Last updated 3 weeks ago. Our resources are updated regularly but please keep in mind that links, programs, policies, and contact information do change.
President Donald Trump has announced a “total and complete blockade” of all sanctioned oil tankers entering or leaving Venezuela.
This declaration, delivered via the President’s preferred medium of Truth Social, is the culmination of a months-long military buildup known as “Operation Southern Spear.” The announcement has effectively placed the Caribbean on a war footing, engaging the strategic interests of global superpowers and threatening to disrupt energy markets already jittery from a year of instability.
The United States has pivoted from a policy of diplomatic isolation and economic sanctions—tools that defined the previous decade—to a kinetic strategy of physical interdiction and asset recovery. The deployment of the USS Gerald R. Ford Carrier Strike Group, the largest projection of U.S. naval power in the region since the Cold War, underscores the gravity of this shift.
The blockade is framed by the Trump administration not as a traditional intervention for regime change, but as a law enforcement action against a “narco-terrorist” state and a debt collection operation to recover “stolen assets.”
By designating the Venezuelan regime—specifically the “Cartel de los Soles”—as a Foreign Terrorist Organization (FTO), the administration has unlocked new legal authorities that blur the lines between policing and warfare. The demand for the return of “Oil, Land, and other Assets” reframes the conflict from a humanitarian crusade to a transactional dispute over property rights and national sovereignty.
The Tanker Seizure That Started It All
While the blockade announcement on December 16 captured global headlines, the operational fuse was lit days earlier with the seizure of the oil tanker Skipper. This was not a routine coast guard inspection but a complex, high-intensity maritime interdiction operation that signaled the U.S. Navy’s readiness to enforce sanctions with kinetic power.
The Operation
During the week of December 10, 2025, U.S. forces operating in the Caribbean intercepted the Skipper (IMO 9304667) off the coast of Venezuela. The operation involved significant military assets, including helicopter-borne special forces who boarded and secured the vessel.
At the time of seizure, the tanker was loaded with approximately 1.8 to 2 million barrels of Venezuelan heavy crude, a cargo valued at roughly $80 million depending on prevailing market discounts for sanctioned oil.
The seizure was a demonstrative act. Rather than turning the vessel away or sanctioning its owners on paper, the U.S. physically commandeered the ship and escorted it to Galveston, Texas.
Galveston is a hub of the U.S. energy infrastructure, and the diversion of the vessel there suggests a clear intent to confiscate and potentially liquidate the cargo, turning the illicit asset into a net loss for the Maduro regime and a gain for the U.S. treasury or victims of terrorism.
The Dark Fleet Connection
The Skipper was not selected at random. It represents the archetype of the “Dark Fleet” vessels that have sustained the Venezuelan economy. To understand the significance of this seizure, you need to trace the vessel’s lineage.
Before it was the Skipper, it was known as the Adisa, and before that, likely by other names.
The vessel had been designated by the U.S. Treasury Department’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) in November 2022. The designation was not just for carrying Venezuelan oil, but for its affiliation with the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps-Qods Force (IRGC-QF).
The Adisa was part of a sprawling network managed by intermediaries to smuggle oil and generate revenue for Hezbollah and Iranian proxy groups. By targeting a vessel with a “dual-hatted” nexus—linked to both Venezuelan evasion networks and Iranian terror financing—the Trump administration could justify the seizure under robust counter-terrorism authorities rather than relying solely on Venezuela-specific executive orders.
Ghost Ships and Satellites
The interception of the Skipper highlights the advanced technological warfare occurring in the maritime domain. Dark Fleet vessels routinely employ Automated Identification System (AIS) “spoofing.”
This involves manipulating the ship’s transponder data to broadcast a false location, making it appear as though the vessel is sailing in the South Atlantic or off the coast of Africa while it is physically docking at the Port of Jose in Venezuela.
Maritime intelligence firms like Windward and Kpler have been tracking these “ghost” ships for years using satellite imagery (Synthetic Aperture Radar) to correlate physical vessel signatures with AIS data gaps. The successful interdiction of the Skipper indicates that the U.S. military has integrated this commercial-grade maritime intelligence into its “kill chain.”
The ability to pierce the veil of AIS spoofing removes the primary defense mechanism of the Dark Fleet. If the U.S. Navy can see through the digital camouflage, no sanctioned tanker is safe in the Caribbean basin.
The Deterrent Effect
The immediate aftermath of the seizure was a chilling effect on the maritime logistics sector. Reports indicated that at least four other Iranian-linked supertankers, originally bound for Venezuela to load crude, abruptly reversed course following the Skipper incident.
This deterrence effect is a primary objective of the blockade. By raising the physical risk to the vessels themselves—assets worth tens of millions of dollars—the U.S. forces insurers, captains, and shipowners to recalculate the cost-benefit analysis of the Venezuelan trade.
If a ship can be seized and confiscated, the premium charged for carrying sanctioned oil skyrockets, potentially making the trade economically unviable even for the most risk-tolerant actors.
The Presidential Decree
President Trump’s announcement of the blockade was unorthodox in format but precise in its strategic messaging. The post on Truth Social contained specific linguistic choices that serve to frame the legitimacy of the action for a domestic U.S. audience while signaling resolve to international adversaries.
“Venezuela is completely surrounded by the largest Armada ever assembled in the History of South America. It will only get bigger, and the shock to them will be like nothing they have ever seen before — Until such time as they return to the United States of America all of the Oil, Land, and other Assets that they previously stole from us.”
This statement accomplishes three things:
Establishment of Dominance: The reference to the “largest Armada” is a psychological operations (PSYOP) tactic designed to emphasize the asymmetry of power. It tells the Venezuelan military that resistance is futile.
Ultimatum: The phrase “Until such time” establishes the conditionality of the blockade. It’s not an indefinite siege but a coercive measure with a specific off-ramp: the return of assets.
Justification: The framing of the conflict around “stolen assets” is the most significant doctrinal shift.
The Asset Recovery Narrative
For decades, U.S. policy toward Venezuela was predicated on the restoration of democracy, the protection of human rights, and the alleviation of the humanitarian crisis. The December 16 decree shifts the focus to property rights and economic restitution.
When President Trump refers to “Oil, Land, and other Assets that they previously stole from us,” he’s alluding to the wave of nationalizations that occurred under Hugo Chávez and continued under Nicolás Maduro.
In 2007, Venezuela expropriated multibillion-dollar projects in the Orinoco Oil Belt belonging to U.S. energy giants ExxonMobil and ConocoPhillips. These companies have spent years in international arbitration tribunals seeking compensation, winning awards that have largely gone unpaid due to Venezuela’s insolvency and sanctions shielding.
By elevating these corporate grievances to the level of national security objectives, the Trump administration is adopting a neo-mercantilist foreign policy. The logic posits that the expropriation of American corporate property is an affront to American sovereignty.
This narrative is politically potent in the U.S., as it portrays the military deployment not as “nation-building”—a concept unpopular with the MAGA base—but as “debt collection” and the protection of American wealth. It suggests that the blockade will pay for itself, or at least that its objective is tangible (money/oil) rather than abstract (democracy).
The Terrorist Designation
Alongside the blockade, the President designated the Venezuelan regime as a Foreign Terrorist Organization (FTO). This is distinct from designating a country as a “State Sponsor of Terrorism.”
Designating the regime itself—or its key operational entity, the Cartel de los Soles—as an FTO unlocks specific statutes under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996.
This designation allows for:
- Extraterritorial Jurisdiction: The U.S. can prosecute individuals anywhere in the world who provide “material support” to the FTO
- Asset Freezing: It provides a stronger legal basis for seizing assets (like the Skipper’s cargo) as proceeds of terrorism rather than just sanctions violations
- Military Engagement: It allows the administration to frame the blockade as a counter-terrorism operation (similar to operations against ISIS or Al-Qaeda) rather than a war against a sovereign state, theoretically bypassing the need for a Congressional Declaration of War
Operation Southern Spear
The blockade didn’t materialize out of thin air. It was the kinetic culmination of “Operation Southern Spear,” a phased military buildup that began in earnest in August 2025.
Initially characterized as an enhanced counter-narcotics mission, the operation saw the gradual accumulation of naval and air power in the Caribbean theater, ostensibly to combat the flow of cocaine and fentanyl.
The Naval Deployment
By December 2025, the composition of U.S. forces in the region had reached levels unprecedented in the post-Cold War era. The centerpiece of this deployment is the USS Gerald R. Ford (CVN-78) Carrier Strike Group.
The Ford is the newest and most advanced aircraft carrier in the U.S. fleet, utilizing electromagnetic catapults (EMALS) to launch sorties at a higher rate than previous Nimitz-class carriers. Its air wing includes F-35C Lightning II stealth fighters, providing the U.S. with the ability to penetrate Venezuelan airspace with impunity if the conflict escalates.
The Marines
Complementing the carrier strike power is the USS Iwo Jima Amphibious Ready Group (ARG), which includes the amphibious transport dock USS San Antonio and the dock landing ship USS Fort Lauderdale. Embarked upon these ships is the 22nd Marine Expeditionary Unit (MEU), a force of over 2,200 Marines.
The presence of the MEU is significant. Unlike an aircraft carrier, which projects air power, an MEU projects land power.
Equipped with MV-22 Osprey tiltrotor aircraft and LCAC hovercraft, the MEU is capable of conducting raids, seizing ports, or securing oil infrastructure. Their presence suggests that the U.S. is prepared for scenarios that go beyond mere naval interdiction, including potential non-combatant evacuation operations or limited ground incursions to secure “stolen assets.”
The Lethal Track Record
Operation Southern Spear has already demonstrated a willingness to use lethal force. Between September and December 2025, U.S. forces reportedly conducted over two dozen strikes against vessels in international waters, resulting in at least 95 fatalities.
These strikes were targeted against what the administration labeled “narcoterrorist” vessels—often fast boats or converted fishing vessels allegedly moving drugs for the Cartel de los Soles.
One specific incident on September 2, 2025, involved a “kinetic strike” on a vessel that killed 11 people. The administration released video footage of the strike to prove the target was a “drug vessel,” but the lethality of the campaign has drawn sharp criticism from international human rights groups and members of the U.S. Congress, who argue these amount to extrajudicial executions.
This backdrop of lethal violence sets the stage for the blockade—the U.S. has already demonstrated that it will fire upon vessels that defy its authority in the Caribbean.
Rules of Engagement
The transition from counter-narcotics strikes to a formal blockade against oil tankers requires a shift in Rules of Engagement.
Hail and Query: U.S. warships will first hail tankers via bridge-to-bridge radio to determine their cargo and destination.
Visit, Board, Search, and Seizure (VBSS): If a vessel is suspected of carrying sanctioned oil, U.S. Coast Guard Law Enforcement Detachments (LEDETs) or Navy boarding teams will board the vessel.
Disablement Fire: If a vessel refuses to stop, U.S. ships are authorized to use “disabling fire”—shots aimed at the ship’s rudder or engine room to stop it without sinking it.
Prize Court: Seized vessels, like the Skipper, are treated as “prizes” of war or evidence of crime, taken to U.S. ports for forfeiture proceedings.
The Dark Fleet
The primary target of the blockade is the “Dark Fleet” (also known as the Shadow Fleet). As U.S. sanctions tightened on Venezuela (and concurrently on Russia and Iran), a parallel maritime ecosystem emerged to service these regimes.
This fleet is comprised of hundreds of aging tankers, often 15 years or older, that would otherwise be scrapped. They’re purchased by shell companies registered in opaque jurisdictions like the Marshall Islands, Seychelles, or Hong Kong to hide the ultimate beneficial owner.
These vessels operate outside the legitimate international shipping framework. They lack insurance from the International Group of P&I Clubs, which covers 90% of the world’s commercial fleet.
This makes them pariahs in reputable ports but essential lifelines for sanctioned states. The blockade is an admission that financial sanctions alone failed to stop this fleet—because they don’t use U.S. banks or Western insurance, they were immune to OFAC’s traditional tools. Only physical force could stop them.
How the Evasion Works
The Dark Fleet utilizes a complex logistical chain to move Venezuelan Merey crude to its primary buyer, China.
The First Leg: A tanker (like the Skipper) loads at the Port of Jose, turning off its AIS transponder or “spoofing” its location to appear elsewhere.
The Transfer: The vessel sails to a transshipment hub, often off the coast of Togo in West Africa or the Tanjung Bin anchorage in Malaysia. Here, it engages in a Ship-to-Ship (STS) transfer, pumping its oil into a different, “clean” tanker.
The Rebranding: The oil is mixed with other crudes or simply relabeled as “Malaysian Blend” or “Omani Blend” to disguise its Venezuelan origin.
The Delivery: The second tanker delivers the oil to China, often to the independent “teapot” refineries in Shandong province, which are less risk-averse than the state-owned giants like Sinopec.
Why Now?
By late 2025, this evasion network had become highly efficient, allowing Venezuela to export nearly 800,000 to 1 million barrels per day despite sanctions. This revenue stream stabilized the Maduro regime, allowing it to weather U.S. pressure.
The blockade effectively decapitates this network at the source. By surrounding the Venezuelan coast, the U.S. Navy prevents the “First Leg” of the journey.
If the Dark Fleet cannot pick up the oil, the STS transfers in Malaysia dry up, and the refineries in China starve. It attacks the chokepoint where the illicit trade is most vulnerable: the physical loading terminal.
The Legal Battle
The legal characterization of the U.S. action is a subject of intense debate. Under customary international law and the UN Charter (Article 2(4)), a naval blockade is considered an “act of war” because it involves the use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of a state.
It’s traditionally justified only in cases of self-defense or with a UN Security Council resolution—neither of which clearly applies here in the traditional sense.
The Quarantine Precedent
To mitigate this, the Trump administration may borrow from the playbook of the 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis. President John F. Kennedy famously referred to the U.S. naval cordon as a “quarantine” rather than a blockade to avoid the immediate legal implication of a state of war.
Similarly, the Trump administration is framing this as a “counter-terrorism interdiction” and a “sanctions enforcement action” against specific “sanctioned vessels,” rather than a general blockade of the Venezuelan state.
This legal hair-splitting is designed to provide diplomatic cover, though Venezuela and its allies (Russia, China, Cuba) have rejected the distinction, labeling it a “criminal blockade” and “piracy.”
The Domestic Fight
Domestically, the blockade has ignited a firestorm over the separation of powers. The Constitution grants Congress the sole power to declare war, while the President is the Commander-in-Chief.
The War Powers Resolution of 1973 requires the President to notify Congress within 48 hours of introducing U.S. forces into “hostilities” and mandates their withdrawal within 60 days unless Congress authorizes the action.
Senators Tim Kaine (D-VA), Rand Paul (R-KY), and others introduced a War Powers Resolution (S.J.Res. 90) in October 2025 to force a vote on the withdrawal of forces. They argue that the lethal strikes and the blockade constitute “hostilities” that were never authorized by Congress.
The administration counters that the operations are authorized under the 2001 AUMF (via the terror designation) or Article II self-defense powers against “narcoterrorist” threats to the U.S. homeland.
The FTO designation of the Cartel de los Soles is crucial here. By arguing that the Venezuelan government is indistinguishable from a terrorist cartel, the administration attempts to bypass the sovereign immunity protections usually afforded to foreign states.
It allows them to argue they’re fighting a criminal organization that happens to occupy a country, rather than waging war on the country itself.
The Chevron Exception
A striking anomaly in the “total” blockade is the status of Chevron. As of December 2025, the U.S. energy major continues to operate in Venezuela under General License 41 (GL 41), originally issued in 2022 and renewed with modifications.
Chevron’s joint ventures produce over 150,000 barrels per day, which are exported directly to the United States.
While the President announced a blockade of “sanctioned oil tankers,” Chevron utilizes legitimate, Western-insured, and compliant tankers for its exports. These vessels are not “sanctioned” in the sense of the Dark Fleet.
Therefore, despite the rhetoric of a “total blockade,” a significant carve-out exists for U.S. corporate interests.
Why the Exception Matters
This exemption is not an oversight—it’s a strategic lever.
Debt Repayment: Chevron’s exports are primarily used to pay down debts owed by PDVSA to the company. The U.S. allows this because it effectively drains Venezuelan resources to pay an American creditor, aligning with the “asset recovery” narrative.
Market Stability: Keeping Chevron’s volumes flowing prevents a total shock to U.S. Gulf Coast refineries, which rely on heavy crude. It mitigates the domestic political risk of rising gas prices for the Trump administration.
Leverage: The license can be revoked at any moment. By keeping it active, the U.S. maintains a “carrot” to dangle before elements of the Venezuelan elite or military who might benefit from a transition that keeps the oil flowing.
Economic Warfare Against China
The blockade, therefore, is not designed to stop all Venezuelan oil. It’s designed to stop Venezuelan oil from going to China.
By blocking the Dark Fleet (China trade) while allowing the Chevron trade (U.S. trade), the blockade effectively redirects Venezuela’s energy economy to be solely dependent on the United States. It forces Venezuela to sell to the U.S. (via debt service) or not sell at all.
This is a classic Monroe Doctrine application: excluding external powers (China/Iran) and asserting U.S. economic primacy.
Global Reactions
China: The Biggest Loser
China is the biggest loser in this scenario. It’s the primary purchaser of the illicit oil targeted by the blockade. The “teapot” refineries in Shandong have been the main beneficiaries of discounted Venezuelan crude.
The blockade threatens to sever this supply chain, forcing China to source more expensive heavy crude from Canada or the Middle East.
Diplomatically, China has responded by invoking the concept of Latin America as a “Zone of Peace.” Foreign Ministry spokesperson Lin Jian denounced the U.S. action as a violation of sovereignty and warned against “external interference.”
However, China’s military options are limited. It lacks the naval projection capability to challenge a U.S. Carrier Strike Group in the Caribbean. Its response will likely be economic (dumping U.S. treasuries, restricting rare earth exports) or asymmetric (cyber attacks).
Russia: The Military Spoiler
Russia, conversely, has less economic skin in the game but significant military-strategic interests. Moscow views Venezuela as a pivotal outpost to challenge U.S. hegemony in its own “near abroad,” mirroring U.S. involvement in Ukraine.
Military Assets: Russia has deployed S-300VM and Buk-M2E air defense systems to Venezuela, manned by Russian “technicians” or mercenaries (Wagner Group successors). These systems pose a credible threat to U.S. aircraft, raising the stakes of any air campaign.
The Nuclear Shadow: While unlikely, the presence of Russian strategic bombers (Tu-160s have visited before) or naval assets could turn a regional blockade into a superpower standoff reminiscent of 1962. The Kremlin’s warning of “unpredictable consequences” is a deliberate attempt to leverage this fear.
Iran: The Persian Gulf Connection
The blockade also targets the Venezuela-Iran axis. Iran supplies Venezuela with condensate (to dilute heavy oil) and refinery parts. The Skipper seizure proved the U.S. is targeting this specific loop.
If Iran cannot deliver condensate, Venezuela cannot produce exportable crude. Iran may respond by escalating tensions in the Persian Gulf, seizing Western tankers in the Strait of Hormuz as a tit-for-tat measure, thereby globalizing the conflict.
The Humanitarian Crisis
The most immediate concern for the Venezuelan population is the impact on imports of food and medicine. Venezuela imports over 70% of its food.
While U.S. Executive Orders nominally exempt humanitarian goods, the reality of a “total blockade” creates a de facto embargo.
The Shipping Freeze
Compliance Fear: International shipping companies, fearing the seizure of their vessels by the U.S. Navy, will likely stop servicing Venezuelan ports entirely, regardless of cargo. The risk of a $50 million ship being seized to deliver $1 million of rice is simply too high.
Regime Weaponization: The Maduro government will likely ration remaining stocks to loyalists, using hunger as a weapon of social control while blaming the U.S. blockade for the famine. This narrative is already being deployed, with Vice President Delcy Rodriguez calling the blockade a “genocidal act.”
The Migration Wave
The collapse of the oil trade and the subsequent shortages will likely trigger a new wave of migration. Millions of Venezuelans have already fled; a blockade-induced famine could push millions more into Colombia, Brazil, and eventually toward the U.S. southern border.
This creates a paradox for the Trump administration: the blockade designed to pressure Maduro may exacerbate the migration crisis the administration has vowed to solve.
Three Scenarios for 2026
As December 2025 ends, the standoff is brittle. The U.S. has committed its prestige and its Navy to a maximalist objective: the surrender of assets or the fall of the regime. There are three primary trajectories for 2026:
Scenario 1: The Strangulation
The blockade holds. The Dark Fleet abandons the Venezuelan trade due to high risks. Venezuela’s oil revenue collapses to near zero (except for Chevron payments, which don’t go to the regime).
The Maduro government faces a cash crunch, unable to pay the military. Internal fissures grow, leading to a palace coup or a negotiated exit where Maduro flees to Cuba or Russia, and a transition government agrees to the “asset return” demands.
Scenario 2: The Kinetic Escalation
A rogue Venezuelan captain, a dedicated unit of the Fanb (Venezuelan armed forces), or an Iranian proxy fires on a U.S. boarding party. The U.S. responds with overwhelming air strikes from the USS Gerald R. Ford, destroying Venezuelan naval and air bases.
The conflict shifts from a blockade to a limited air war. Russia and China protest but don’t intervene militarily. The regime collapses in chaos, requiring a U.S. stabilization force (boots on the ground).
Scenario 3: The Black Market Adaptation
The Dark Fleet adapts. Smugglers shift to overland routes through the porous borders with Colombia or Guyana. “Ghost transfers” move deeper into the Atlantic, outside the easy reach of the blockade line.
The blockade becomes a “leaky sieve,” inflicting pain but failing to dislodge the regime, leading to a protracted, years-long siege that impoverishes the population without achieving political change—a “Cuba 2.0” scenario.
Economic Impact Projections
| Indicator | Pre-Blockade (Oct 2025) | Projected Q1 2026 (Blockade Scenario) | Impact |
|---|---|---|---|
| Venezuelan Exports | ~800,000 bpd | ~150,000 bpd (Chevron only) | 80% Revenue Loss |
| Global Oil Price (Brent) | $58/bbl | $65-$70/bbl | Moderate Increase (Mitigated by OPEC) |
| China Imports (from VZ) | ~500,000 bpd | <50,000 bpd | Need to source heavy crude elsewhere |
| Venezuelan GDP | Stagnant | -15% Contraction | Economic Collapse |
Legal Framework Comparison
| Feature | Traditional Sanctions (IEEPA) | FTO Designation (Antiterrorism Act) | Naval Blockade (War Powers) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Primary Target | Financial transactions, trade | Material support, personnel | Physical movement of goods |
| Enforcement | OFAC fines, bank freezes | DOJ prosecution, military strikes | Naval interdiction, seizure |
| Legal Threshold | National Emergency Declaration | Finding of terrorist activity | Act of War (International Law) |
| Impact on Neutral Parties | Banks de-risk voluntarily | Banks face criminal liability | Ships physically stopped |
The announcement of December 16, 2025, will be remembered as the moment the U.S. decided to settle the Venezuela question not with diplomats, but with destroyers. Whether this leads to the restoration of democracy, the recovery of assets, or a regional conflagration remains the defining question for the year ahead.
As the Caribbean Sea transforms into a high-stakes chessboard where energy security, international law, and great power competition collide, the world watches to see if Trump’s gamble pays off—or if it triggers the very crisis it was designed to prevent.
Our articles make government information more accessible. Please consult a qualified professional for financial, legal, or health advice specific to your circumstances.