment, and mismanagement. If a future U.S. administration were to prioritize re-engagement with Caracas — possibly in exchange for political concessions or preferential access to Venezuelan crude — Washington’s posture in the Guyana-Venezuela dispute could become more nuanced.
This would not necessarily mean outright endorsement of Venezuela’s claim. More likely, it could manifest as diplomatic ambiguity, pressure for bilateral negotiations outside the ICJ framework, or a recalibration of military and political signaling in the region.
For Guyana, such a shift would carry profound implications.
First, investor confidence is the cornerstone of Guyana’s oil success. International oil markets prize stability and legal clarity. Any perception that U.S. backing is weakening could increase political risk premiums, complicate financing, and potentially delay offshore expansion. Even rhetorical uncertainty can move markets.
Second, regional alliances would come under strain. CARICOM has consistently supported Guyana’s territorial integrity. Brazil, sharing borders with both Guyana and Venezuela, has strategic interests in avoiding conflict along its northern frontier. A perceived U.S. repositioning could force regional actors into delicate balancing acts between Washington and Caracas.
Third, the dispute’s militarization risk would intensify. Venezuela has already conducted referenda asserting sovereignty over Essequibo and increased military rhetoric. If Caracas interpreted U.S. policy as softening, it might feel emboldened to escalate symbolic or administrative actions — such as issuing resource concessions overlapping Guyanese waters. Even absent open conflict, such moves could create chronic instability.
Yet the scenario is not straightforward.
ExxonMobil’s massive investment in Guyana aligns American corporate interests with Guyanese sovereignty. U.S. energy security also benefits from diversified supply sources. Guyana’s light, sweet crude is commercially attractive and geopolitically stable compared to Middle Eastern volatility. Undermining Guyana would paradoxically weaken a reliable emerging partner.
Moreover, the ICJ process provides a structured legal pathway. Any overt support for Venezuela’s claim would undermine Washington’s broader advocacy for rule-based international order — a principle the United States frequently invokes in other global disputes.
It is also worth noting that energy politics are increasingly shaped by global transition pressures. While oil remains central to current geopolitics, long-term strategic calculations must consider decarbonization, climate commitments, and shifting capital flows. Guyana has framed its oil development alongside low deforestation rates and ambitious climate positioning, seeking to present itself as both producer and environmental steward.
Ultimately, the “what if” scenario underscores a larger truth: small states operating in resource-rich environments must navigate great-power politics with foresight and resilience.
For Guyana, the strategic response lies in diversification and institutional strength. Strengthening legal defenses at the ICJ, deepening multilateral alliances, investing oil revenues transparently through the Natural Resource Fund, and expanding diplomatic.