Mehek Cooke criticized Democrats for their response to President Donald Trump securing majority U.S. control over more than 65 billion barrels of Venezuelan oil, arguing the move carries major economic and strategic benefits for the United States.

Cooke said she noticed a lack of positive reaction from Democrats while reviewing responses to the development on X.

"Are you guys seeing what I'm seeing on X? I mean, I'm scrolling, and there's something strange going on. Are you tracking?" Cooke said.

She argued that Trump's move involving Venezuelan oil should draw support from political leaders concerned about American families, domestic energy supplies and gas prices.

Trump's Sovereign Wealth Fund: What Could It Mean For Your Money?

"President Trump secures a majority U.S. control over more than 65 billion barrels of Venezuelan oil, and guess what? Not a single Democrat managed to say this could be good for American families," Cooke said. "Goes to show you, they don't know what they stand for."

Cooke contrasted the Democratic response with previous support for releases from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve when a Democratic administration sought to address energy prices.

"But apparently gas prices aren't good enough. It's only when a Democrat releases, I don't know, a few million barrels from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve," Cooke said.

She argued that the scale of Trump's move is substantially greater and said it could double America's reserves while shifting energy influence away from foreign competitors and other major energy-producing regions.

FREE Gun Law Map: Laws Don't Pause During Social Unrest

"But when President Trump secures 65 billion barrels, doubles America's reserves, and shifts energy power away from places like China, Iran, the Middle East, suddenly nobody says anything on the left," Cooke said.

Cooke said the significance extends beyond the possibility of lower prices at the pump.

She argued that increasing the amount of oil under U.S. control could affect expectations surrounding future supplies and market pricing while providing opportunities for American businesses.

"This isn't just about cheaper gas prices tomorrow, it's about market price and future supply today," Cooke said.

She also pointed to potential effects on refineries, investment and employment, framing the development as part of a broader strategy to increase American energy power in the Western Hemisphere.

"It's about American refineries, private investment, thousands of jobs, and energy dominance here in our Western Hemisphere," Cooke said.

Cooke's comments also focused on the political timing of Trump's action, with the midterm elections approaching.

She described the agreement as a significant achievement for the president and argued that Democrats were unwilling to acknowledge its potential benefits because of their opposition to Trump.

"It's the biggest, baddest deal that President Trump could have made before the midterms," Cooke said.

Cooke accused Democrats of suffering from what Trump supporters commonly call "TDS," or Trump Derangement Syndrome, arguing that partisan opposition prevents Trump's critics from recognizing policies she believes benefit the country.

"And Democrats are so afflicted, again, with TDS, they would rather pay $5 a gallon, continue to say boohoo, than admit that President Trump made a clutch move right before the midterms, not just for the American people temporarily, but for the next generation," Cooke said.

WATCH:

Her argument centered on the distinction between short-term government efforts to influence fuel supplies and a longer-term strategy involving access to significant Venezuelan oil reserves.

Cooke maintained that Trump's action should be viewed through the broader issues of energy security, domestic investment and competition with countries such as China and Iran rather than exclusively through immediate changes in gasoline prices.

She also argued that greater American influence over energy resources in the Western Hemisphere could strengthen the country's strategic position for years to come.

For Cooke, Democrats' response — or lack of one — demonstrated a political unwillingness to recognize what she described as a major energy achievement by Trump.

She maintained that the benefits could reach beyond the current political cycle and affect American energy supplies, businesses and workers well into the future.

The opinions expressed by contributors and/or content partners are their own and do not necessarily reflect the views of Objectivist. Contact us for guidelines on submitting your own commentary.