When a lie is treated as a policy disagreement

By Peter Brown  

When President Trump claims that Venezuela “stole” its 300 billion barrels of oil from the United States, he is not expressing a controversial opinion or offering a debatable interpretation of history. He is stating something that is demonstrably false.

Venezuela’s oil reserves lie entirely beneath Venezuelan soil. Under international law – and under every accepted norm of state sovereignty – those resources belong to Venezuela. They always have. At no point in history has the United States owned Venezuela’s oil, been legally entitled to it, or had it transferred to them in any recognised form.

This is not a grey area. It is a lie.

Yet much of the media coverage treats the claim as if it were merely provocative rhetoric, something to be contextualised rather than corrected. Headlines report that Trump “said” Venezuela stole oil, followed by expert commentary on what this might mean for U.S. foreign policy – without first establishing that the premise itself is false. The result is a quiet but consequential failure of journalism.

Access Is Not Ownership

The sleight of hand at work here is familiar. U.S. oil companies operated extensively in Venezuela throughout the twentieth century, particularly before the industry was nationalised in 1976. They extracted oil under concession agreements, paid fees and taxes, and generated enormous profits.

That arrangement did not confer ownership of the oil in the ground. It conferred access.

When Venezuela nationalised its oil industry – as many countries did in that era – it compensated foreign companies and asserted control over its own resources. No international court ruled that Venezuela had “stolen” anything. No treaty was violated. The United States may have disliked the decision, but disliking something does not turn it into theft.

Trump’s claim collapses the distinction between commercial privilege and sovereign right. In his framing, if American companies are allowed to profit from something, it is “ours.” If that access ends, it must have been “taken.”

That is not how the world works. It is how empires remember themselves.

The Media’s Dangerous Neutrality

The greater problem, however, is not the lie itself – Trump lies constantly – but the media’s unwillingness to call it one.

By reporting Trump’s claim without plainly stating that it is false, outlets allow a fabricated premise to enter public discourse unchallenged. Once that happens, the debate shifts from whether the claim is true to how the United States should respond. Sanctions become “recovery.” Coercion becomes “reclamation.” Aggression becomes justified.

This is how strategic lies function. They are not designed to convince experts; they are designed to shift the frame for everyone else.

Journalism is not the passive transmission of statements from powerful people. It is the verification of reality. When reporters refuse to say “this is untrue,” they are not being neutral – they are being permissive.

Why The Lie

Trump’s language is not accidental. By asserting that Venezuela stole from the United States, he is laying rhetorical groundwork for economic or military pressure while stripping the target of legitimacy. If something was stolen, then retaliation feels reasonable. If it was never yours, it does not.

History offers ample warning here. Claims of stolen resources, stolen land, or stolen honour have long been used to justify imperial intervention. The only thing that has changed is the delivery system – social media instead of speeches, nodding anchors instead of state propaganda.

The Sentence That Should Have Been Written

There is a single sentence that would have prevented this lie from taking hold, and it is conspicuously absent from much of the coverage:

There is no historical or legal basis for the claim that Venezuela stole oil from the United States.

That sentence is not partisan. It is factual. And its absence tells us something troubling about the state of modern political journalism: too many outlets now see their role as amplifying power, not interrogating it.

Lies thrive not because they are clever, but because they are left standing.

Keep Independent Journalism Alive – Support The AIMN

Dear Reader,

Since 2013, The Australian Independent Media Network has been a fearless voice for truth, giving public interest journalists a platform to hold power to account. From expert analysis on national and global events to uncovering issues that matter to you, we’re here because of your support.

Running an independent site isn’t cheap, and rising costs mean we need you now more than ever. Your donation – big or small – keeps our servers humming, our writers digging, and our stories free for all.

Join our community of truth-seekers. Donate via PayPal or credit card via the button below, or bank transfer [BSB: 062500; A/c no: 10495969] and help us keep shining a light.

With gratitude, The AIMN Team