It is only six days into the new year, and already the holidays feel like a distant memory. Our family welcomed the New Year on the Texas coast near Port Aransas. Forecasts warned of dangerous cold as an Arctic blast pushed south from Canada through the Midwest. Fortunately, the forecasters were wrong. We enjoyed mild beach weather day and night, capped off by a large resort-sponsored campfire to ring in the New Year. I hope you, too, had a pleasant holiday season with friends and family.

That was then. The year has now begun with a jolt of geopolitical disruption from Washington.

Over the weekend, following months of negotiations with Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro, President Trump authorized a dramatic 2:00 a.m. local time operation by elite U.S. Delta Force units. The mission captured President Maduro and his wife and transported them to the United States, where they now await trial. Reports indicate the operation was successful with no U.S. casualties, though more than 32 Venezuelan security personnel were killed during the assault on Maduro’s compound.

The operation carried risks comparable to the May 2, 2011, raid that killed Osama bin Laden in Abbottabad, Pakistan, which was authorized by President Obama. In both cases, the sitting president monitored the mission live as events unfolded through real-time video feeds from U.S. military personnel on the ground.

The assassination of Osama bin Laden removed a powerful symbolic terrorist figure and modestly reduced geopolitical risk, but it had little lasting impact on U.S. economic or market fundamentals. A few years ago, the capture and removal of Venezuela’s leadership would likely have caused significant market disruption. This time, however, global equity markets barely reacted.

One explanation for the muted response is Venezuela’s diminished role in the global oil market. Despite holding the world’s largest proven crude oil reserves, representing approximately 17% of the global total, Venezuela currently produces less than 1% of the world’s oil supply.

More broadly, oil prices themselves have been weak for much of the past two decades. West Texas Intermediate (WTI) has experienced brief, event-driven spikes, but the overall trend since 2000 has been lackluster. Prices fell sharply beginning in mid-2014 as investors anticipated a global transition away from fossil fuels toward renewable energy sources such as solar and wind. Governments committed billions of dollars to subsidies, tax incentives, and aggressive electric-vehicle production mandates. Ironically, oil consumption and production remained relatively steady, even as prices declined.

As a result, U.S. energy stocks have been out of favor for more than 25 years. Halliburton’s share price is only about 0.26% higher today than it was in 2000 after spending many periods underwater. The Philadelphia Oil Service Sector Index has risen just 23.96% over the same period, or less than a 1% annualized return.

That backdrop may be changing.

President Trump’s second term has brought a sharp reversal of long-standing climate and energy policies. Subsidies for renewable energy are being dismantled, and electric-vehicle production mandates are being rolled back. Automakers had been absorbing billions of dollars in losses as unsold EV inventories mounted and consumer demand failed to meet government-imposed quotas. Governments abroad are beginning to implement similar policy shifts.

If oil demand rises meaningfully, Venezuela could once again become relevant to global markets and particularly within the energy sector.

Chevron appears positioned to be one of the primary beneficiaries of regime change in Venezuela, having outlasted many competitors. As The New York Times reported yesterday:

• “The company [Chevron] was the last major U.S. oil company still producing oil in the South American country, many years after others, like Exxon Mobil and ConocoPhillips, had left. For years, Chevron muddled along under short-term exemptions from U.S. sanction policies. Then, in late February, President Trump said he would effectively block the company from producing in Venezuela.

• Ten months later, the situation could not look more different. Mr. Trump reversed course over the summer, allowing Chevron to continue operating in Venezuela. Now the company is in a prime position to benefit after U.S. forces captured President Nicolás Maduro over the weekend in Caracas and ramped up pressure on the country to welcome greater investment from U.S. energy businesses.

• That remarkable turnaround is due in part to a spirited lobbying effort that included several conversations over the past year between Mr. Trump and Mike Wirth, Chevron’s mild-mannered chief executive.”

What Does This Mean to Me?

The year began with a striking contrast between geopolitical drama and market indifference. A high-risk U.S. military operation removed Venezuela’s leadership in an event comparable in complexity to the mission that killed Osama bin Laden. Yet unlike past geopolitical shocks, global equity markets barely reacted. This muted response reflects Venezuela’s diminished role in the global economy, particularly in energy markets, where its oil production now represents less than 1% of global supply despite vast reserves.

For more than two decades, oil prices and U.S. energy equities have struggled amid policy-driven efforts to transition away from fossil fuels. Subsidies for renewables, electric vehicle mandates, and shifting investor sentiment weighed heavily on the sector, even as oil consumption remained resilient. As a result, energy stocks significantly underperformed broader equity markets.

That long-standing dynamic may be nearing an inflection point. Policy reversals in the U.S. and abroad and rolling back renewable subsidies and electric vehicle mandates are beginning to realign energy markets with economic realities. If oil demand strengthens, Venezuela’s vast reserves could once again matter, particularly as U.S. energy companies regain access and influence. Chevron’s positioning in Venezuela highlights how geopolitical change, when combined with shifting energy policy, can create asymmetric opportunities that markets initially overlook.

For investors, the absence of an immediate market reaction should not be mistaken for irrelevance. History suggests that prolonged underinvestment and policy shifts can quietly set the stage for meaningful re-pricing. Energy may once again move from a forgotten sector to a consequential one driven not by speculation, but by fundamentals.