Venezuela’s extensive natural resources have reemerged within Washington’s strategic agenda, with its potential mineral reserves now portrayed as matters of national significance, although specialists caution that transforming these aspirations into tangible results is considerably more intricate than political discourse implies.
When Donald Trump announced that U.S. companies would be allowed to tap into Venezuela’s vast oil reserves, the spotlight swiftly broadened far beyond petroleum, and policy discussions increasingly began to encompass minerals, metals, and even rare earth elements thought to lie beneath Venezuelan territory, resources considered vital across sectors such as defense, aerospace, clean energy, and consumer technology, and now central to U.S. national security deliberations.
Yet while the idea of tapping Venezuela’s broader resource base may appear attractive on paper, specialists caution that it is fraught with uncertainty. The scale, quality and economic viability of many of these resources remain unclear, and the political, security and environmental obstacles surrounding extraction are formidable. As a result, most analysts agree that even an aggressive push by Washington would be unlikely to deliver meaningful relief to America’s strained supply chains in the near or medium term.
Strategic interest beyond oil
For decades, Venezuela has been synonymous with oil. Its proven crude reserves rank among the largest in the world, shaping its economy and its fraught relationship with the United States. However, recent geopolitical shifts have expanded the definition of “strategic resources” far beyond hydrocarbons. Critical minerals and rare earth elements are now seen as indispensable inputs for advanced manufacturing, renewable energy systems and military hardware.
Officials within the administration have signaled an awareness that Venezuela’s value may extend beyond petroleum. According to Reed Blakemore of the Atlantic Council Global Energy Center, there is recognition that the country may hold a wider array of natural assets. However, he and others emphasize that acknowledging potential is not the same as being able to exploit it.
The challenges associated with mining and exporting minerals in Venezuela are, in many respects, more daunting than those facing the oil sector. While oil extraction relies on existing infrastructure and established global markets, mineral development would require extensive geological surveys, massive capital investment and long-term stability — conditions that Venezuela currently lacks.
Uncertainty beneath the surface
Years of political turmoil, economic decline and international isolation have left Venezuela with scarce trustworthy geological information, making any effort to develop its mineral resources extremely challenging. In contrast to nations that maintain transparent reporting systems and ongoing exploration, Venezuela’s underground assets remain only partially charted and are frequently described in uncertain, speculative terms.
The United States Geological Survey does not list Venezuela among countries with confirmed rare earth element reserves. This omission does not mean such resources are absent, but it underscores how little verified information exists. Experts believe Venezuela may host deposits of minerals such as coltan, a source of tantalum and niobium, as well as bauxite, which can yield aluminum and gallium. All of these metals are considered critical minerals by U.S. authorities.
Past Venezuelan leaders have issued bold statements about these resources; in 2009, former president Hugo Chávez publicly highlighted extensive coltan findings, presenting them as a valuable national asset. Under Nicolás Maduro, the government later created the Orinoco Mining Arc, a vast zone designated for mineral exploration and extraction. In reality, though, the initiative became closely associated with environmental harm, unlawful mining activities and the involvement of armed groups.
Security, governance and environmental risks
Mining is an inherently disruptive activity, requiring stable governance, enforceable regulations and long-term security guarantees. In Venezuela, these conditions are largely absent. Many of the regions believed to contain valuable minerals are remote and weakly governed, making them vulnerable to illegal operations.
Armed groups and criminal networks remain firmly embedded in illegal gold extraction in several regions of the country, as noted in numerous independent reports. With minimal oversight, these actors fuel violence, widespread deforestation and severe environmental contamination. Bringing in legitimate, large-scale mining operations under such conditions would be extremely challenging without sustained improvements in security and the enforcement of the rule of law.
Rare earth mining presents additional challenges. Extracting and processing these elements is energy-intensive and can generate hazardous waste if not properly managed. In countries with strict environmental standards, these risks translate into higher costs and longer project timelines. In Venezuela, where regulatory enforcement is weak, the environmental consequences could be severe, further complicating any attempt to attract responsible international investors.
As Blakemore has noted, even under optimistic assumptions, bringing Venezuelan minerals to global markets would be a “much more challenging story” than oil development. Without credible guarantees on safety, environmental protection and policy stability, few companies would be willing to commit the billions of dollars required for such projects.
China’s dominance in processing and refining
Even if U.S. firms managed to clear the obstacles involved in extraction, they would still face another looming bottleneck: processing. Obtaining raw materials represents only the initial phase of the supply chain, and when it comes to rare earths, the refinement and separation stages are both the most technologically demanding and the most capital‑intensive.
Here, China holds a commanding advantage. According to the International Energy Agency, China accounted for more than 90% of global rare earth refining capacity in 2024. This dominance is the result of decades of state support, aggressive industrial policy and comparatively lenient environmental regulations.
As Joel Dodge of the Vanderbilt Policy Accelerator has observed, China’s near-monopoly on processing confers both industrial and geopolitical leverage. Even if rare earths are mined elsewhere, they are often shipped to China for refining, reinforcing Beijing’s central role in the supply chain.
This reality complicates Washington’s strategic calculations. Securing access to raw materials in Venezuela would do little to reduce dependence on China unless parallel investments were made in domestic or allied refining capacity. Such investments would take years to materialize and face their own regulatory and environmental hurdles.
Critical minerals and national security
The United States currently classifies 60 minerals as critical because of their vital role in economic and national security, a roster that covers metals like aluminum, cobalt, copper, lead and nickel, along with 15 rare earth elements including neodymium, dysprosium and samarium, all of which are woven into everyday technologies such as smartphones, batteries, wind turbines and electric vehicles, and remain indispensable for sophisticated weapons systems.
Despite their name, rare earth elements are not particularly scarce in the Earth’s crust. As geographer Julie Klinger has explained, the difficulty lies not in their abundance but in the complexity of extracting and refining them in an economically and environmentally sustainable way. This distinction is often lost in political discourse, leading to exaggerated expectations about the strategic value of unproven deposits.
U.S. lawmakers have expressed growing concern about reliance on foreign suppliers for these materials, particularly amid rising tensions with China. In response, there have been efforts to expand domestic mining and processing capacity. However, such projects face long timelines, community opposition and stringent environmental reviews, meaning they are unlikely to deliver quick results.
Venezuela’s limited role in the near future
Against this backdrop, expectations that Venezuela could emerge as a significant supplier of critical minerals appear unrealistic. Analysts at BloombergNEF and other research institutions point to a combination of factors that severely constrain the country’s prospects: outdated or nonexistent geological data, a shortage of skilled labor, entrenched organized crime, chronic underinvestment and an unpredictable policy environment.
Sung Choi of BloombergNEF has argued that, despite Venezuela’s theoretical geological potential, it is unlikely to play a meaningful role in global critical mineral markets for at least the next decade. This assessment reflects not only the technical challenges of mining, but also the broader institutional weaknesses that deter long-term investment.
For the United States, this means that ambitions to diversify supply chains cannot rely on Venezuela as a quick fix. Even if diplomatic relations were to improve and sanctions eased, the structural barriers would remain formidable.
Geopolitical dynamics versus economic realities
The renewed focus on Venezuela’s resources illustrates a recurring tension in global economic policy: the gap between geopolitical aspiration and economic feasibility. From a strategic perspective, the idea of accessing untapped minerals in the Western Hemisphere is appealing. It aligns with efforts to reduce dependence on rival powers and to secure inputs vital for future industries.
However, the development of natural resources is shaped by unavoidable practical constraints, as mining endeavors depend on dependable institutions, clear regulatory frameworks and long-term commitments from both governments and companies, while also relying on local community acceptance and credible, robust environmental protections.
In Venezuela’s case, these foundations have been steadily weakened by decades of political upheaval, and restoring them would call for long-term reforms that reach far beyond what any single trade or energy initiative could achieve.
A sober assessment of expectations
Ultimately, experts urge caution in interpreting political statements about Venezuela’s resources. While the country’s underground wealth is often portrayed as vast and transformative, the evidence suggests a far more constrained outlook. Oil remains Venezuela’s most clearly defined asset, and even there, production faces significant obstacles.
Minerals and rare earth elements introduce added complexity, given uncertain reserves, costly extraction and global supply chains controlled by dominant actors. For the United States, obtaining these resources will probably hinge more on diversified sourcing, recycling, technological advances and strengthening domestic capacity than on pushing into new frontiers within politically volatile areas.
As the worldwide competition for critical minerals accelerates, Venezuela will keep appearing in strategic debates, yet its influence will probably stay limited without substantial on-the-ground reforms; aspiration by itself cannot replace the data, stability, and infrastructure that form the core of any effective resource strategy.
