Trump’s blockade of sanctioned Venezuelan oil raises new questions about legality

U.S. naval operations off Venezuela’s coast are raising significant legal questions and escalating tensions as President Donald Trump implements what he calls a “blockade” against oil tankers linked to the Maduro regime.

The controversial move, which targets sanctioned vessels rather than all shipping, is part of a broader pressure campaign against Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro, who faces U.S. narcoterrorism charges. While the administration maintains the action is narrowly focused and legally sound, critics argue it threatens to push the countries toward armed conflict.

“My biggest fear is this is exactly how wars start and how conflicts escalate out of control,” said Rep. Jason Crow, a Colorado Democrat and military veteran. “And there are no adults in the room with this administration, nor is there consultation with Congress.”

The blockade announcement follows weeks of intensifying U.S. military operations against alleged drug-smuggling vessels in the region. American forces have targeted 28 boats since early September, reportedly killing at least 104 people, including a controversial follow-up strike that killed two survivors of an initial attack.

Legal experts express serious concerns about the administration’s justification for these operations. Claire Finkelstein, a national security law professor at the University of Pennsylvania, warned that the aggressive tactics without congressional authorization stretch international legal boundaries and appear designed to provoke Venezuelan retaliation.

“The concern is that we are bootstrapping our way into armed conflict,” Finkelstein said. “We’re upping the ante in order to try to get them to engage in an act of aggression that would then justify an act of self-defense on our part.”

Congressional reaction has largely split along party lines. Republicans have mostly supported the administration’s actions, with Rep. Michael McCaul of Texas equating the targeting of Venezuelan oil tankers to similar measures against Iranian vessels. “Just like with the Iranian shadow tankers, I have no problem with that,” McCaul said. “They’re circumventing sanctions.”

Meanwhile, Democrats have unsuccessfully pushed for war powers resolutions to require congressional authorization for further military action in the region. Rep. Adam Smith, ranking Democrat on the House Armed Services Committee, questioned the legal foundation of a partial blockade. “They’re blockading apparently the oil industry, not the entire country,” Smith said. “In general, a blockade is an act of war.”

Venezuela, holder of the world’s largest proven oil reserves, relies heavily on petroleum exports to sustain its struggling economy. U.S. sanctions dating back to 2005 have intensified under Trump, forcing the state oil company PDVSA to sell much of its crude on the black market at steep discounts, primarily to China.

The Venezuelan government has responded defiantly to the blockade announcement. Nicolás Maduro Guerra, the president’s son and a lawmaker, vowed to work with the private sector to minimize economic damage while acknowledging the serious challenge posed by U.S. actions.

“We value peace and dialogue, but the reality right now is that we are being threatened by the most powerful army in the world, and that’s not something to be taken lightly,” Maduro Guerra said.

Pentagon officials prefer the term “quarantine” over “blockade,” a subtle but important distinction in international law. A defense official speaking on condition of anonymity explained that a blockade constitutes an act of war requiring formal declaration and enforcement against all traffic, while a quarantine selectively targets specific illegal activities.

The U.S. has a complicated history with naval blockades, particularly in Latin America. During the 1962 Cuban missile crisis, President Kennedy deliberately used the term “quarantine” rather than “blockade” to avoid the legal implications of declaring war while intercepting Soviet weapons shipments.

Legal scholars remain divided on whether current operations have legitimate footing. Mark Nevitt, an Emory University law professor and former Navy JAG, acknowledges the U.S. has legal basis to seize sanctioned, stateless vessels but questions the broader characterization of these actions.

“I think the blockade is predicated on a false legal pretense that we are at war with narcoterrorists,” Nevitt said. “This seems to be almost like a junior varsity blockade, where they’re trying to assert a wartime legal tool, a blockade, but only doing it selectively.”

As the U.S. Navy positions 11 ships and surveillance aircraft in the region, observers continue to debate whether these actions represent a deliberate push toward conflict or simply an escalation of pressure tactics designed to weaken Maduro’s grip on power in the oil-rich nation.