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, the declaration claimed that Venezuela was “completely surrounded by the largest Armada ever assembled in the History of South America.” Trump asserted that the blockade would continue until Venezuelan “oil, land, and other assets” were returned to the United States. This sweeping statement carries significant implications, primarily regarding the constitutional boundaries of executive power.
Trump’s blockade is not merely a foreign policy maneuver; it represents a potential breach of U.S. constitutional limits, particularly concerning the War Powers Resolution. This resolution was enacted to prevent unilateral military actions without congressional approval. Historically, previous administrations have employed sanctions and diplomatic strategies to address foreign disputes, but Trump’s actions shift from diplomacy to coercion.
Constitutional Implications of the Blockade
Under Article I of the U.S. Constitution, the power to declare war and authorize military actions rests solely with Congress. Article II grants the President the role of Commander-in-Chief, yet it does not permit sustained military operations without legislative consent. The War Powers Resolution of 1973 mandates that the President must seek congressional authorization for any use of armed forces likely to lead to hostilities. The blockade announced by Trump challenges this constitutional framework.
A naval blockade qualifies as a use of force under both domestic and international law. It inherently involves asserting control over international waters and restricting a sovereign state’s access to maritime commerce. Thus, the blockade signifies a constitutional violation in real-time, moving beyond mere foreign policy into the realm of military aggression.
Historical Context and Legal Justifications
Trump’s justification for the blockade hinges on the assertion that Venezuela “stole” American oil. However, this claim lacks historical and legal support. Venezuela nationalized its oil sector in 1976 with the establishment of Petróleos de Venezuela, S.A., allowing foreign firms, including U.S. corporations like ExxonMobil and ConocoPhillips, to operate under negotiated terms. The Venezuelan government later reasserted control over key assets, transforming foreign-controlled projects into joint ventures.
These actions were not acts of theft but legitimate sovereign decisions under international law. Disputes stemming from these actions were typically resolved through arbitration and negotiation, not military force. Over decades, the United States has opted for sanctions and diplomatic tools to address such conflicts rather than resorting to blockades or military coercion.
Consequences of Military Coercion
Understanding the difference between sanctions and military action is crucial. Sanctions, managed by the Office of Foreign Assets Control, regulate economic transactions and do not permit armed interception of foreign vessels on the high seas. While isolated tanker seizures have occurred under civil forfeiture statutes, transitioning to a systematic maritime blockade represents an escalation into armed coercion.
According to the War Powers Resolution and a 1980 opinion from the Office of Legal Counsel, any emergency military deployments must cease within 60 days unless Congress approves. The indefinite nature of the blockade, along with its linkage to specific political demands, exceeds the legal boundaries of executive authority.
If a President can impose a naval blockade without congressional approval based on economic grievances, the principle of separation of powers is at risk. This scenario could set a dangerous precedent, allowing future administrations to justify military action based on private claims or perceived threats.
A Call for Legislative Action
It is not too late to reverse this course. Solutions lie within the framework of law and precedent. Congress must reaffirm its constitutional authority, possibly through resolutions like House Concurrent Resolution 64 or emergency oversight hearings. The legislative branch should enforce the War Powers Resolution and prevent unauthorized military actions.
The executive branch must return to lawful enforcement methods that include civil forfeiture, targeted sanctions, and international arbitration. Diplomatic engagement should be the primary approach to resolving disputes over Venezuela’s resource management, relying on negotiation and international processes rather than unilateral military action.
For decades, the United States has positioned itself as a champion of a rule-based international order. To maintain this stance, it must uphold the constitutional boundaries that define its governance. The blockade may seem like a show of strength, but it represents a dangerous erosion of legal precedent and constitutional governance.
When the President crosses a constitutional boundary without accountability, it signals a shift toward autocracy. Congress must act, the courts must provide scrutiny, and the public must advocate for the rule of law over impulsive military actions. Failure to do so risks transforming the Constitution from a protective framework into a mere suggestion.
