On December 16, 2025, President Donald Trump announced a “total and complete blockade” of oil tankers entering or leaving Venezuela. This declaration, made through his personal media platform, claimed that Venezuela was “completely surrounded by the largest Armada ever assembled in the History of South America,” and stated that the blockade would continue until all Venezuelan “oil, land, and other assets” were returned to the United States. This controversial move raises significant constitutional questions regarding the limits of presidential power and adherence to established legal norms.
The Constitutional Breach
At its core, Trump’s blockade represents a challenge to the War Powers Resolution, a congressional statute designed to prevent unilateral military actions by the executive branch. Under Article I of the US Constitution, Congress holds the exclusive authority to declare war or authorize military actions. While Article II grants the President powers as Commander-in-Chief, it does not permit sustained military operations without congressional consent.
The blockade, which is not officially declared or authorized, is defined under both domestic and international law as a use of force. It involves exercising control over international waters, thereby hindering maritime commerce of a sovereign state. Such actions do not merely represent a shift in foreign policy; they signify a constitutional violation in progress.
Questionable Justifications and Historical Context
Trump’s rationale for the blockade—that Venezuela “stole” American oil—lacks support from historical facts or legal principles. Venezuela nationalized its oil sector in 1976 with the establishment of Petróleos de Venezuela, S.A.. Over the years, foreign companies like ExxonMobil and ConocoPhillips operated under negotiated agreements. In the early 2000s, Venezuela regained control over significant assets, transitioning foreign ventures into joint operations with state ownership.
These decisions were not acts of theft but legitimate sovereign actions protected under international law. Disputes arising from these actions were historically resolved through arbitration rather than military force. The United States has opted for sanctions and diplomatic measures to address economic grievances in various Latin American countries, never resorting to blockades or military coercion.
The Escalation of Military Coercion
The distinction between sanctions and military actions is crucial. Sanctions, enforced by the Office of Foreign Assets Control, regulate economic transactions but do not authorize the armed interception of foreign vessels. While isolated tanker seizures have occurred under civil forfeiture laws, transitioning to a systematic maritime blockade signals an escalation into coercive military tactics.
This situation is not merely a technical legal issue; it represents a constitutional crisis. According to the War Powers Resolution, military deployments must conclude within 60 days unless Congress grants approval. The indefinite nature of this blockade and its connection to political demands, such as asset recovery, exceed the bounds of executive authority.
Implications for Separation of Powers
If a President can unilaterally declare a naval blockade based on economic grievances or political claims, the principle of separation of powers faces severe jeopardy. What begins as a blockade of Venezuelan resources could easily extend to other countries where US interests are perceived to be threatened.
This situation sets a dangerous precedent, allowing private commercial claims to warrant military responses. By reframing disputes over oil contracts as theft, the administration undermines established international norms and encourages future administrations to employ force instead of legal frameworks for foreign commerce.
Path Forward: Legal and Diplomatic Options
Despite the current crisis, there remains an opportunity for corrective action. Congress must reassert its constitutional responsibilities, potentially through resolutions like House Concurrent Resolution 64 or emergency oversight hearings. It is essential to enforce the War Powers Resolution and prevent unauthorized military actions.
The executive branch should return to lawful enforcement methods, relying on civil forfeiture, targeted sanctions, and international arbitration rather than coercive naval operations. Diplomatic engagement must become the cornerstone for addressing disputes regarding Venezuela’s resource management, emphasizing negotiation and licensing frameworks over unilateral blockades.
For decades, the United States has positioned itself as a defender of a rules-based international order. This principle cannot be sustained abroad if it is undermined domestically. The blockade of Venezuelan oil tankers may be perceived as a demonstration of strength, but it represents a significant erosion of legal norms, constitutional governance, and the balance of powers.
In the face of this constitutional challenge, it is imperative for Congress to act, the courts to scrutinize executive actions, and the public to demand adherence to legal principles. Once the executive can impose a blockade without congressional approval, the Constitution risks becoming merely a suggestion rather than a safeguard of democratic governance.
