On December 16, 2025, former President Donald Trump announced a “total and complete blockade” of oil tankers entering or leaving Venezuela. This declaration, made through his personal media platform, claims to surround the nation with the “largest Armada ever assembled in the history of South America.” Trump emphasized that the blockade would continue until Venezuela returns all “oil, land, and other assets” to the United States. This bold assertion raises significant constitutional concerns, marking a potential overreach of executive authority.
Constitutional Implications of the Blockade
The blockade constitutes a direct challenge to the War Powers Resolution, a legislative measure designed to prevent unilateral military action by the President without congressional approval. Under Article I of the US Constitution, only Congress has the authority to declare war or approve military actions that resemble warfare. While Article II grants the President command over the military, sustained military operations without legislative consent are not permitted.
Trump’s unilateral blockade, which is operational despite lacking formal congressional authorization, raises the question of legality. Under both domestic and international law, a naval blockade is classified as a use of force. It involves taking control of international waters and obstructing maritime commerce, which is a provocative act against a sovereign state.
Historical Context and Legal Justifications
Trump justifies the blockade by claiming that Venezuela has “stolen” American oil. However, this assertion is historically and legally questionable. Venezuela nationalized its oil sector in 1976 by creating Petróleos de Venezuela, S.A., allowing foreign companies, including US firms like ExxonMobil and ConocoPhillips, to operate under negotiated terms. In subsequent years, Venezuela increased its control over oil resources, transitioning foreign operations into joint ventures without resorting to piracy. Instead of military action, affected companies chose arbitration to resolve disputes related to compensation and contract terms.
Historically, the United States has utilized sanctions and diplomatic measures to address resource disputes in Latin America, avoiding military blockades. The shift to military coercion in the Venezuelan case is unprecedented and destabilizing to established international norms.
Escalation of Military Action
The distinction between economic sanctions and military action is crucial. Sanctions, managed by the Office of Foreign Assets Control, regulate economic transactions but do not authorize the armed interception of foreign vessels. Although there have been isolated instances of tanker seizures under civil forfeiture laws, the transition to a comprehensive maritime blockade signifies a dangerous escalation into coercive military action.
This situation raises profound constitutional concerns. According to the War Powers Resolution and guidance from the Office of Legal Counsel, even emergency military deployments must cease within 60 days unless Congress approves further action. The indefinite nature of the blockade and its political motivations extend far beyond the legal limits of executive power.
A Precedent for Future Actions
If a President is permitted to execute a naval blockade without congressional approval based on economic grievances or political claims, it undermines the very foundation of the separation of powers. Today, the focus is on Venezuela; tomorrow, it could extend to any nation where American interests are perceived to be at risk.
This concerning precedent also suggests that private claims could justify military action. By framing disputes over oil contracts as acts of theft, the administration dangerously redefines regulatory disagreements as grounds for military engagement, potentially disrupting global maritime order.
Path to Resolution
Despite the current crisis, there remains an opportunity for resolution through lawful channels. Congress must reaffirm its constitutional authority, potentially through measures such as House Concurrent Resolution 64, to enforce the War Powers Resolution and prevent unauthorized military actions. The executive branch should revert to lawful enforcement mechanisms, emphasizing civil forfeiture, targeted sanctions, and international arbitration instead of coercive naval blockades.
Restoring diplomatic engagement as the primary approach is vital. Disputes regarding Venezuela’s resource management should be addressed through negotiation and international claims processes rather than unilateral military actions. The United States has traditionally positioned itself as a proponent of a rule-based international order; maintaining this stance at home is crucial for its credibility abroad.
The blockade may be viewed by some as a demonstration of strength. However, it signifies a troubling erosion of legal norms, historical precedent, and constitutional governance. If unchecked, this trend could mark a significant shift toward autocratic governance. Congress, the judiciary, and the public must hold the executive accountable, ensuring that power is exercised lawfully and responsibly.
Failure to respond to this constitutional breach risks transforming the Constitution from a protective framework into a mere suggestion. The implications of this blockade extend far beyond Venezuela, potentially reshaping the future of American foreign policy and governance.
