Trump’s Unilateral Blockade of Venezuela Raises Constitutional Concerns

On December 16, 2025, former President Donald Trump announced a “total and complete blockade” of Venezuelan oil tankers, marking a significant escalation in U.S. foreign policy. This proclamation, shared through his personal media platform, claimed that Venezuela was “completely surrounded by the largest Armada ever assembled in the History of South America.” Trump stated that the blockade would continue until all Venezuelan “oil, land, and other assets” were returned to the United States. This sweeping declaration raises serious constitutional questions regarding the limits of executive authority.

The blockade, which has been implemented without congressional approval, poses a direct challenge to the War Powers Resolution of 1973. This legislation was designed to prevent unilateral military actions by the President without legislative consent, particularly actions that could lead to armed conflict. While previous administrations have relied on sanctions and diplomatic pressure to address foreign disputes, Trump’s approach substitutes legal processes with military coercion.

The Constitutional Implications of the Blockade

Under Article I of the U.S. Constitution, the power to declare war rests solely with Congress. Although Article II grants the President the role of Commander-in-Chief, it does not allow for sustained military operations without legislative authorization. The blockade constitutes a use of force under both domestic and international law, as it involves the assertion of control over international waters and the disruption of maritime commerce.

According to legal experts, the blockade is not just a foreign policy decision; it represents a constitutional violation. The indefinite nature of the blockade, coupled with Trump’s demands for the return of Venezuelan assets, pushes the boundaries of executive power. This action not only circumvents established legal norms but also disrupts historical precedents for resolving disputes through negotiation and arbitration.

Challenging the Justifications for the Blockade

Trump’s rationale that Venezuela “stole” American oil lacks historical and legal support. Venezuela’s oil industry was nationalized in 1976, leading to the establishment of the state-owned company Petróleos de Venezuela, S.A.. American companies, including ExxonMobil and ConocoPhillips, operated under negotiated agreements until the Venezuelan government asserted control in the early 2000s. These decisions were within Venezuela’s rights under international law and should have been addressed through arbitration rather than military force.

Historically, the U.S. has engaged in diplomatic avenues, sanctions, and licensing restrictions to address similar resource disputes in Latin America. The shift to a military blockade represents an unprecedented escalation, fundamentally altering the norms of international relations.

The distinction between sanctions and military action is crucial. Sanctions, as enforced by the Office of Foreign Assets Control, regulate economic conduct but do not permit armed interventions against foreign-flagged vessels on the high seas. The systematic implementation of a naval blockade signifies a dangerous escalation that threatens not only Venezuelan sovereignty but also the principles of international law.

The Path Forward: Restoring Legal Norms

There remains an opportunity for the U.S. to reverse its course. Congress must reassert its constitutional authority, potentially through resolutions like House Concurrent Resolution 64, to enforce the War Powers Resolution and prohibit unauthorized military actions. The executive branch should return to lawful enforcement mechanisms, relying on civil forfeiture and international arbitration instead of coercive tactics.

Diplomatic engagement needs to be prioritized as the primary approach to resolving resource disputes with Venezuela. Addressing these issues through negotiation and international claims processes is essential for restoring respect for legal frameworks and maintaining international order.

The blockade, viewed by some as a demonstration of strength, ultimately threatens the foundational principles of constitutional governance in the United States. If the executive branch can impose a blockade without legislative approval, it risks undermining the separation of powers and eroding the rule of law. The balance of power must be maintained, and the public must demand adherence to constitutional boundaries to safeguard against authoritarianism.