CMR is the leading provider of funding and management support for small to medium-sized businesses and entrepreneurs 

Within mere hours after President Trump announced the Saturday capture by US forces of Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro and his wife after a brief shock bombing campaign and special forces operation in Caracas, Russia has demanded from Washington his immediate release.

"We firmly call on the U.S. leadership to reconsider this position and release the lawfully elected president of a sovereign country and his wife," the Russian Foreign Ministry said in a statement, and described that the crisis should be resolved through diplomatic means.

"Russia will continue to support the course pursued by its Bolivarian leadership to defend the country's national interests and sovereignty," the Foreign Ministry said, while also calling for restraint and cautioning against further escalation.

This of course contradicts the US stance, which maintains that Maduro and his socialist government 'stole' the last July elections which kept him in power.

Moscow's demand that the US release and return Maduro, which is extremely unlikely at this point, comes amid rumors that Venezuelan Vice President Delcy Rodriguez Gomez is actually in Moscow. Russian officials have called these rumors and reports "fake", however.

Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov meanwhile said he held a phone conversation with Gomez, during which he conveyed his "solidarity with the Venezuelan people in the face of armed aggression."

According to Venezuela's national constitution, the Vice President assumes the power of the presidency, but amid the quick power vacuum opening up, it's anyone's guess what leadership in the country will look like even by next week.

China has joined Moscow's calls for the immediate release of Maduro from US custody:

China has called on the United States to immediately release Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro after Washington carried out massive military strikes on the capital, Caracas, as well as other regions, and abducted the leader.

Beijing on Sunday insisted the safety of Maduro and his wife Cilia Flores be a priority, and called on the US to "stop toppling the government of Venezuela," calling the attack a "clear violation of international law".

Russia's embassy in Caracas has made clear it is continuing to operate normally and remains in close communication with both Venezuelan officials and Russian nationals in the country. It confirmed in a statement that no Russian citizens were killed or injured in the attack.

There are reports that 40 people total died during the assault - possibly mostly at the large military bases struck in and around the capital, as the NY Times writes, "At least 40 people were killed in the U.S. attack on Venezuela early Saturday, including military personnel and civilians, according to a senior Venezuelan official who spoke on condition of anonymity to describe preliminary reports."

News: The CIA covertly installed a small team inside Venezuela over the summer, to track Maduro’s patterns, locations and movements, which helped bolster Saturday’s operation as to his exact whereabouts and where he would be sleeping, a sources familiar with the plans tell me…

— Alayna Treene (@alaynatreene) January 3, 2026

China, Russia, Iran and other US rivals have vehemently condemned what they've characterized as a brazen act of aggression in the regime change operation. As months of US military build-up in the region unfolded, there was ample speculation that a full land invasion would ensue, or else kinetic strikes on cartel locations; however, few analysts could have envisioned a relatively clean special forces kidnapping op of a head of state. Currently, it is widely believed there must have been high-ranking military officials assisting the US behind the scenes - given just how quickly Maduro was apprehended in the capital.

As the dust settles on President Trump's Friday-night blitz on Venezuela, suspicions of insider trading on the secret operation are rising, after a brand-new Polymarket account scored a huge profit by betting on a US military attack just before it happened. As a result, a US House representative is already preparing to introduce a bill that would prohibit government officials from using inside info to profit in prediction markets. 

The account in question was created on Dec. 27, and quickly placed roughly $34,000 in bets on US intervention in Venezuela and Maduro's ouster both happening by January 31. On the Maduro prediction alone, the account scored a 1,242% gain, turning $32,537 into $436,760. At the time of the bets, the market placed the probability of intervention in January at just 6%.   

The list of suspects could be quite a long one, given the military was poised to strike for days. "We were going to do this four days ago but the weather was not perfect," Trump said after the attacks and Maduro's extraction. "And then all of a sudden it opened up and we said go." Military officials were said to have contemplated a Christmas-day attack. What's more, given officials' public talk about rehearsals of the operation, preparations likely spanned weeks, following months of a build-up of assets in the region.

That said, one can't entirely rule out the possibility of someone outside reading headlines and placing a big bet, and the mystery account wasn't the only one placing bets on US intervention. According to the Wall Street Journal, more than $56 million had been placed on Maduro's ouster, with $11 million betting he'd be gone by Jan. 31. Another $40 million in losing bets had been placed on him leaving by Nov. 30 or Dec. 31.  This X user claimed to have made $80,000 by translating a surge in Pentagon-area pizza traffic into imminent military action: 

How i made 80,000$ in a single night using @Polymarket
Basically ever since the US brought their largest aircraft carrier i knew a strike was 100% going to happen, but i did not know when. So i built a vibe coded bot to track the dominos pizza orders around the pentagon because… https://t.co/Jx1ODEGtJ2

— Sweetcheeks (??,??) (@SweetcheeksReal) January 3, 2026

Regardless of who owns all those accounts, Democratic New York Rep. Ritchie Torres is planning to target officials' potential to profit from access to government secrets. According to Jake Sherman of Punchbowl News, Torres will introduce the "Public Integrity in Financial Prediction Markets Act of 2026." Here's how Sherman's source describes it: 

This bill prohibits federal elected officials, political appointees, and Executive Branch employees from engaging in certain transactions involving prediction market contracts when they either possess material nonpublic information relevant to the transaction or could reasonably obtain such information through their official duties. The restriction applies to buying, selling, or exchanging prediction market contracts tied to government policy, government action, or political outcomes on platforms engaged in interstate commerce.

Torres is targeting a narrow universe of people, leaving plenty of opportunity for other people in government to profit from inside information -- such as a staff sergeant at the Pentagon, or his girlfriend. Outside government, staffers at the Washington Post and New York Times also had an opportunity to profit on the Venezuela operation, as Semafor reports that both outlets learned of the operation shortly before it took place, but refrained from publishing the news to avoid putting US forces in peril.  

Responding to news of Torres' upcoming bill, Polymarket rival Kalshi said its rules prohibit trading by anyone inside or outside of government who "has access to material non-public information that is the subject of an Underlying of any Contract or that has the ability to exert any influence on the subject of an Underlying of any Contract." Of course, platform rules are one thing and federal laws are another. The Block notes that Donald Trump Jr has advisory roles on both prediction platforms. 

It was Baron Trump.

— Cornelius Vanderbilt (@supplychainldr) January 3, 2026

Air travel across the Caribbean has normalized after a day of disruptions triggered by a U.S. special forces operation that successfully captured Venezuela's socialist dictator Nicolás Maduro.

Late Saturday night, Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy wrote on X that "original restrictions around Caribbean airspace are expiring at 12:00 a.m. ET and flights can resume."

"Airlines are informed and will update their schedules quickly. Please continue to work with your airline if your flight was affected by the restrictions," Duffy said.

UPDATE: The original restrictions around the Caribbean airspace are expiring at 12:00am ET and flights can resume.

Airlines are informed, and will update their schedules quickly. Please continue to work with your airline if your flight was affected by the restrictions. https://t.co/5Cv46Xnjy4

— Secretary Sean Duffy (@SecDuffy) January 4, 2026

There was widespread confusion on Saturday as flights across the Caribbean were canceled or delayed following the U.S. operation in Venezuela. Airspace over Puerto Rico was temporarily restricted, forcing the cancellation of departures from Luis Muñoz Marín International Airport, officials at the airport wrote in a statement. At least 150 outbound flights from the region's busiest Caribbean hub were cancelled, according to flight tracking website FlightAware, while another 140 inbound flights bound for San Juan were also canceled.

Delta Air Lines said normal operations in the region would resume early Sunday after airspace restrictions were lifted at 13 Caribbean airports.

Some of the affected airports Delta listed included:

• V.C. Bird International Airport (ANU)

• Queen Beatrix International Airport (AUA)

• Grantley Adams International Airport (BGI)

• Flamingo International Airport (BON)

• Curaçao International Airport (CUR)

• Maurice Bishop International Airport (GND)

• Luis Muñoz Marín International Airport (SJU)

• Robert L. Bradshaw International Airport (SKB)

• Cyril E. King Airport (STT)

• Henry E. Rohlsen Airport (STX)

• Argyle International Airport (SVD)

• Princess Juliana International Airport (SXM)

• Hewanorra International Airport (UVF)

One reader traveling inbound to Cancún said early Saturday that his Frontier Airlines flight was delayed, citing the captain, who told passengers the disruption was due to airspace restrictions.

In addition to Delta and Frontier, American Airlines, JetBlue, Southwest Airlines, and Spirit Airlines also experienced flight disruptions on Saturday.

Readers can catch up on the latest reporting (here), detailing Maduro's capture, how he was captured by Delta Force operators, and his transfer with his wife to New York City, where he was placed in federal detention. Maduro has been charged with drug trafficking and terrorism-related charges. 

Nicolas Maduro and his wife, Cilia Flores, have been indicted in the Southern District of New York. Nicolas Maduro has been charged with Narco-Terrorism Conspiracy, Cocaine Importation Conspiracy, Possession of Machineguns and Destructive Devices, and Conspiracy to Possess…

— Attorney General Pamela Bondi (@AGPamBondi) January 3, 2026

The good news is that air traffic will begin to normalize across the Caribbean as restrictions expire and carriers begin restoring schedules.

Submitted by Thomas Kolbe

The German economic crisis is slowly but surely making its way into the balance sheets of banks. Above all, the crisis in the largely credit-financed Mittelstand is increasingly weighing on savings banks and cooperative banks.

The year 2025 is ending as a disastrous year for the German economy. Around 24,000 companies filed for insolvency—a record figure, surpassed only in the crisis year 2003 following the bursting of the dotcom bubble and the subsequent recession. Back then, a total of 39,000 companies went bankrupt.

Deindustrialization and Loan Defaults 

Loan defaults in the past year are estimated at around €57 billion. These losses hit suppliers and banks hard, especially since the German Mittelstand finances roughly 40% through savings banks and 25% through cooperative banks.

Already in the previous year, losses from corporate insolvencies had accumulated to around €59 billion. The causes have long been known: the persistent weakness of the German economy results from a toxic mix of overregulation, climate-policy-driven deindustrialization, a self-inflicted energy crisis, and high fiscal burdens. This poisonous cocktail severely strains the economy, weakens private demand, and makes industrial production in Germany increasingly unattractive on the international stage.

The ripple effects of a roughly 20% drop in industrial production reach far into other sectors. Supplier companies as well as industry-related services are increasingly under pressure—and are collapsing in many areas.

Pressure Beneath the Surface 

At first glance, the German banking sector still appears stable. Industry giant Deutsche Bank increased its pre-tax profit in Q3 2025 by 8% year-on-year to €2.4 billion. The bank saw growth across all business areas—from traditional lending to investment banking to asset management.

The situation is different for cooperative banks. Volks- und Raiffeisenbanken already suffered a 25% drop in profits last year compared to the previous year. Further revenue declines are expected for 2025. The main reasons are the persistently weak economy, rising geopolitical tensions, and higher risk provisions in the face of growing credit default risks.

Germany’s once stable three-pillar banking model—private large banks, public-sector institutions like savings banks and state banks, and cooperative banks—still shows outward growth. But beneath the surface, deep cracks are forming: years of low interest rates have sharply squeezed bank margins, and the abrupt interest rate reversal is weighing on both businesses and consumers. Added to this is the problematic close entanglement between cooperative banks and politics.

For example, the agricultural cooperative BayWa in Bavaria nearly went bankrupt after engaging in global renewable energy investments—leaving a €100 million loss.

This example illustrates the risks of political steering of the banking sector through public institute credit guarantees like KfW. Nowadays, billions are channeled annually into the climate economy and the military sector—keeping a zombie economy afloat that could never survive in a free capital market.

Examples of the emerging banking crisis are multiplying: VR-Bank Dortmund Nordwest suffered losses of €280 million from risky real estate fund investments, requiring a bailout from the Cooperative Protection Fund (BVR).

VR-Bank Bad Salzungen-Schmalkalden lost a similar amount in dubious real estate deals two years ago and also called on the BVR for rescue. These cases show that banks, facing a declining credit business with the Mittelstand, are forced to move outward on the risk curve to generate operational profits.

The effects are tangible: a BaFin analysis shows that last year, about 1.9% of savings bank loans and 2.2% of cooperative bank loans were non-performing. This corresponds to a volume of €36.5 billion—a 25% increase from the previous year. Consequently, banks are forced to increase credit risk provisions—freezing more capital and making new loans harder to grant.

\Branch Closures and a Mortgage Crisis on the Horizon 

Raiffeisenbank Hochtaunus recently fell into serious financial trouble after making €500 million in value adjustments to its real estate portfolio.

Creaking sounds are coming from all corners of the German economy. It is expected that the economic crisis will translate into a crisis of regional banks’ mortgage portfolios, alongside private insolvencies. Stress in the banking system is increasing quarter by quarter.

Banks are responding to growing pressure with tough measures. Over 1,000 bank branches are closed annually in Germany. The local Sparkasse may soon become a thing of the past. This not only makes personal consultations harder for older customers but also hits bank clients in rural areas. Small and medium-sized enterprises, craft businesses, bakeries, and local retailers who rely on personal financial advice increasingly find fewer direct contacts and a trusted banking environment.

Balance Sheet Damage Becomes Visible 

Bank balance sheets reflect the overall economic situation. At the same time, they are influenced by financial and fiscal policy developments. Years of elevated loan defaults erode the financial substance of banks just as much as the globally high sovereign debt, which has caused significant devaluations of bond holdings on balance sheets.

In short: the longer the crisis in the private economy persists and the more it is exacerbated by fiscal undiscipline and growing government debt, the lower the lending potential of the banking sector.

This is precisely the crux of monetary policy. The European Central Bank can lower interest rates and private sector financing costs all it wants. Lending in the real economy is determined by the interaction between private companies and credit-granting banks.

Unless Germany’s economic outlook brightens considerably—which, under current political conditions, is unlikely—lending will significantly slow on the one hand, while defaults accelerate on the other. This would be further evidence that the German economy is continuing to sink deeper and deeper into a contraction phase.

* * * 

About the author: Thomas Kolbe is a German graduate economist. For over 25 years, he has worked as a journalist and media producer for clients from various industries and business associations. As a publicist, he focuses on economic processes and observes geopolitical events from the perspective of the capital markets. His publications follow a philosophy that focuses on the individual and their right to self-determination.

Authored by Tilak Doshi via Substack,

As the year drew to a close, the guardians of climate orthodoxy once again unleashed their ritualistic howls of indignation at the actions of the Trump administration. Last week’s op-ed in The Guardian, Bob Ward and Michael Mann—attack dogs of the alarmist establishment—likened the US government’s decision to dismantle the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) to tyranny, “paid for” by fossil fuel interests. Their op-ed opens with the astonishing claim that the Soviet dictator Joseph Stalin “would have understood and even appreciated” Trump’s actions.

They accuse President Trump of suppressing climate science, evoking the spectre of Lysenkoism, that infamous episode where ideology trumped empirical inquiry under Stalin’s regime. The irony is exquisite even if lost on its progenitors. Here are two figures who have spent their careers calling for the cancelling of dissenters, now projecting their own sins onto a political leader intent on liberating science from ideological captivity.

An Orwellian Malignancy

This latest salvo is no aberration but a symptom of a deeper malaise. The climate alarmist narrative, much like its twin in the COVID-19 hysteria, relies on a censorship complex that brands any deviation as “misinformation.” Ward, a fixture in the environmental NGO circuit, has long specialized in ad hominem attacks on respected academics like Richard Lindzen and Richard Tol, dismissing their peer-reviewed critiques as heresy. Mann, infamous for his “hockey stick” graph that conveniently erased historical climate variability to fabricate a crisis, has faced courtroom rebukes for his litigious zeal. In his defamation suits, judges have accused him and his legal team of misleading tactics, underscoring the fraudulence of his claims. Yet, in the pages of The Guardian—that reliable echo chamber for green ideologues—the pair inverts reality, portraying Trump’s defunding of activist institutions as censorship, when it is precisely the opposite.

Consider the economic and institutional realities underpinning this charade. NCAR, after over five decades, has devolved into a taxpayer-funded propaganda mill, churning out models that predict apocalyptic futures while ignoring the stubborn facts of atmospheric physics and human adaptation. The Trump administration’s move to shutter it aligns with a broader push to restore scientific integrity, as outlined in the president’s “Gold Standard Science“ executive order. This directive mandates transparency in federally funded research, ensuring that models and data are replicable and free from the biases that plague alarmist projections. Far from Stalinist suppression, this is a reclamation of science from the clutches of unelected bureaucrats and their NGO allies, who funnel billions into “climate education” grants that invariably promote one-sided advocacy. NOAA, for instance, routinely awarded multimillion-dollar sums to nonprofits peddling green dogma, all under the guise of environmental stewardship.

The parallels with the COVID-19 debacle are striking, revealing how the misinformation label serves as a blunt instrument for silencing debate across scientific domains. Just as climate skeptics are tarred as “deniers,” COVID dissenters were branded spreaders of falsehoods. Stanford’s Jay Bhattacharya, a leading epidemiologist, recently highlighted this hubris in a post on X: the notion that a cabal of bureaucrats and activist scientists can infallibly discern truth from error on complex matters is not just arrogant—it’s delusional. Bhattacharya himself endured censorship orchestrated by Anthony Fauci who among others in the medical establishment pressured social media platforms to throttle views challenging lockdowns and vaccine mandates.

Across the Atlantic, the European Union’s censorship regime under European Commission president Ursula von der Leyen exemplifies this technocratic overreach. The unelected Eurocrat boasts of safeguarding free speech against “harmful and illegal activities” online with its Digital Services Act. It aims to restrict media platforms which host “disinformation” and critical views on mass immigration, the Ukraine conflict, or the ruinous costs of the green agenda in Europe.

In a rant that would impress Orwell, Ms. Von der Leyen speaks about how “pre-bunking” is preferable to “de-bunking” alleged untruths and where alleged “misinformation” is a virus:

“…we need to build up societal immunity around information manipulation, because research has shown that pre-bunking is much more successful than debunking. Pre-bunking is basically the opposite of debunking. In short, prevention is preferable to cure. Perhaps if you think of information manipulation as a virus—instead of treating an infection once it has taken hold, that is debunking—it’s much better to vaccinate so that the body is inoculated.”

Where have we heard that vaccination/inoculation story before? Perhaps we should not digress into Ms. Von der Leyen’s missing SMS phone messages which sealed the EU’s deal for 1.8 billion doses of corona “vaccine” costing €35 billion negotiated with Pfizer CEO Albert Bourla.

In New Zealand, former Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern went further, declaring government sources the sole arbiters of COVID truth, effectively criminalizing legitimate critiques from sceptical doctors and scientists upholding their Hippocratic oath. This Orwellian stance—where state-approved narratives are sacrosanct—mirrors the climate arena, where questioning net-zero fantasies invites professional ruin.

The Trumpian Pushback

The EU’s Digital Services Act plans to coerce social media giants into suppressing content that challenges Brussels’ orthodoxies, leading to a chilling effect on open discourse throughout the world. Earlier in the month, the European Commission fined Elon Musk’s X $140 million for “failing to comply” with regulations. But it is now a Trumpian world which frustrates Eurocrats to no end. America’s commitment to First Amendment principles clashes with Europe’s slide into regulatory authoritarianism. The US house judiciary committee describes the digital regulations as censorship which is “largely one-sided, almost uniformly targeting political conservatives.”

The US Secretary of State Marco Rubio shot back last week:

“For far too long, ideologues in Europe have led organized efforts to coerce American platforms to punish American viewpoints they oppose. The Trump Administration will no longer tolerate these egregious acts of extraterritorial censorship. Today, @StateDept will take steps to bar leading figures of the global censorship-industrial complex from entering the United States. We stand ready and willing to expand this list if others do not reverse course.”

The U.S. state department’s sanctions on NGO leaders and a former EU official involved in these efforts underscore the geopolitical rift. Under Secretary Sarah Rogers detailed the individuals and the reasons why they have been barred. On the US state ban list are Imran Ahmed (Centre for Countering Digital Hate), Josephine Ballon and Anna-Lena von Hodenberg (HateAid), Thierry Breton (former EU Commissioner) as well as Clare Melford (Global Disinformation Index).

Let’s go through each of these censors.

Thierry Breton was a key architect of the Digital Services Act. In August 2024, as European Commissioner for Internal Markets and Digital Services, he issued a letter to threaten Elon Musk ahead of his live stream interview with candidate Trump who was campaigning for his second term. The hubris of an EU functionary to warn Mr. Musk that his platform could be charged for amplifying harmful content in the EU can only be described as bizarre.

Undersecretary Rogers accused the UK citizen Imran Ahmed of collaborating “with the Biden Administration’s effort to weaponize the government against U.S. citizens” in a social media post on December 23rd, writing that his organization published the “infamous ‘disinformation dozen’ report” that spurred a campaign to de-platform those questioning the safety of COVID-19 vaccines including the current Department of Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. .

“Leaked documents from CCDH show the organization listed ‘kill Musk’s Twitter,’ and ’trigger EU and UK regulatory action’ as priorities…The organization supports the UK’s Online Safety Act and EU’s Digital Services Act to expand censorship in Europe and around the world.”

It is interesting and not coincidental that Imran Ahmed’s CCDH was founded by Morgan Sweeny, Kier Starmer’s chief adviser. Clare Melford is the founder of the Global Disinformation Index, another British NGO that vigorously pursues anti-“hate-speech” activism, in fact hunting down anyone who has views different from the official dogma on climate change or so-called anti-vaxxers

Anna Lena von Hodenberg is the leader and founder of Hate Aid, a German NGO founded after the 2017 German federal elections to counter conservative groups such as the AfD. Ms. Anna and her NGO is an official “trusted flagger” under the EU’s digital services act. Clare Melford. Ahmed is the CEO of The Center for Countering Digital Hate, and Melford is the founder of the Global Disinformation Index, both two entities extremely active in anti-“hate-speech” activism, in fact hunting down anyone who has views different from the official dogma on climate change or so-called anti-vaxxers,

Morally Bankruptcy of the Eurocrats

Von der Leyen’s pronouncements on “inoculated information” ring hollow amid Europe’s deindustrialization, where energy policies driven by climate ideology have shuttered factories, spiked power prices, and eroded competitiveness. Germany’s Energiewende, once hailed as a model, now stands as a cautionary tale of economic self-harm, with manufacturing output shares plummeting and GDP growth stagnating.

At the heart of this EU-led censorship complex lies a modern Lysenkoism, where ideology masquerades as science. Today’s climate Lysenkoists similarly dismiss empirical inconveniences: satellite data showing no acceleration in sea-level rise, historical records of globally warmer periods like the Medieval Warm Period, or the economic models demonstrating that net-zero targets would cost trillions while yielding negligible climate benefits. But Eurocrats will condemn as “misinformation” self-evident arguments that cheap, reliable energy is the bedrock of human welfare. Witness Asia’s ascent, where coal, oil and gas have fueled GDP growth rates averaging 7% over decades, slashing poverty from 60% to under 5% in regions like East Asia.

The institutional incentives behind climate alarmism are pernicious. Multilateral agencies like the IMF and World Bank, alongside green lobbies, perpetuate myths of “fossil fuel subsidies“ that distort markets, penalizing hydrocarbons while subsidizing intermittent renewables to the tune of $1.3 trillion annually globally. In Africa, the push for “renewable leapfrogging“ ignores the continent’s dire need for baseload power, condemning millions to energy poverty under the banner of climate justice. Western elites, insulated from the consequences, preach degrowth while developing nations in BRICS+ reject such masochism, opting for pragmatic energy mixes that prioritize growth over virtue-signaling.

The contradictions of the censors of “misinformation” are glaring: alarmists decry “misinformation” while propagating doomsday scenarios that fail to materialize—recall the 50 years of apocalyptic predictions. Europe’s precipitous industrial decline exposes the folly of subordinating energy policies to ideology. In the U.S., the virtue signalling ESG investment drive — pushed by BlackRock’s Larry Fink among others — which funnelled trillions into underperforming green assets, is unravelling as returns lag and lawsuits mount over fiduciary breaches.

A New Year’s Gift

Yet, there is cause for optimism in this twilight of technocratic hubris. President Trump’s re-election signals a pivot toward evidence-based policy, unshackling science from the misinformation inquisition. By defunding activist enclaves like NCAR and enforcing transparency via executive order, the administration paves the way for genuine inquiry. Imagine a world where debates on climate sensitivity, the role of solar cycles, or the costs of adaptation are conducted openly, without fear of cancellation.

As Jay Bhattarcharya reminds us, free speech and replication as the standard of truth are necessary conditions for science to flourish. We need rational argument and data, not the censorship of state-defined “misinformation”. The US state department censoring the censors is good news as the New Year beckons.

Oil remains one of the most strategically important resources in the global economy. It powers transportation systems, underpins industrial activity, and continues to shape geopolitics and trade flows. While renewable energy is growing, oil still plays a dominant role in meeting global energy needs.

This visualization, via Visual Capitalist's Bruno Venditti, ranks countries by the size of their proven oil reserves at the end of 2024.

The data for this graphic comes from OPEC’s Annual Statistical Bulletin 2025. Figures represent proven oil reserves as of year-end 2024 and are measured in billions of barrels. The data includes conventional crude oil as well as oil sands.

Four Countries Dominate Global Oil Reserves

Global oil reserves are highly concentrated.

Venezuela ranks first with an estimated 303 billion barrels of oil reserves. However, turning this vast resource base into economic and geopolitical power has proven difficult, as ongoing U.S. sanctions and the recent seizure of Venezuelan oil shipments under the Trump administration continue to limit the Maduro government’s ability to export crude and fully monetize its reserves.

Saudi Arabia follows the South American country with 267 billion barrels. Iran, Canada, and Iraq round out the top five.

Rank	Country	2024 (Billion Barrels)
1	Venezuela	303,221
2	Saudi Arabia	267,200
3	Iran	208,600
4	Canada	163,000
5	Iraq	145,019
6	United Arab Emirates	113,000
7	Kuwait	101,500
8	Russia	80,000
9	Libya	48,363
10	United States	45,014
11	Nigeria	37,280
12	Kazakhstan	30,000
13	China	28,182
14	Qatar	25,244
15	Brazil	15,894
16	Algeria	12,200
17	Ecuador	8,273
18	Azerbaijan	7,000
19	Norway	6,912
20	Mexico	5,136
21	Sudan	5,000
22	India	4,981
23	Oman	4,971
24	Vietnam	4,400
25	Egypt	3,300
26	Argentina	2,999
27	Malaysia	2,700
28	Angola	2,550
29	Indonesia	2,410
30	Colombia	2,019
31	Gabon	2,000
32	Congo	1,811
33	Australia	1,803
34	United Kingdom	1,500
35	Brunei	1,100
36	Equatorial Guinea	1,100
37	Turkmenistan	600
38	Uzbekistan	594
39	Ukraine	395
40	Denmark	365
41	Belarus	198
42	Chile	150

The Role of OPEC and the Middle East

Many of the world’s largest oil reserves are held by OPEC members, particularly in the Middle East. Saudi Arabia, Iran, Iraq, Kuwait, and the United Arab Emirates anchor the region’s dominance.

These countries benefit from low extraction costs and large, easily accessible reserves. As a result, Middle Eastern producers are expected to remain critical suppliers even as global demand growth slows.

Oil Sands and Non-OPEC Producers

Canada stands out among non-OPEC countries, ranking fourth globally with 163 billion barrels of reserves. The majority of Canada’s reserves come from oil sands, which are more expensive and carbon-intensive to extract. Russia and the United States also rank among the top 10.

Taken together, the data highlights how unevenly oil resources are distributed and why oil-rich nations continue to have significant economic and geopolitical power.

If you enjoyed today’s post, check out Charted: Global Grid Investment by Country (2020–2027F) on Voronoi, the new app from Visual Capitalist.

As December BGE bills arrive after a cold winter, many Harford County residents say soaring energy costs are leaving them frightened and overwhelmed, according to Fox Baltimore.

Jenny, who lives in a 1,000-square-foot home and keeps her thermostat in the mid-60s, is facing a bill of about $400 despite working full time and spending most of the day out of the house.

"The fear of being turned off, especially with it being you some mornings in the teens, the being fearful," Jenny said. "Can I afford groceries this month, or do I pay this BGE bill and go to food pantries?"

"Nothing in my life has actually changed. I still work full time. I'm out of the house all day working, and I just think that these rates are outrageous," she added.

Across town, Teresa Stepp received a bill exceeding $1,200.

"Everybody uses more gas and electric for heat in the winter that is not uncommon. It is the norm, so with that being said, still it seems excessive," Stepp said.

BGE reports that for the 30-day period ending Dec. 21, 2025, electric heating customers used 11% more energy than last year, while gas customers used 13% more, driven by colder weather. Higher distribution rates, rising supply costs across the PJM region, state-driven fees, and limited in-state energy generation—Maryland now imports about 40% of its power—have also pushed bills higher.

"What do you pick and choose? I have to have car insurance. I have to get to work. It's just a lot. It's very stressful," Jenny said.

Fox Baltimore writes that recent rate changes add further pressure. A new increase raises the average residential electric bill by $1.07 per month and gas by $2.65. Beginning in February, an additional PSC-approved increase adds 72 cents for electric customers and $1.95 for gas customers each month through 2027.

While lawmakers approved limited relief last year, residents say it falls short.

"And then they say, "Okay, well, we're going to give you a bit of a rebate,"" Stepp said. "It was $40, so the impact is I have medical bills, and those are astronomical. My husband had a stroke last year. We're still bailing out of that. The food bills have tripled. The cost of my car registration has tripled."

"My message is, you're forcing us to leave," she added.
"You are forcing people that have been native to Maryland, that the people that have paid their way, paved the way as a part of the economy for years and years that you're saying we can no longer afford to live here. I can't."

A BGE spokesperson said the company is working to balance affordability with the need to provide safe electric and gas service and noted customers can seek payment assistance at BGE.com/billhelp.

"Please make changes, the governor, BGE, whomever, please change this immediately, because it's affecting all of us," Jenny said. "It's not okay,"