US President Donald Trump’s announcement that he has ordered a “full and complete” naval blockade of Venezuela has taken the long-standing tension between Washington and Caracas to a new level.[i] The US announcement that it will block all sanctioned oil tankers from entering and leaving Venezuela has been described by Caracas as “war provocation.”[ii] This characterization is not merely a diplomatic response; it also involves an assertion of the use of force that could have serious consequences under international law.
In international law, a naval blockade is not considered a routine sanction but rather an application typically associated with a state of war. A state’s use of military force to prevent ships from entering or leaving another state’s ports directly contravenes the United Nations (UN) Charter’s prohibition on the use of force. Therefore, Trump’s statements show that, from a legal perspective, the line between “economic pressure” and “military intervention” has become blurred. This step by the US is not based on the authority of the UN Security Council, but is entirely a unilateral action.
In this context, it is noteworthy that Democratic Representative Joaquin Castro of the US Congress described the naval blockade as “undoubtedly an act of war.” This statement shows that not only Venezuela but also US domestic politics is divided over the legal and political consequences of this move.
One of the most striking elements of Trump’s statements is the declaration that the Venezuelan government has been designated a “foreign terrorist organization.” This designation signifies the first time the United States has extended a legal framework previously reserved solely for specific armed groups or individuals to a state government. Although Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro has rejected these accusations, this classification creates a powerful rhetorical basis for legitimizing military and economic interventions.
In particular, the presentation of charges such as “illegal smuggling,” “human trafficking,” and “terrorist financing” within the same framework demonstrates that the US has criminalized and hardened its policies toward Venezuela. This situation signals a phase in which the goal of regime change is articulated more explicitly, unlike classic sanction regimes.
The Venezuelan economy is heavily dependent on oil exports. Although production capacity has declined significantly in recent years, the country still has the world’s largest proven oil reserves. Therefore, a blockade on oil tankers constitutes a strategic move targeting state revenues directly.
The United States’ seizure of an oil tanker off the coast of Venezuela last week revealed that this process was supported by concrete military and administrative steps, not just symbolic ones. The Caracas administration described this intervention as “resource theft” and claimed that the ship’s crew had been “kidnapped.”[iii] These mutual accusations demonstrate that trust between the parties has completely disappeared.
The significant increase in the US military presence in the Caribbean demonstrates that the crisis is not limited to economic or diplomatic dimensions. The deployment of thousands of troops, warships, and the world’s largest aircraft carrier, the USS Gerald R. Ford, in a position close to Venezuela sends a clear message of deterrence. Trump’s claim that this is “the largest armada in South American history” transforms this military buildup into a political show of force.
Another noteworthy element at this point is the naval raids carried out by the US on allegations of illegal drug trafficking. Although it has been reported that approximately 100 people have lost their lives in these operations in recent months, the failure of US authorities to present concrete evidence to the public that narcotics were found on these ships calls into question the legitimacy of the operations.
The US policy toward Venezuela affects not only bilateral relations but also the overall balance of power in Latin America. Many countries in the region are cautious about US military interventions due to past experiences. In this context, harsh measures such as a naval blockade have the potential to strengthen anti-US rhetoric in Latin America.
The United States’ rhetoric of a naval blockade against Venezuela and its actual military buildup not only highlights the tension between the two countries but also reveals how the use of force is being normalized within the international system. One state unilaterally declaring another state a “terrorist” and blocking its maritime trade opens a door that could set a precedent in international law. The spread of this approach risks establishing a permanent order in which major powers place their own definitions of security above universal norms. For countries of the global South in particular, such practices mean that sovereignty is reduced to a conditional and fragile status. Therefore, the example of Venezuela should be read not only as a regional crisis, but as part of a broader process in which the balance between power, law, and legitimacy is being re-examined on a global scale.
In conclusion, Trump’s order for a naval blockade against Venezuela reflects a strategy that goes beyond classic sanctions policies and is intertwined with the use of military force. This step raises serious questions from an international law perspective; it also sparks deep debates within US domestic politics and across Latin America. The effects of economic pressure on the Venezuelan people carry the risk of increasing the social cost rather than weakening the regime.
In this context, current developments indicate that US-Venezuela relations are increasingly moving away from the ground for a diplomatic solution and that the parties have adopted a confrontational stance even at the level of rhetoric. The threat of a naval blockade is considered a dangerous threshold not only for Venezuela but also for regional stability and the international legal order.
[i] Santos, Sofia Ferreira, Aoife Walsh, and James FitzGerald. “Venezuela Denounces Trump’s Order for Ship Blockade as ‘Warmongering Threats’.” BBC News, www.bbc.com/news/articles/c4gej5ezyypo, (Access Date: 21.12.2025).
[ii] Ibid.
[iii] Ibid.
