Vance vouched for Vitol trader before firm got Venezuela oil role, Reuters reports

Energy Secretary Chris Wright called Vitol trader John Addison on January 5, two days after the U.S. operation that removed Nicolás Maduro, and asked him to help market Venezuelan oil, Reuters reported November 11. The Energy Department confirmed the call concerned Venezuela. By January 9, Vitol and rival Trafigura had special licenses to market the oil through arrangements issued without competitive bidding, according to Reuters.

The better-supported sequence Reuters reported does not depend on a disputed December 27 meeting in Montana. Addison and an unnamed administration official told Reuters that Vice President JD Vance had previously described Addison to Wright as trustworthy in the energy industry; the official placed that endorsement at least a year before the January 5 call. The Energy Department says Vance and Wright never discussed Venezuelan oil sales. Vance’s office and Addison deny that a December 27 meeting occurred.

Addison’s political giving makes the undisclosed selection process a public-interest question, not proof of a bargain. Reuters said Federal Election Commission records show he gave $300,000 to Protect Ohio Values, a pro-Vance super PAC, in 2022. Addison and his wife gave $7 million to political committees in 2024, including $5 million to MAGA Inc. Those donations establish substantial political support; they do not establish that the oil opportunity was bought.

A January 29 letter from House Oversight ranking Democrat Robert Garcia sought the firms’ communications, meeting materials, compliance records and fund-transfer instructions after press reports about the arrangements. The letter said reporting indicated that Vitol and Trafigura agreed January 9 to help with logistics, financing and sales; it did not independently establish that sequence. Reuters said both companies declined to say whether they answered the request. The January 9 executive order defines protected Venezuelan “Foreign Government Deposit Funds” and bars transfers except as licensed or authorized, but it does not name the firms or disclose selection and pricing criteria.

Public estimates do not support a firm-specific profit claim. Reuters cited an expert estimate of roughly $3 to $3.50 per barrel, or 3.5% to 4%, while reporting more than 200 million barrels of total Venezuelan exports since the operation. The firms’ individual volumes and transaction economics are undisclosed, and not all exports were theirs. Garcia’s letter cited reported gross price differentials of $15 a barrel for Vitol and $8 to $9 for Trafigura; those figures are not audited net profit.

The administration’s countercase is concrete. It says Vitol was chosen for global scale and experience, and both firms deny advance knowledge of the Venezuela operation. Trafigura also received a license. Vitol told Reuters that Addison lacked the technical expertise to negotiate an international crude contract, so regional chief executive Ben Marshall and the company’s crude team handled negotiations. That weakens any claim that Addison personally secured and negotiated the role through political ties, but it does not disclose who compared the firms, under what standards or on what terms.

Official access continued after the oil arrangement. The Energy Department appointed Addison to a two-year Secretary of Energy Advisory Board term in July; official meeting minutes identify him as a co-chair. The appointment is another instance of access and status, not evidence that the oil role was improper or that the advisory position was paid.

Vitol’s compliance history raises the stakes of transparent oversight without proving misconduct in this deal. In 2020, Vitol Inc. entered a deferred prosecution agreement and agreed to a $135 million criminal penalty in a Justice Department foreign-bribery case involving Brazil, Ecuador and Mexico. The resolution did not concern Venezuela’s 2026 oil sales.

The strongest supported finding is narrower than a quid pro quo and more consequential than a disputed meeting: connected political access preceded a valuable opportunity issued without competitive bidding, while the administration has not published the selection criteria, pricing terms, firm-specific volumes or resulting margins. Releasing those records would test the government’s scale-and-urgency explanation against the terms the firms actually received.