Energy Secretary Wright details plans for US control of Venezuelan oil
U.S. Energy Secretary Chris Wright speaks during an event with President Donald Trump in the Oval Office at the White House on October 06, 2025 in Washington, DC. (Anna Moneymaker/Getty Images)
(WASHINGTON) — President Trump has been adamant that the U.S. will take control of Venezuela’s oil. Wednesday morning, Energy Secretary Chris Wright explained how the Trump administration envisions this will actually work, saying the U.S. will control the flow and sale of Venezuela’s oil and the revenue that comes from those sales.
“Instead of the oil being blockaded, as it is right now, we’re going to let the market, let the oil flow, sell that market to United States refineries and to around the world to bring better oil supplies, but have those sales done by the U.S. government and deposited into accounts controlled by the U.S. government,” Wright told an energy industry conference organized by Goldman Sachs in Miami.
“And then from there, those funds can flow back into Venezuela to benefit the Venezuelan people, but we need to have that leverage and that control of those oil sales to drive the changes that simply must happen in Venezuela,” Wright said.
Wright also said that he is in “active dialogue” with the Venezuelans and the oil and gas companies that were there before.
“It is going to require this, this cooperation between and pressure between the United States and Venezuela. If we control the flow of oil, the sales of [that] oil, and the flow of the cash that comes from those sales, we have large leverage, but without large leverage, as we’ve seen in the last 25 years, you don’t get change,” he said.
As for what happens to the revenue from those sales, which Wright said would be “deposited into accounts controlled by the U.S. government,” it would then “flow back into Venezuela to benefit the Venezuelan people, but we need to have that leverage,” he said.
Wright did not detail how much of that revenue would ultimately flow back into Venezuela. He did say that several hundred thousand barrels of oil could start to flow from Venezuela in the “short to medium term.”
President Donald Trump announced Tuesday night that Venezuela will turn over 30 to 50 million barrels of sanctioned oil to the U.S. Sources told ABC News that those barrels represent the first tranche to be handed over to U.S. control.
Sources also confirmed to ABC News that some sanctions against Venezuela would be lifted to allow for the transport and sale of the oil on global markets, and that the revenue from those sales would be deposited into accounts controlled by the U.S., as Wright said.
The White House declined to comment but did not dispute the reports.
Wright on Wednesday echoed Trump in saying that some sanctions against Venezuela may be lifted, or at least that the U.S. would enable imports of some crucial equipment.
“And as we make progress with the government, you know, we will enable the importing of parts and equipment and services to kind of prevent the industry from collapsing, stabilize the production, and then as quickly as possible, start to see it growing again,” Wright said.
Wright also described the current energy infrastructure in Venezuela as “not good,” saying that it had degraded under “decades of under-investment, decades of corruption.”
“It’s not, of course, just oil and gas. Think of the electricity grid. That’s the backbone of a society,” Wright further said, adding that he’s been talking to leaders in the oil industry about how to improve the infrastructure.
“We’re either going to make that happen, make those changes in Venezuela and the capital will flow, or if we can’t successfully make those changes in Venezuela, the capital won’t flow,” Wright said.
At his arraignment on Friday, the court is expected to hear arguments on whether McKee can be released on bond or must be held until trial. He has not entered a plea.
McKee and Monique Tepe were married in 2015 and divorced in 2017, according to divorce records obtained by ABC Columbus affiliate WSYX. They did not have any children together, according to the records.
Spencer and Monique Tepe married in December 2020, according to their obituary. The Tepes are survived by their two young children who were found safe inside their home after the Dec. 30 killings.
“We just want justice,” the Tepes’ brother-in-law, Rob Misleh, told ABC News.
“We want this person that took so much from, not just us as a family, but so many more people. And obviously the kids, especially. We want this person to pay for what they did,” he said.
ABC News’ Josh Margolin and Jason Volack contributed to this report.
A memorial dedicated to the 19 children and two adults murdered on May 24,2022 during a mass shooting at Robb Elementary School is seen on January 05, 2026 in Uvalde, Texas. (Brandon Bell/Getty Images)
(UVALDE, Texas) — A jury has acquitted former Uvalde, Texas, school police officer Adrian Gonzales for his response to the Robb Elementary shooting in May 2022.
After more than seven hours of deliberations, the jury returned a not guilty verdict Wednesday evening on all 29 counts of child endangerment.
As the verdict was read, Gonzalez bowed his head as he heard it. Several of those sitting in the gallery started crying. He hugged his lawyers, shook hands and appeared to be tearing up.
Gonzales was among the first officers to respond to the mass shooting, in which 19 students and two teachers were killed. It took 77 minutes before law enforcement mounted a counterassault to end the rampage.
Prosecutors alleged Gonzales did not follow his training and endangered the 19 students who died and an additional 10 surviving students.
Lawyers for Gonzales, who pleaded not guilty, argued he was unfairly blamed for a broader law-enforcement failure that day.
Ex-officer: Focused on ‘picking up the pieces’ When he walked out of the courtroom on Wednesday night after the jury acquitted him, Gonzales was a man of few words.
“I want to start by thanking God for this — my family, my wife and these guys — he put them in my path,” he told reporters, referring to his lawyers. “Thank you for the jury, for considering all the evidence.”
When ABC News’ John Quiñones asked him, “What does moving on look like to you?” he answered succinctly.
“Picking up the pieces and moving forward,” Gonzales said.
Asked about the frustration of some of the families of victims about the verdict, defense attorney Nico LaHood said he’s “sorry that they feel that way” and vowed to pray for them.
“We pray for them. We’re sorry that they feel that way. We understand that their separation from their loved one is going to be felt as long as they walk on this earth, and we don’t, we don’t ignore that. We acknowledge that we’re just going to continue to pray for them. So I’m very sorry that they feel that way,” he said.
According to LaHood — who said he spoke with some of the jurors after the verdict — the jury was saddened by the trial but couldn’t see through some gaps in the prosecution’s case.
“They were very mindful and deliberate,” LaHood said. “Obviously, they were saddened, because they know what the other families are mourning still, but they said there were a lot of gaps in the evidence, and some of it didn’t make sense.”
Jason Goss, another attorney for Gonzales, told reporters that he believes the verdict clears his client’s name.
“The evidence showed that not only did he not fail, but he put himself in great danger,” Goss said. “So, you can imagine how somebody who has had the entire country look at him as somebody who was not willing to do his duty. He is a proud man who does do his duty. And he went in there. When it was time for him to go, he went in there.”
Families of the victims react
For Jacinto Cazares — whose 9-year-old daughter Jackie died in the shooting — the verdict was yet another instance of the legal system failing to deliver justice after one of the worst mass shootings in US history.
“We had a little hope, but it wasn’t enough,” he said outside the court. “Again, we are failed. I don’t even know what to say.”
Cazares said he was hopeful that the jury might have reached a different conclusion but “prepared for the worst.”
“I need to keep composed for my daughter. It has been an emotional roller coaster since day one. I am pissed,” he said.
Jesse Rizo, Jackie’s uncle, told reporters he was concerned about the message the verdict might send to police officers who respond to future mass shootings.
“I respect the jury’s decision, but what message does it send?” he said. “If you’re an officer, you can simply stand by, stand down, stand idle, and not do anything and wait for everybody to be executed, killed, slaughtered, massacred.”
When asked about the defense case by ABC’s John Quiñones, Jackie’s aunt Julissa Rizo pushed back on the defense narrative that Gonzales acted heroically that day.
“The defense said he did as much as he could,” Quiñones said.
“That’s not true,” she responded. “There were two monsters on May 24. One was the shooter, and the other one was the one that never went in, that could have avoided this.”
How the trial unfolded Each of the 29 counts Gonzales faced carried a maximum penalty of two years in prison, and h. could have spent the rest of his life in prison if he was convicted.
Prosecutors claimed Gonzales had a unique opportunity to stop the carnage when he arrived and learned gunman Salvador Ramos’ location from a teaching aide. The aide testified that she repeatedly urged Gonzales to intervene, but said the officer did “nothing” in those crucial moments. Prosecutors also argued Gonzales failed to act once he got inside the school.
Before jurors were sent to deliberate, District Attorney Christina Mitchell gave an impassioned plea, saying, “I know this case is difficult, and it has been difficult. But we cannot continue to let children die in vain.”
The defense argued that Gonzales did everything he could in that moment — including gathering critical information, evacuating children and entering the school — and said Gonzales acted on the information he had. The defense also highlighted that other officers arrived in the same timeframe as Gonzales and that at least one officer had an opportunity to shoot the gunman before he entered the school.
This case marks the second time in U.S. history that prosecutors have sought to hold a member of law enforcement criminally accountable for their response to a mass shooting.
In 2023, a Florida jury acquitted Scot Peterson, a former Broward County sheriff’s deputy, who was charged with child neglect and culpable negligence for his alleged inaction during the 2018 shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida. Peterson’s lawyers argued his role as an armed school resource officer did not amount to a caregiving post needed to prove child neglect in Florida, and that the response to the shooting was muddled by poor communication.
Former Uvalde Schools Police Chief Pete Arredondo — who was the on-site commander on the day of the Robb Elementary shooting — is also charged with endangerment or abandonment of a child and has pleaded not guilty. Arredondo’s case has been delayed indefinitely by an ongoing federal lawsuit filed after the U.S. Border Patrol refused repeated efforts by Uvalde prosecutors to interview Border Patrol agents who responded to the shooting, including two who were in the tactical unit responsible for killing the gunman at the school.
“What happened to Uvalde on May 24 can happen anywhere, at any time,” she said. “If it’s going to happen, and if we have laws mandating what the responsibility of a law enforcement peace officer is for a school district, then we better be ready to back it up.”
Former President Bill Clinton and former US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton arrive prior to the inauguration of President-elect Donald Trump at the United States Capitol on January 20, 2025 in Washington, DC. (Melina Mara – Pool/Getty Images)
(CHAPPAQUA, NEW YORK) — Former President and first lady Bill and Hillary Clinton are facing lawmakers this week over their ties to convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein. The Clintons are scheduled to participate in closed-door depositions with the House Oversight Committee in Chappaqua, New York, after months of continuous negotiations over their appearance.
Hillary Clinton is scheduled to appear on Thursday, with Bill Clinton appearing the day after. Friday’s deposition will be the first time a former president has appeared in front of a congressional panel since former President Gerald Ford in 1983.
The committee first attempted to subpoena the Clintons in July of last year as Republicans demanded more information on the former president’s travels on Epstein’s private aircraft and what the committee called the “family’s past relationship” with Epstein and his convicted associate Ghislaine Maxwell, as part of their probe into Epstein.
The Clintons were subpoenaed to appear under oath in front of the committee for a deposition in January, but failed to comply, arguing the subpoenas were without legal merit. Rather, they proposed a four-hour transcribed interview instead.
David Kendall, the Clintons’ lawyer, argued that the couple has no information relevant to the committee’s investigation of the federal government’s handling of investigations into Epstein and Maxwell, and should not be required to appear for in-person testimony. Kendall contends the Clintons should be permitted to provide the limited information they have to the committee in writing.
Former Secretary of State Clinton “has no personal knowledge of Epstein or Maxwell’s criminal activities, never flew on his aircraft, never visited his island, and cannot recall ever speaking to Epstein. She has no personal knowledge of Maxwell’s activities with Epstein,” Kendall wrote in an Oct. 6 letter to the committee. “President Clinton’s contact with Epstein ended two decades ago, and given what came to light much after, he has expressed regret for even that limited association.”
Republican House Oversight Chairman James Comer responded that the committee was “skeptical” of the claim that the Clintons only had limited information.
“[T]he Committee believes that it should be provided in a deposition setting, where the Committee can best assess its breadth and value,” Comer responded in October.
Comer had long threatened to hold the Clintons in contempt if they failed to appear before the committee, so when they didn’t, a contempt resolution was drafted and put to a vote. The Oversight Committee passed the contempt resolution, with nine Democrats voting in favor of it, teeing it up for a full House vote.
At the last minute, before the resolution was brought for a full House vote, the Clintons agreed to sit for a deposition, postponing further consideration of a contempt vote.
This week’s interviews with committee investigators will be video recorded and transcribed in accordance with the House’s deposition rules.
“We look forward to questioning the Clintons as part of our investigation into the horrific crimes of Epstein and Maxwell, to deliver transparency and accountability for the American people and for survivors,” Comer said in a statement when the deposition was agreed upon.
While the Clintons have agreed to speak with the committee behind closed doors, they have still pushed for public hearings as part of the committee’s probe into Epstein.
“I will not sit idly as they use me as a prop in a closed-door kangaroo court by a Republican Party running scared,” Bill Clinton wrote in a lengthy post on X. “If they want answers, let’s stop the games & do this the right way: in a public hearing, where the American people can see for themselves what this is really about.”
Hillary Clinton has echoed her husband’s sentiments while also continuing to call for the full release of the Epstein files, which they have accused the Department of Justice of selectively releasing.
“It is something that needs to be totally transparent,” Hillary Clinton said during a panel appearance at the Munich Security Conference earlier this month. “I’ve called for, many, many years, for everything to be put out there so people can not only see what is in them, but also — if appropriate — hold people accountable. We’ll see what happens.”
Neither Bill Clinton nor Hillary Clinton has been accused of wrongdoing and both deny having any knowledge of Epstein’s crimes. No Epstein survivor or associate has ever made a public allegation of wrongdoing or inappropriate behavior by the former president or his wife in connection with his prior relationship with Epstein.
