On December 16, 2025, former President Donald Trump announced a “total and complete blockade” of oil tankers entering or leaving Venezuela. The statement, made on his personal media platform, claimed that Venezuela was “completely surrounded by the largest Armada ever assembled in the History of South America.” Trump emphasized that this blockade would continue until the Venezuelan government returned all American “oil, land, and other assets.” This declaration raises significant constitutional concerns, as it represents a potential breach of established legal and historical norms regarding the separation of powers in the United States.
The blockade, which is now operational without congressional approval, directly challenges the War Powers Resolution. This important statute, enacted in 1973, was designed to limit the President’s ability to engage in military action without legislative consent. Historically, U.S. administrations have relied on sanctions and diplomatic pressure to resolve disputes over foreign resources. Trump’s approach, however, substitutes diplomatic channels with military force, potentially altering the established approach to international relations.
Constitutional Implications of the Blockade
According to Article I of the U.S. Constitution, the power to declare war or authorize military actions lies solely with Congress. Article II grants the President the role of Commander-in-Chief but does not allow for sustained military actions without legislative approval. The War Powers Resolution mandates that any military deployment likely to lead to hostilities must receive congressional authorization.
By implementing the blockade, Trump is engaging in a use of force that falls under both domestic and international law. Naval blockades are inherently confrontational, asserting control over international waters and restricting access to maritime commerce. This action should not be viewed merely as a foreign policy strategy; it is a potential violation of the Constitution.
Historical Context and Legal Justifications
Trump’s rationale for the blockade, claiming that Venezuela “stole” American oil, lacks historical and legal backing. The Venezuelan oil sector was nationalized in 1976 with the establishment of Petróleos de Venezuela, S.A.. Over the years, foreign companies, including U.S. firms like ExxonMobil and ConocoPhillips, operated under specific terms. In the early 2000s, Venezuela shifted control of these assets, transitioning from foreign-operated projects to joint ventures where the state maintained majority ownership.
These decisions were not acts of theft but rather sovereign actions within Venezuela’s rights under international law. Disputes arising from these actions were traditionally settled through arbitration and negotiation rather than military force. In contrast to previous U.S. responses to resource disputes in Latin America, such as those in Mexico, Bolivia, and El Salvador, the shift towards military coercion in Venezuela is both unprecedented and destabilizing.
The distinction between sanctions and military action is crucial. Sanctions, enforced by the Office of Foreign Assets Control, regulate economic transactions without authorizing armed actions against foreign vessels. Previous incidents of vessel seizures were justified under civil forfeiture statutes linked to terrorism or sanctions violations, but transitioning to a systematic blockade represents an alarming escalation into military coercion.
The Need for Legislative Action
The indefinite nature of the blockade, along with its political motivations, raises serious questions about its legality. Under the War Powers Resolution, even emergency military actions must cease within 60 days unless Congress grants approval. Trump’s blockade, which ties military operations to demands for the return of Venezuelan assets, clearly oversteps the executive’s constitutional authority.
If a President can unilaterally declare a naval blockade based on economic grievances, the foundation of the separation of powers is at risk. This precedent could lead future administrations to engage in military actions based solely on private claims, fundamentally altering international relations and the established norms of governance.
It is essential for Congress to reclaim its constitutional authority. Through measures such as House Concurrent Resolution 64 and emergency oversight hearings, lawmakers can enforce the War Powers Resolution and prevent unauthorized military actions. The executive branch must also return to legal enforcement methods, relying on civil forfeiture, targeted sanctions, and international arbitration instead of coercive military operations.
Preserving Rule-Based International Order
The blockade represents a significant erosion of constitutional governance. It signals a troubling shift towards autocracy, where unilateral actions are taken without checks and balances. For decades, the United States has positioned itself as a champion of a rules-based international order. This reputation cannot be upheld if the principles of law and governance are undermined at home.
The ongoing blockade of Venezuelan oil tankers may be perceived by some as a demonstration of strength; however, it risks damaging the very foundations of legality and governance. If the executive can impose a blockade without legislative approval, the Constitution may no longer serve as a protective framework but rather as a suggestion.
To restore balance, Congress must act decisively, the courts must scrutinize executive actions rigorously, and the public must demand accountability. The situation calls for diplomatic engagement to address disputes over Venezuela’s resource management through negotiation and legal avenues, not military coercion.