Land Venezuala allegedly stole from the United States
This fact-check may be outdated. Consider refreshing it to get the most current information.
Executive summary
The claim that "Venezuela stole land from the United States" does not track with the historical record: the major territorial issue connected to Venezuela concerns the Essequibo/Guiana dispute with Britain (now Guyana), not any transfer of U.S. sovereign territory, and the United States historically intervened on Venezuela’s behalf in arbitration against Britain rather than losing land to Caracas [1] [2] [3]. What has been taken from U.S. commercial interests is a separate, documented matter: Venezuela’s 2000s nationalization of foreign oil projects resulted in expropriation claims by U.S. companies and international arbitration rulings against Caracas [4].
1. What the archival record actually shows about territory
The 19th‑century boundary fight that produced the most enduring territorial controversy involved Venezuela and British Guiana (later Guyana); the U.S. role was as an outside arbiter invoking the Monroe Doctrine to press Britain into arbitration, not as an aggrieved sovereign claiming lost U.S. land to Venezuela, and the 1899 arbitral award left administration of the Essequibo region with Britain/Guyana—an outcome Venezuela has contested since but which does not constitute Venezuelan seizure of U.S. territory [1] [5] [2] [3].
2. Modern rhetoric vs. legal reality on "oil, land, and other assets"
Recent presidential rhetoric accusing Venezuela of having "stolen" U.S. oil, land and assets appears to conflate two different categories: (a) political bluster about natural resources and territory and (b) legitimate corporate claims over expropriated investments. Reporting and legal analysis point most directly to the 2007 expropriations of foreign oil ventures in which U.S. companies lost stakes in Petrozuata, Hamaca and Corocoro—actions that spawned international arbitration and unpaid awards that underpin assertions that Venezuela illegally seized U.S. investors’ assets [4].
3. Seizures, sanctions and the politics of recovery
The practical recovery of any awards or assets is complicated: U.S. policy choices since the Chávez era have centered on sanctions, litigation and, more recently, tools like interdiction of sanctioned shipments rather than straightforward restitution—policy moves that analysts warn can escalate geopolitical risk and raise legal and logistical hurdles to enforcing judgments against a sovereign state [6] [7]. The U.S. has seized Venezuelan tankers tied to sanctions enforcement and signaled willingness to interdict oil shipments, but that is enforcement of sanctions, not a legal finding that Venezuela stole sovereign U.S. land [6].
4. The sticky question of Guyana’s Essequibo and competing narratives
Venezuela’s renewed claims over the Essequibo region (the so‑called Zona en Reclamación) involve rich natural resources and were the subject of an 1899 arbitral ruling and later diplomatic arrangements; Caracas calls the 1899 award illegitimate and has pressed referenda and diplomatic moves in recent years, but those claims are directed at Guyana, not the United States, and the Library of Congress and related scholarship quantify the contested area as roughly two‑thirds of Guyana’s territory—about 159,000 km2—still administered by Guyana [8] [3].
5. Alternative readings and the limits of reporting
Some political actors frame Venezuela’s actions as theft of "U.S. assets" to justify coercive measures; others caution that military or extraterritorial seizures of Venezuelan resources would violate international law and risk regional destabilization, a point underscored by UN human rights experts urging respect for sovereignty and the UN Charter [9]. Reporting (Forbes, Newsweek) shows that presidential claims likely shortcut complex legal histories—there is documented expropriation of U.S. corporate oil assets (an evidentiary basis for "stolen assets" rhetoric), but no credible archival or legal record that Venezuela stole sovereign U.S. land [4] [10].
6. Bottom line
The concrete grievance that can be substantiated with available reporting is corporate: U.S. companies had assets expropriated by Venezuela in the 2000s and have pursued arbitration and awards [4]. The claim that Venezuela stole U.S. land is unsupported by the documented history of the Venezuela–British Guiana/Guyana boundary dispute, in which the U.S. acted as an intervening power to press for arbitration and which produced a ruling leaving the territory under British/Guyanese administration [1] [5] [3]. Additional allegations tying Venezuela to theft of U.S. sovereign territory are not corroborated in the sources reviewed.