A Reuters investigation has raised questions about how a political supporter and friend of US Vice-President JD Vance helped open the door to a lucrative contract for trading Venezuelan oil after the United States seized Nicolás Maduro in January 2026.
The investigation, published on 11 November, details political donations, an alleged meeting shortly before the US operation and a call from Energy Secretary Chris Wright to Vitol trader John Addison. It does not establish that Vance personally awarded the contract, that the trader received advance warning of the military action or that a crime was committed.
How did Vitol obtain the Venezuela oil deal?
According to Reuters’ investigation, Wright telephoned Addison at his Houston desk on 5 January, two days after the US operation that removed Maduro from power, to ask whether Vitol wanted to help market Venezuelan crude. Addison confirmed the call, as did the US Department of Energy.
Vitol and fellow commodities trader Trafigura received special licences to sell Venezuelan oil within days. The arrangements were made without an open competitive bidding process. Reuters cited an estimate by Texas Christian University energy finance professor Tom Seng that the traders could make $3 to $3.50 profit per barrel. Applied to reported Venezuelan export volumes, this could imply hundreds of millions of dollars in combined profit. However, neither company discloses individual transaction profits, and Reuters said the estimated margins and trading volumes could not be independently verified.
The Energy Department defended the selection, saying Vitol’s global trading scale made it a suitable choice. The administration has argued that speed was important to stabilise Venezuela’s economy and secure revenue after Maduro’s removal.
What is JD Vance’s connection to John Addison?
Addison, a senior gasoline trader with Vitol, was an early financial supporter of Vance’s political career. Reuters, citing US Federal Election Commission records, reported that he donated $300,000 to a political committee supporting Vance’s 2022 Senate campaign. Addison and his wife later gave a combined $7 million to political committees supporting Donald Trump’s 2024 presidential bid.
Addison told Reuters that Vance had recommended him to Wright as someone trustworthy. A US official independently confirmed that Vance had vouched for Addison, but said that conversation had taken place at least a year before the January 2026 call. The Energy Department said Vance and Wright never discussed sales of Venezuelan oil.
The disputed Montana meeting
A person familiar with the matter told Reuters that Vance and Addison met at Montana’s Yellowstone Club on 27 December 2025 and discussed how quickly Venezuelan oil might be marketed if the US gained control of it. Reuters reviewed flight records placing aircraft used by both men at Bozeman Yellowstone International Airport that day.
Both Vance’s office and Addison denied that the alleged meeting occurred. The flight records establish that the aircraft were at the same airport, but do not independently prove a meeting took place or what was discussed. The alleged conversation about Venezuelan oil therefore remains disputed.
Was the trader unqualified?
Online commentary has described Addison as unqualified for the contract. That is an oversimplification. Addison had extensive experience trading gasoline and spent 17 years with Vitol, but his specialty was not the negotiation of international crude-oil contracts.
Vitol told Reuters that Addison brought in the company’s regional chief executive and specialist crude-oil team after Wright’s call. His involvement raises questions about personal access to decision-makers, rather than establishing that Vitol lacked the technical expertise to carry out the contract.
Congress asks whether political access influenced the deal
On 29 January, Robert Garcia, the senior Democrat on the House Oversight Committee, wrote to the chief executives of Vitol and Trafigura seeking details of the agreements and the administration’s arrangements for controlling Venezuelan oil revenue. The congressional letter raised concerns about transparency, oversight and who might benefit financially from the arrangements. Separately, Garcia told Reuters he wanted answers about whether oil-company insiders had received advance warning of US military action. Both companies denied having such advance knowledge.
Both firms told Reuters they had received no advance warning of the military operation. Reuters did not establish that either company possessed such information.
Addison retired from Vitol in March and later joined the Department of Energy’s Secretary of Energy Advisory Board. The department’s current membership list identifies him as a co-chair. The board is an advisory body, not the authority that awarded the January trading licences.
What happened to Venezuela’s oil money?
A separate report made public by the US State Department in November provided a picture of the scale of the arrangement. According to Reuters’ 12 November account of a KPMG report, more than $12 billion in Venezuelan natural-resource revenues passed through a US Treasury account in the first nine months of 2026. More than $12.1 billion came from oil, petroleum products and natural gas.
The report said the funds remained Venezuela’s sovereign property and that most of the money had been disbursed, predominantly through Venezuelan foreign-exchange auctions. The $12 billion figure is revenue handled through the account, not a profit figure for Vitol or Trafigura, and not evidence of any personal payment to Vance.
What remains unanswered?
- Why did Wright initially approach Addison rather than a senior executive specialising in Venezuelan crude?
- What documentation explains the decision to award licences without competitive bidding?
- Can the conflicting accounts of the alleged December meeting be independently resolved?
- Did personal political connections affect access to government decision-makers?
These are legitimate questions about transparency and possible favouritism. The available reporting does not prove that Vance arranged the licence, directed an improper award or knew about the military operation in advance.
Sources and further reading
- Reuters, 11 November 2026: Vitol trader’s ties to Vance and Venezuela oil licence
- US House Oversight Democrats, 29 January 2026: letter to Vitol and Trafigura (PDF)
- US Department of Energy: Secretary of Energy Advisory Board membership
- Reuters, 12 November 2026: report on Venezuelan oil revenues
Correction, 14 November 2026: An earlier version described estimated trading profits as established earnings and attributed a question about advance military warning to a congressional letter. Both points have been clarified using the original Reuters reporting and the letter itself.
Follow this story: JD Vance and the Venezuela oil deal for any verified developments in the contracts, congressional scrutiny or official responses.
