Trump’s Quest for a Slush Fund: Controlling Oil Revenue and Beyond

Following the capture of former Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro in a military raid, the Trump administration moved to capture control of Venezuela’s oil revenue, initiating a pattern of seeking discretionary financial control. This pursuit extends beyond Venezuela, encompassing trade deals, foreign policy maneuvers, and even a proposed “Board of Peace,” all aimed at securing funds and leverage points outside traditional congressional oversight.

The Venezuela Oil Revenue Scheme

President Trump initially announced his intention to directly control the revenue generated from Venezuelan oil sales, stating, “This Oil will be sold at its Market Price, and that money will be controlled by me, as President of the United States of America, to ensure it is used to benefit the people of Venezuela and the United States!” CNBC reports that the administration has already generated over $1 billion in revenue from Venezuelan oil sales, with agreements in place for another $5 billion in the coming months. The oil is currently being sold to refineries in the U.S. And Europe.

Initially, $500 million from the first oil sales was deposited in a U.S.-controlled account in Qatar. However, Energy Secretary Chris Wright announced that a U.S. Treasury Department account has since been established, and future funds will no longer be routed through Qatar.

The administration’s handling of these funds has raised questions about legal authority and congressional oversight. The initial transfer to Qatar, while under U.S. Supervision, was seen as a temporary measure to address the urgent need to generate revenue for Venezuela, which was struggling with oil storage capacity. Lawfare

Beyond Venezuela: A Pattern of “Deals”

The pursuit of financial control extends beyond Venezuela. The Trump administration has engaged in a series of “deals” with other countries, offering tariff relief in exchange for investment pledges. These arrangements, however, often lack the binding obligations of traditional trade agreements and rely heavily on the threat of future tariffs for enforcement.

For example, a trade deal with Japan involved a claimed “signing bonus” of $550 billion, but the investments are structured as equity, loans, and guarantees routed through Japanese financial institutions, not a direct cash transfer. Similarly, a deal with Europe was briefly threatened by renewed tariff threats over Greenland.

The Sovereign Wealth Fund Ambition

Early in his second term, Trump ordered his administration to plan for a United States sovereign wealth fund (SWF), envisioning the federal government directly investing in “strategic” assets. However, this plan was shelved due to the legislative requirements and oversight that would accompany a formal SWF.

Instead, the administration has pursued an “improvisational workaround,” acquiring equity stakes in private companies through various means, including repurposed funds and existing Pentagon authorities. These include stakes in U.S. Steel (through a “golden share” arrangement with Japan’s Nippon Steel), Intel, and L3Harris.

The “Pay-to-Play” Chip Export Scheme

The administration also implemented a scheme allowing Nvidia and AMD to export chips to China in exchange for a 25% cut of the sales, initially framed as a tariff. This was later restructured to avoid constitutional concerns regarding export taxes.

Legal and Constitutional Concerns

These actions raise significant legal and constitutional questions, particularly regarding Congress’s power of the purse. The Constitution stipulates that “no money shall be drawn from the Treasury” without congressional authorization. The Antideficiency Act and the Miscellaneous Receipts statute further reinforce this principle.

While the administration relies on existing authorities and repurposed funds, the legality of these actions remains uncertain and is likely to be challenged in court. The broader concern is the normalization of treating financial resources as instruments of personal power, eroding the separation of powers and the principles of transparent governance.

The Board of Peace Initiative

Trump also unveiled the “Board of Peace,” an international initiative requiring countries to contribute $1 billion to extend their membership. This initiative, and the potential for the president to control its funds, has drawn criticism from allies like France, citing “particularly extensive powers” granted to the board’s chairman.