On December 16, 2025, President Donald Trump announced a “total and complete blockade” of oil tankers entering or leaving Venezuela. Delivered through his personal media platform, Trump described the move as a significant military action, claiming the country was “completely surrounded by the largest Armada ever assembled in the History of South America.” He asserted that this blockade would remain in place until all Venezuelan “oil, land, and other assets” were returned to the United States. This declaration not only escalates tensions with Venezuela but also raises serious concerns regarding its constitutionality and adherence to established legal norms.
The blockade, which has commenced without congressional approval, poses a direct challenge to the War Powers Resolution. This 1973 law was enacted to prevent unilateral military actions by the executive branch without legislative consent. Historically, previous administrations have opted for sanctions, diplomatic strategies, and limited enforcement actions to address foreign disputes over resources. Trump’s blockade, in contrast, signifies a shift from diplomacy to coercive military tactics.
Violation of Constitutional Authority
Under Article I of the US Constitution, the authority to declare war rests solely with Congress. Although Article II designates the President as Commander-in-Chief, it does not permit sustained military operations without legislative oversight. The War Powers Resolution mandates that the President must seek congressional approval for military actions likely to involve hostilities. Trump’s blockade qualifies as a use of force under both domestic and international law, as it asserts control over international waters and restricts access to maritime commerce by a nation-state.
The legality of Trump’s justification for the blockade stems from his claim that Venezuela had “stolen” American oil. However, this assertion lacks historical and legal backing. Venezuela’s oil sector was nationalized in 1976 with the establishment of Petróleos de Venezuela, S.A. Over the years, foreign companies, including US firms like ExxonMobil and ConocoPhillips, operated under negotiated agreements. In the early 2000s, Venezuela took further steps to reclaim control over its resources, transitioning foreign investments into joint ventures with majority state ownership.
These actions were not acts of theft but sovereign decisions that fall within Venezuela’s rights under international law. Disputes that arose were typically settled through arbitration and negotiation, with affected companies often seeking redress through investor-state arbitration mechanisms rather than disputing the legitimacy of nationalization itself.
The Implications of Military Coercion
The difference between sanctions and military action is crucial. Sanctions, enforced by the Office of Foreign Assets Control, regulate economic transactions without authorizing armed intervention against foreign vessels. While there have been isolated incidents of tanker seizures justified under civil forfeiture statutes, the implementation of a systematic blockade marks a dangerous escalation into armed coercion.
This situation transcends a mere legal technicality; it embodies a constitutional crisis. The War Powers Resolution specifies that even emergency military deployments must cease within 60 days unless Congress grants approval. The indefinite nature of the blockade, its announced expansion, and its ties to political demands—such as the return of assets—clearly violate the established legal framework governing the use of military force.
If a President can unilaterally declare and execute a blockade based on economic grievances, the implications for the separation of powers are profound. Today’s target may be Venezuela, but tomorrow it could extend to any nation where US commercial or political interests are perceived to be at risk. The potential for future private claims to trigger military action raises alarm, as the administration’s framing of disputes over oil contracts as theft blurs the lines between regulatory disagreements and justification for military engagement.
The erosion of established norms could undermine international maritime order, compelling future administrations to rely on coercion instead of diplomacy when confronting foreign commerce issues.
Restoring Legal and Diplomatic Norms
While the current situation appears dire, it is not too late to redirect policy. Congress can reclaim its constitutional authority through measures such as resolutions or emergency oversight hearings that reaffirm the War Powers Resolution and prohibit unauthorized military actions. The executive branch should revert to lawful enforcement methods, including civil forfeiture and international arbitration, rather than resorting to a military blockade.
Diplomatic engagement must once again become the cornerstone of US foreign policy. Disputes involving Venezuela’s resource management should be resolved through negotiation, licensing frameworks, and established international claims processes, rather than unilateral military actions.
For decades, the United States has positioned itself as a proponent of a rule-based international order. It is essential to uphold this commitment both internationally and domestically. The blockade of Venezuelan oil tankers, while potentially perceived as a demonstration of strength, ultimately represents a significant erosion of legal principles, precedents, and constitutional governance.
If the executive branch can initiate a blockade without legislative oversight, the Constitution risks becoming a mere suggestion rather than a safeguard of democracy. It is imperative that Congress acts, the judiciary scrutinizes, and the public demands adherence to the rule of law in all matters of governance.
