On December 16, 2025, President Donald Trump announced a “total and complete blockade” of oil tankers entering or leaving Venezuela. The announcement, delivered via Trump’s personal media platform, claimed that Venezuela was “completely surrounded by the largest Armada ever assembled in the History of South America.” This bold declaration raises significant questions about the extent of executive power and its implications for U.S. constitutional law, challenging established norms regarding military action and foreign policy.
The blockade, as outlined by Trump, is not merely a foreign policy initiative; it presents a direct challenge to the War Powers Resolution, a congressional statute enacted to prevent unilateral military escalation. Traditionally, U.S. administrations have relied on sanctions, diplomatic channels, and limited enforcement actions to manage disputes over foreign resources. Trump’s approach marks a stark departure from these norms, opting for military coercion over established diplomatic methods.
The Constitutional Boundaries at Stake
Under Article I of the U.S. Constitution, Congress holds the exclusive power to declare war or authorize actions that resemble war. While Article II designates the President as Commander-in-Chief, it does not grant authority for sustained military operations without legislative consent. The War Powers Resolution of 1973 was implemented to uphold this separation, requiring presidential consultation with Congress for any armed forces deployment likely to result in hostilities.
The blockade announced by Trump qualifies as a use of military force, invoking both domestic and international law. By asserting control over international waters and restricting Venezuelan maritime commerce, the blockade embodies a confrontational stance that is fundamentally at odds with the constitutional framework designed to check presidential power.
Addressing Historical Misconceptions
Central to Trump’s justification for the blockade is the claim that Venezuela “stole” American oil. This assertion lacks historical and legal basis. In 1976, Venezuela nationalized its oil sector with the establishment of Petróleos de Venezuela, S.A. Over time, foreign companies, including ExxonMobil and ConocoPhillips, operated under negotiated agreements. The Venezuelan government later reasserted control over key assets, transitioning foreign-controlled projects into joint ventures where the state held majority ownership. These actions were not acts of theft but rather sovereign decisions within Venezuela’s rights under international law.
Disputes stemming from these actions were historically settled through arbitration and negotiation, rather than military force. The United States resorted to sanctions and diplomatic tools, avoiding military coercion in resource disputes throughout the region, including in Mexico, Bolivia, and El Salvador. The current shift to force in Venezuela represents a troubling departure from established diplomatic practices.
The distinction between sanctions and military action is crucial. Sanctions, administered by the Office of Foreign Assets Control, regulate economic transactions and do not authorize armed interdiction of foreign vessels in international waters. While isolated tanker seizures have sometimes been justified through civil forfeiture, the transition to a comprehensive maritime blockade signifies an escalation into armed coercion.
The Implications of Unchecked Power
The ability of a President to declare a naval blockade without congressional approval raises profound concerns about the separation of powers. If economic grievances or political claims can justify military actions, the balance of power within the U.S. government is at risk. Today, it is Venezuela; tomorrow, it could be any other nation where U.S. interests are perceived to be threatened.
This situation sets a dangerous precedent, allowing private claims to potentially trigger military responses. By framing a dispute over oil contracts as an act of theft, the administration risks redefining regulatory disagreements as justifications for military engagement. This undermines international norms, threatens global maritime order, and encourages future administrations to employ force in lieu of legal frameworks for resolving commercial disputes.
Restoring Legal and Diplomatic Norms
Despite the current crisis, solutions are available. Congress must reassert its constitutional authority. Legislative measures, such as House Concurrent Resolution 64, could 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 operations.
Diplomatic engagement must be prioritized to resolve disputes surrounding Venezuela’s resource management. Negotiation, licensing frameworks, and international claims processes should replace unilateral military actions. The United States has long positioned itself as a champion of a rules-based international order, which cannot be upheld abroad if it falters at home.
The blockade may be perceived by some as a demonstration of strength; however, it signals a concerning erosion of legal norms, precedent, and constitutional governance. When the executive branch operates beyond its constitutional limits without accountability, it risks shifting the balance of power towards autocracy. It is imperative for Congress to act, for the courts to scrutinize, and for the public to demand that governance abide by the rule of law. If the executive can enforce a blockade without legislative approval, the Constitution transforms from a safeguard into a mere suggestion.
