Buried within President Donald Trump’s unprecedented oil deal with Venezuela is a provision designed to exert a level of control over the South American company for 100 years, the Wall Street Journal exclusively reported Saturday night.

Announced on Friday, the deal will see the United States be granted rights to Venezuela’s untapped oil fields for a century. Furthermore, the U.S. government would take a direct stake in Venezuela's oil reserves, the single-largest proven oil reserves on earth.

According to “people involved in negotiating the agreement” who spoke with the Journal on the condition of anonymity, the U.S. government “plans to take a 35% passive stake” in North American Blue Energy Partners, a private oil-and-gas company led by controversial Venezuelan businessman Alejandro Betancourt. The company’s structure was also set up in such a way as to tie the hands of future Venezuelan governments.

“The private company structure was deliberately intended to bind future Venezuelan governments to the agreement and make it difficult to unwind, one of the people involved said,” the Journal’s report reads. “They consider it unlikely that a new government would expropriate a private company, the people said.”

Trump has faced bi-partisan scrutiny over the deal since announcing it on Friday, including from one of the chief supporters of his operation to kidnap Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro, Rep. Maria Elvira Salazar (R-FL), who slammed the deal in a social media post before quickly deleting it.

Venezuelans have been critical of the deal as well.

“It’s an operation that’s absolutely unconstitutional because it’s an illegitimate government,” said Diego Arria, a former Venezuelan cabinet minister, speaking with the Journal. “They are seizing [the oil] — there’s no other word for it.”

Rep. Maria Elvira Salazar (R-FL) published a scathing rebuke Saturday of President Donald Trump’s Venezuela oil deal only to quietly delete it and swap it for a post championing the deal as “great,” the New York Post reported.

“Any oil ‘deal’ with Venezuela’s interim regime has an expiration date: the day President Trump leaves the White House,” Salazar wrote in a now-deleted social media post on X, according to journalist Orlando Avendaño. “A lasting deal can only be made with a democratically elected government that respects the rule of law, protects private property, and is backed by strong democratic institutions.”

The post, as noted by countless onlookers, had soon been deleted, and Salazar later published a new post with commentary about the deal that included “a very different message,” the Post’s report reads.

“The oil agreement between the United States and Venezuela is a great deal for the United States and for the Venezuelan people,” Salazar wrote.

Trump recently touted what he called “THE BIGGEST OIL DEAL IN WORLD HISTORY,” revealing on Friday that the United States would be given a stake in Venezuela’s oil reserves — the single-largest proven oil reserves on earth.

Per the Associated Press, the new deal would grant the U.S. government “rights to untapped oil fields for 100 years.” The provision bears a striking resemblance to a prediction Salazar issued last year when she told Fox News that “American oil companies will be operating in Venezuela for the next 100 years.”

Salazar was also among the most vocal supporters of the Trump administration operation to kidnap Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro, and insisted that Venezuelans were "waiting for the Americans to come and help them be free again."

The Trump administration violated the Constitution when it moved to deport or rescind visas from international students who spoke up for Palestinian rights and criticized Israel’s genocide in Gaza, a federal judge ruled on Friday.

Northern District of California Judge Noël Wise, who was appointed by former President Joe Biden, said that the administration’s actions violated both the First Amendment of the Constitution protecting free speech and the Fifth Amendment ensuring due process.

“Stated plainly, in the United States, freedom of speech belongs to the people. It is not the government’s to take,” Wise wrote.

Mahmoud Khalil, a Columbia University student who was detained by Immigration and Customs Enforcement early in the second Trump administration despite holding a green card, celebrated the ruling on Saturday.

“A federal judge just ruled that the Trump admin’s use of immigration law to deport me and other noncitizen students for pro-Palestinian speech is unconstitutional. No one should fear speaking up for Palestine,” Khalil wrote on social media.

The Council on American-Islamic Relations also welcomed the decision in a statement on Saturday:

This ruling reaffirms a fundamental American principle that the government cannot deport people simply because it dislikes their political views. Students do not surrender their constitutional rights at the classroom door, and international students do not surrender their freedom of expression when they come to study in the United States. Criticizing the policies of a foreign government, including the genocidal government of Israel, is protected political speech.

The lawsuit was brought by the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE) in August 2025 on behalf of The Stanford Daily, Stanford University’s student newspaper, and an anonymous female plaintiff. The newspaper argued that student reporters on visas refrained from covering pro-Palestinian protests on campus out of fear of being deported, while the Jane Doe was a noncitizen who had spoken out on behalf of Palestine and now was worried about government retaliation.

“The reporters in our newsroom shouldn’t have to fear that writing a story will result in their deportation. Today’s victory means they won’t have to,” the paper’s editor-in-chief George Porteous wrote on social media on Friday.

In particular, the lawsuit challenged two provisions of the Immigration and Nationality Act that Secretary of State Marco Rubio used to justify seeking the deportations of Khalil, Columbia student Moshen Mahdawi, and Tufts University student Rümeysa Öztürk. The first allows the secretary of state to deport a noncitizen for speech if the secretary “personally determines” the speech “compromises a compelling foreign policy interest.” The second allows the secretary to revoke visas entirely at their own discretion.

Wise agreed that the provisions violated the Constitution and offered a rousing defense of free speech.

“In the United States, free speech, including the freedom to criticize the government and its leaders, is not a sign of our democracy’s fragility. It is evidence of its strength,” she wrote. “That strength is diminished when members of our society—citizens and noncitizens alike—must self-censor and ‘behave’ or suffer the government’s retaliation.”

FIRE said the decision was the “first in the country to squarely rule on the constitutionality of these statutes” and that it would “reverberate in similar proceedings around the country.”

“In America, free speech doesn’t just belong to the people who say things the government agrees with,” FIRE attorney Conor Fitzpatrick said in a statement Friday. “Today’s ruling proves that free speech isn’t a privilege, but the inalienable right of every man, woman, and child.”