On December 16, 2025, President Donald Trump declared a “total and complete blockade” of oil tankers entering or leaving Venezuela. This announcement, made via his personal media platform, signaled a significant shift in U.S. foreign policy, framing Venezuela as “completely surrounded by the largest Armada ever assembled in the History of South America.” The implications of this blockade extend beyond foreign relations; they raise critical questions about the limits of executive power and the constitutional framework governing military actions.
The blockade, which is both undeclared and unauthorized, challenges the War Powers Resolution of 1973. This legislation was specifically designed to prevent unilateral military escalation without congressional approval. Historically, previous U.S. administrations have employed sanctions and diplomatic pressure to manage disputes over foreign resources. In contrast, Trump’s approach emphasizes coercion and military presence over legal and diplomatic solutions.
The Constitutional Implications of the Blockade
Under Article I of the U.S. Constitution, only Congress possesses the power to declare war or authorize military action similar to warfare. Article II grants the President the role of Commander-in-Chief, but it does not allow for ongoing military operations without legislative consent. The War Powers Resolution mandates that the President must seek congressional authorization for any armed forces’ deployment likely to lead to hostilities.
The blockade constitutes a use of force under both domestic and international law. It asserts control over international waters and restricts maritime access for a sovereign nation, marking a clear deviation from established legal norms. This action is not merely a tactical foreign policy decision; it poses a constitutional violation in progress.
Challenging Historical Narratives
President Trump justified the blockade by asserting that Venezuela “stole” American oil, a claim lacking historical and legal foundation. The Venezuelan oil sector was nationalized in 1976 with the establishment of Petróleos de Venezuela, S.A.. Over the years, foreign firms, including major U.S. companies like ExxonMobil and ConocoPhillips, operated under negotiated terms. Venezuela later transitioned these operations into joint ventures, asserting its sovereignty without resorting to piracy or illegal actions.
Disputes over these nationalizations were not settled through force but rather through mechanisms such as arbitration and negotiation. The U.S. previously relied on sanctions and diplomatic measures to resolve similar issues in Latin America, marking the current blockade as an unprecedented escalation in tactics.
The distinction between sanctions and military intervention is crucial. Sanctions, enforced by the Office of Foreign Assets Control, regulate economic activities and do not permit armed interception of foreign vessels. Isolated incidents of vessel seizures were justified under civil forfeiture laws, but transitioning to a systematic blockade represents a significant escalation into armed coercion without legal backing.
The Need for Congressional Oversight
The indefinite nature of the blockade, its announced expansion, and its connection to political demands exceed the boundaries of executive authority. According to the War Powers Resolution and an opinion from the Office of Legal Counsel, any military deployment must cease within 60 days without congressional approval. The blockade’s ongoing status raises immediate constitutional concerns.
If a President can implement a naval blockade without congressional endorsement based on economic grievances, it undermines the separation of powers. Today, the focus is on Venezuela, but this precedent could extend to other nations where U.S. interests are at stake. The potential for private claims to justify military action poses a significant threat to international norms.
Restoring the Rule of Law
Reversing the current course is still possible through established legal and diplomatic channels. Congress must reaffirm its constitutional role by utilizing resolutions like House Concurrent Resolution 64 to uphold the War Powers Resolution and prevent unauthorized military actions. The Executive branch should adhere to lawful enforcement mechanisms, emphasizing civil forfeiture, targeted sanctions, and international arbitration over coercive military operations.
Diplomatic engagement must return as the primary approach to addressing Venezuela’s resource management issues. Negotiations and legal frameworks should replace unilateral blockades, reinforcing the United States’ commitment to a rule-based international order.
The blockade of Venezuelan oil tankers may be perceived by some as a show of strength, yet it represents a dangerous erosion of law, precedent, and constitutional governance. When executive power surpasses its legal boundaries without challenge, it signals a shift towards autocracy. Congress must act, the judiciary must scrutinize, and the public must demand adherence to the law to ensure that constitutional protections remain intact. If the executive can impose blockades without approval, the Constitution risks becoming merely a suggestion rather than a safeguard for democracy.
