The second expropriation

The National Review puts before us a story that would have made me reach for my pen immediately. Venezuela, under Chávez and his successors, seized American-owned oil assets — took them by force, paid little or nothing, and dared the world to object. The Trump administration, we are told, has loudly condemned that theft. So far, so good.

But the National Review's lead carries a harder accusation: that the same administration is now moving to nullify the legal claims of the very American companies that were robbed. If that is accurate, we have not corrected an injustice — we have merely changed its author. The first expropriation was Venezuelan. The second would be our own.

I must be plain about what this means in the language of commerce and credit. When a sovereign government — ours or any other — signals that property claims can be extinguished by political convenience rather than settled by law or negotiation, it does not merely harm one set of investors. It tells every party to every future contract: your rights last only as long as the current administration finds them useful. That is a ruinous message for a nation whose commercial power depends on being trusted.

I will mark the following as inference, since the lead does not supply the full mechanism: it is possible the administration believes it can extract other concessions from Caracas — oil flows, political accommodations — by trading away these claims as a bargaining chip. That is a recognizable diplomatic calculation. But it is a short-sighted one. The value surrendered — the credibility of American property rights abroad — is not recoverable by any single deal. You spend it once and it does not come back.

The principle I argued in the 1790s applies with equal force here: the sanctity of contracts and lawful claims is not a favor government bestows on the wealthy. It is the foundation on which every American business that operates beyond our borders stands. Weaken it to score a point against Caracas, and you weaken it for the manufacturer in Ohio, the energy developer in Texas, and the technology firm seeking a foothold in Asia.

My recommendation is direct. If the administration believes Venezuela owes American companies compensation — and the record suggests it plainly does — then press that claim through every available legal and diplomatic channel, and do not trade it away in a back-room accommodation. If a negotiated settlement is reached, let it be transparent, let it pay something real to the aggrieved parties, and let it be recorded as a settlement — not a nullification. Commerce can survive a hard negotiation. It cannot survive a government that treats property rights as a poker chip.