Today’s review focuses on growing concern about the consequences of Donald Trump’s policies for the global economy, energy security, and relations among allies. Criticism of tariffs is coupled with fears over possible agreements on Russian diesel fuel and the risk of worsening relations with Volodymyr Zelenskyy. Particular attention is given to inflation, U.S. Treasury yields, and the economic policies of Trump and Bessent, whose consequences could extend far beyond the United States. The review is based on materials from Invezz.com (Venezuela), elsiglo.com.gt (Venezuela), and Posta Porteña (Venezuela).
Venezuelan Press on U.S. Debt, Oil, and Multipolarity
Venezuelan publications and outlets targeting Venezuelan audiences link several global issues—U.S. government debt, inflation, oil prices, the war over Ukraine, and technological rivalry—into a single picture of instability in the familiar financial and geopolitical order. The focus is not so much on local assessments or comments by Venezuelan officials as on a characteristic framework of perception: distrust of Washington’s financial policies, particular attention to oil and sanctions, and an emphasis on sovereignty and multipolarity.
In a market commentary, Invezz focused on the decline in U.S. Treasury yields following a drop in oil prices. The yield on 10-year U.S. bonds reportedly fell to 5.192%, while the yield on 30-year bonds dropped to 5.556%. At the same time, the price of Brent crude fell by about 1.7%, to $104.82 per barrel.
For the global debt market, cheaper oil may mean weaker inflationary pressure and, consequently, less need for high interest rates. For Venezuela, however, whose export and budgetary capabilities are closely tied to the energy sector, falling oil prices have a dual effect. They may ease global inflation, while simultaneously reducing the potential revenues of countries dependent on commodity exports and increasing risks to their currency and fiscal stability.
The Invezz article draws attention to a warning from the International Monetary Fund: the combination of inflation, rising government debt, and an investment boom around artificial intelligence could once again push sovereign bond yields higher. As the Fund noted, “the impact could be severe given the fundamental importance of sovereign bond markets.” IMF representative Athanasios Vamvakidis put the problem even more directly: “The market is concerned about its ability to absorb the huge volume of issuance … at a time when central banks are shrinking their balance sheets.”
For Venezuela, this prospect means a harsher external financial environment. Amid sanctions pressure, limited access to international capital, and dependence on oil flows, higher global borrowing costs generally hit countries with vulnerable financial systems harder. Capital becomes more expensive, investors become more cautious, and access to liquidity becomes even more difficult for developing and isolated economies.
The article also mentions a possible energy truce between Russia and Ukraine and the prospect of increased Russian diesel supplies. For a Venezuelan audience, this is not a secondary detail: decisions concerning fuel, refining, and maritime routes can quickly alter global price conditions. In a country where oil remains the main foreign-economic reference point, the geopolitics of major producers is inevitably perceived as a factor in domestic economic stability.
At the same time, the Invezz publication is not only analytical but also commercially oriented. It suggests considering purchases of medium- and long-term U.S. government bonds, or the TLT and IEF ETFs, as a possible strategy if inflation slows. According to this logic, the risk lies in a renewed acceleration of price growth: this could undermine expectations of further declines in yields and support for the bond market. For Venezuela, however, “relief” in the U.S. debt market caused by cheaper oil does not appear unconditionally positive, since lower commodity prices could weaken the country’s export capabilities.
An even sharper interpretation of U.S. financial policy is offered in an opinion column by the Guatemalan publication El Siglo, titled “¡Aleluya! Los alquimistas Trump y Bessent encontraron la ‘piedra filosofal’.” Its author ironically calls Donald Trump and U.S. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent “alchemists” who have supposedly discovered a philosopher’s stone capable of turning an accounting operation into a solution to the debt problem.
The text centers on the hypothetical revaluation of U.S. gold reserves. The United States officially records approximately 261.5 million ounces of gold at the legally fixed price of $42.22 per ounce, while the market price of the metal is significantly higher. The author gives a hypothetical example: if gold were valued at $155,000 per ounce, the reserves could formally approach $40 trillion—the approximate level of U.S. government debt.
However, as the column emphasizes, “revaluing gold would not actually create $40 trillion in new wealth.” Such a measure could expand the Treasury’s ability to issue gold-backed certificates and obtain credit through the Federal Reserve, but spending the funds thereafter would amount to large-scale money creation. In the author’s view, the result would be the risk of unprecedented inflation.
The idea that “certain levels of inflation” could help rapidly reduce the real value of debt comes in for particular criticism. The author sees this as an example of financial repression—a policy in which the government keeps interest rates below inflation, while the losses are effectively borne by savers. The column quotes Nick Giambruno’s explanation: with inflation at 9% and an interest rate of 4%, savings lose approximately 5% of their real value each year.
For Venezuelan readers, this logic is especially familiar because of the country’s experience with inflation, the devaluation of the bolívar, declining confidence in monetary policy, and the de facto dollarization of part of the economy. As a result, suggestions that the United States could ease its debt burden through inflation, a weaker dollar, or a revaluation of gold are perceived not as purely technical budgetary measures but as a risk of shifting the cost of government policy onto citizens’ savings.
The author recalls that after World War II, the United States and the United Kingdom already used negative real interest rates to reduce their debt burdens. At that time, capital controls and interest-rate restrictions were in place, and there was a broad pool of domestic buyers for government debt. The current situation, in his assessment, is different: yields on 10-year U.S. bonds remain above inflation, annual interest payments on the national debt already exceed $1 trillion, and the debt is being refinanced at higher rates.
This criticism reflects a view in which the dollar is not regarded as an unconditionally reliable and neutral global currency. The weakening of the U.S. currency and the rising price of gold are seen as signs of fundamental pressure on the U.S. monetary system. For Venezuela, where dollar transactions are important for imports, savings, oil revenues, and trade, a possible loss of confidence in the dollar could directly affect prices and the population’s purchasing power.
Another aspect of this same picture appears in a publication by PostaPorteñ@, which features an interview with Russian ideologue Alexander Dugin. The material deals with Russia, Ukraine, the United States, energy, and artificial intelligence, but for a Venezuelan audience it is presented within a familiar anti-hegemonic framework: as a dispute over sovereignty, sanctions pressure, and resistance to a unipolar world order.
Dugin is skeptical about possible arrangements concerning diesel supplies or strikes against oil-refining infrastructure. In his view, these are not signs of lasting peace but short-term tactical maneuvers. He argues that Donald Trump acts primarily in accordance with domestic political interests, since rising diesel prices could hurt Republicans in the midterm elections. According to Dugin, Trump is “an extremely unreliable ally” because he can change his position when the political environment shifts.
For Venezuela, diesel, oil refining, transportation, and export routes have long been more than merely economic categories; they are instruments of geopolitical pressure. Sanctions, licenses, exemptions from restrictions, and negotiations over energy directly affect the operation of the oil sector. Thus, discussions of Russian diesel and attacks on energy infrastructure may be perceived as a reminder that fuel and logistics have become part of political confrontation in the modern world.
Dugin also claims that the United States seeks to strengthen its control over the Western Hemisphere and Latin America. This idea echoes official Venezuelan discourse, in which U.S. influence in the region is often interpreted as a threat to sovereignty. He believes that Iran and China are Trump’s main adversaries, while Russia remains a secondary concern for Washington. In his view, however, this does not change the overall picture: the United States still represents a system opposed to multipolarity and BRICS.
Dugin speaks most radically about the West, stating: “We need to support every fault line in the West.” His strategic formula is “the weakening of the West, its division, its dismemberment.” This is no longer a neutral analysis of international relations but an ideological worldview in which Russia and its partners oppose a unified Western center of power. For Venezuela, which is developing political and energy ties with Russia, China, Iran, and other non-Western countries, this narrative serves as an argument for diversifying alliances, markets, and financial channels.
The interview links energy to the risk of military escalation. Dugin does not believe in a lasting truce and anticipates a transition from a “medium-intensity war” to a more direct confrontation between Russia and the West. He describes the situation as a “spiral of mutual escalation” and calls on Russian society to prepare for a severe conflict. For Venezuela, such a scenario is indirectly but significantly important: an escalation could affect oil prices, fuel availability, maritime logistics, sanctions regimes, and the positions of Caracas’s international partners.
Artificial intelligence occupies a separate place in the interview. Dugin calls AI a weapon and a “new battlefield,” arguing that Russia is seriously behind technologically and must create a “sovereign” scientific, military, and intellectual elite. “AI is priority number one,” he says. In this formula, technology, data, software, and digital infrastructure are viewed as elements of state sovereignty.
For Venezuela, which faces technological restrictions, sanctions, and dependence on foreign financial and communications systems, the issue of digital sovereignty also has practical significance. However, the publication offers no specific Venezuelan development program: Russia is presented instead as an example of a state that, in the author’s view, must mobilize science, education, and defense to achieve independence from external pressure.
All three publications are united not by an identical set of facts but by a common way of interpreting global events. U.S. debt is viewed here as a source of risk for the entire international financial system; inflation as a hidden mechanism for shifting losses onto savers; oil as the key to fiscal stability and geopolitical influence; and technology as a matter of national security.
At the same time, it is important to consider the genre of these sources. The Invezz material is a market commentary featuring investment scenarios, the El Siglo column is a polemical text with a satirical and critical tone, and the publication featuring Dugin is an ideological interview lacking a balance of alternative assessments and independent verification of controversial claims. Taken together, however, they show how global markets, the dollar, oil, sanctions, military conflicts, and digital dependence come together for Venezuelan audiences in a single question: to what extent can the country protect its economic and political independence amid a changing world order?
