Fossil-Fueled Imperialism Has a Price Tag

By Hannah Saggau and Martyna Dominiak

As oil executives and billionaires scramble to cash in on Trump’s illegal coup in Venezuela, Big Banks are quietly assessing how they can get a piece of the imperialist pie. Ramping up oil production in Venezuela won’t be cheap—Rystad Energy estimates that even maintaining existing production will require $53 billion in investment over the next 15 years, and up to $183 billion to triple production in the same period.

This money has to come from somewhere, and with no promise of public investment, commercial banks are eyeing the opportunity. The CEO of Canadian Scotiabank brazenly called Trump’s imperialist ambitions “a good thing” for his bank. Meanwhile, analysts are speculating around which banks have the advantage, with JPMorgan, Citi, and BBVA all being floated for their current and former operations in the country.

Our take on the likely culprits? New data from Stand.earth reveals that since 2021, Bank of America, JPMorgan Chase, Citi, Barclays, TD Bank, Royal Bank of Canada and others committed more than $124 billion of financing to just nine U.S. fossil fuel companies poised to benefit from the U.S. invasion of Venezuela.

New Stand.earth Data: Banks and Investors Enabling U.S. Oil Push in Venezuela

A few top global banks have an outsized role in financing the analyzed companies: just 10 banks (out of 77 in the dataset) financed 57% of the total amount.

We looked at 86 transactions between 77 banks and oil companies, oil service companies, and refiners that are positioned to profit from oil-driven military escalation in Latin America. Specifically:

• Chevron: The only U.S. oil major still operating in Venezuela. Chevron’s leadership said in a meeting with Trump that they could ramp up production “effective immediately.”

• ExxonMobil and ConocoPhillips: These U.S. oil giants claim they are still owed billions of dollars by Venezuela after their assets were nationalized in 2007. Despite Trump’s attempts to snub Exxon, the company’s leadership has maintained interest.

• Citgo Petroleum, Valero, PBF Energy, and Phillips 66: Gulf Coast refineries are designed to process the type of heavy crude produced in Venezuela, and are predicted to profit from increased production. Citgo is also owned by the Venezuelan state-run oil company, Petroleos de Venezuela (PdVSA).

• Halliburton: Oilfield service providers like Halliburton run the day-to-day operations for oil companies like Chevron. Just weeks before the U.S. attack, Halliburton filed an unusual lawsuit in international court claiming that Venezuela owed the company damages related to U.S. sanctions.
• Williams: This fossil gas pipeline company is pursuing a case against Venezuela for assets seized during nationalization.

The diagram below shows the financial flows between the top ten banks and the analyzed companies. It suggests tight relationships between the two groups – each bank finances nearly all of the companies.

Further analysis found that in 2025 alone, banks financed over $42 billion to these companies, more than half of what was financed between 2021-2024 ($82 billion). 

Almost all of this money (all but one transaction) was general corporate purpose loans and bonds, which companies are free to spend however they please. It also means that banks have no say in how this financing is spent and whether it is in line with their climate or human rights policies—and excuse they conveniently trot out whenever this financing is scrutinized.

It is also worth noting that 40% of the financing was via bonds – a form of debt that companies sell to investors, with the critical support of banks, who can advise on issuances and help sell bonds to investors. Bonds are a transaction type that often falls outside the scope of bank policies, which tend to focus on lending. They also come with fewer strings attached than loans, so companies can use the capital raised as they see fit. In 2025, Chevron alone issued a flurry of 15 bonds, raising a total of $11.2 billion. For reference, the next highest number of bonds issued in 2025 was four, by Williams.

This analysis exposes a fundamental flaw in banks’ risk frameworks. Banks’ environmental and social policies are far more likely to focus on project-specific lending to fossil fuel companies, and ignore the impact of general corporate lending and bond underwriting altogether. To meaningfully address adverse impacts – from climate breakdown to armed conflict – banks need comprehensive, corporate-level exclusions that cover all forms of financial services for fossil fuel companies. Policies limited to project finance or lending alone leave banks exposed to greenwashing.

Financial support for fossil fuel companies comes not just from banks. Our analysis shows that notable top investors in many of these companies include: BlackRock, Vanguard, Norges Bank, State Street, Fidelity, Berkshire, and Wellington.

Without financial support from big banks and investors, the likes of Chevron, Exxon, ConocoPhillips, and Valero would not have the resources to cash in on oil-fueled regime change and enrich themselves at the expense of everyday Venezuelans. When Russia invaded Ukraine nearly four years ago, Stand.earth published similar data on Russian oil companies stocking Putin’s war coffers, and the banks and investors supporting these companies. In the following months and years, many institutions divested from Russian oil companies.

It is time to force that choice again.