U.S. Rep. María Elvira Salazar (R‑FL) has made a bold case for possible U.S. involvement in Venezuela, arguing the move could unlock massive economic opportunities—especially for American oil companies. Speaking on Fox Business, she said that once Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro is weakened or removed, U.S. firms could reap a “field day” in the country’s oil sector.
Salazar laid out three main reasons she believes the U.S. should “go in” to Venezuela. But she didn’t shy away from her first and most explosive claim: “Venezuela, for the American oil companies, will be a field day.” She predicted more than a trillion dollars in economic activity and insisted U.S. energy firms could step in to repair pipelines, oil rigs, and other infrastructure that have long suffered under the current regime.
Critics were swift to respond. Some accused Salazar of advocating for a regime‑change war that would primarily benefit “Big Oil.” Others pointed out the historical parallels—and risks—of military involvement motivated by energy interests. One commentator even called it a dangerous replay of past conflicts where U.S. troops were sent “to war for the oil companies.”
Salazar defended her position, arguing that U.S. action in Venezuela would serve more than just economic interests. She said that removing Maduro could help liberate Venezuelans, improve security, and reduce the influence of hostile actors in the region. She also claimed Maduro is tied to the controversial “Cartel de los Soles”, a group she describes as a terrorist organization.
In addition, Salazar has previously voiced strong criticism of U.S. oil companies sending money to Maduro’s government. She stated clearly that “not a single dollar” from companies like Chevron should flow into the Venezuelan regime. She argues that re-investing in Venezuela must happen under a new, democratic government, not under Maduro’s control.
Her comments come amid a broader conversation around U.S.-Venezuela relations. With President Trump considering more aggressive measures and the Venezuelan opposition calling for a change in leadership, Salazar’s rhetoric aligns with a faction of U.S. policymakers pushing for regime change—partly driven by energy security goals.
For many observers, Salazar’s framing is deeply controversial because it so explicitly ties foreign policy to private economic profit. Her critics argue that using military or political intervention to benefit U.S. oil firms risks repeating the worst errors of past interventions. But for Salazar and her supporters, the stakes are framed not just in dollars—but in geopolitics, regional influence, and what she calls a chance to “rebuild Venezuela for freedom.”
Watch video below :
