U.S. President Donald Trump on Tuesday significantly escalated the United States’ long-standing pressure campaign against the government of Nicolás Maduro, ordering a comprehensive naval blockade of sanctioned oil tankers bound for Venezuela and designating the Venezuelan government a foreign terrorist organization, a move that has already sparked concerns among international legal experts and humanitarian organizations who warn that such a blockade could exacerbate an already dire humanitarian crisis while bypassing established international laws.
Trump made the announcement on his social media platform, Truth Social. He stated, “Today, I am ordering a total and complete blockade of all sanctioned oil tankers going into and out of Venezuela.” He also described the Maduro administration as a foreign terrorist organization, citing its alleged involvement in terrorism, drug trafficking and human smuggling.
This designation, issued without prior consultation with Congress or a clear public legal rationale, allows the U.S. government to impose stricter financial penalties and provides a broader justification for military action. Trump demanded the immediate return of what he called “stolen U.S. assets,” warning that his administration would not let a hostile regime take American oil, land or other property.
The president claimed that Venezuela is now surrounded by what he described as the largest naval force ever assembled in South America. He added that military and economic pressure would continue without pause until the disputed assets are returned to U.S. control.
The blockade follows a series of aggressive U.S. maritime operations. Just last week, U.S. forces seized an oil tanker in international waters near the Venezuelan coast and imposed new sanctions on three relatives of Maduro’s wife, Cilia Flores, as well as an associated businessman and six shipping companies.
These actions are part of ongoing U.S. military activities in the Caribbean, which began almost four months ago. While the Trump administration claims this deployment aims to intercept drug shipments and disrupt criminal networks, officials in Caracas have repeatedly rejected this explanation. They view the U.S. naval presence as a flimsy excuse for regime change and a violation of their sovereignty.
Since the deployment began in September, U.S. forces reported sinking at least 25 vessels they suspect were involved in drug trafficking, resulting in the deaths of at least 95 people. Human rights advocates and international observers have criticized the lack of transparency surrounding these incidents, noting that the administration has not provided substantial evidence that those killed were given a chance to surrender or received due process.
The rising death toll has drawn strong criticism from humanitarian groups who argue that using lethal force against suspected smugglers, without civilian court involvement, violates international human rights standards. Critics of the administration’s approach suggest that the focus on sinking vessels reflects a broader trend of acting unilaterally, prioritizing military actions over addressing the complex causes of regional instability.
The sudden classification of Venezuela as a foreign terrorist organization is likely to have significant repercussions. While the U.S. has applied this label to non-state groups like Al-Qaeda or the Islamic State in the past, applying it to a country, even one with a disputed government, complicates future diplomatic efforts. Legal analysts note that designating an entity as an FTO often criminalizes any humanitarian aid or commercial interactions that might inadvertently help it. For Venezuela, which already faces hyperinflation and shortages of food and medicine, a full blockade could trigger a disastrous breakdown of basic services.
The legality of the operation has also faced criticism within the United States. Democratic lawmakers and foreign policy analysts are questioning whether the administration has the legal authority for a unilateral naval blockade, which international law considers an act of war unless authorized by the United Nations Security Council or carried out in clear self-defense. No such U.N. resolution exists regarding Venezuela.
Public opinion on the administration’s approach is sharply divided. A recent Reuters/Ipsos poll found significant unease with the administration’s tactics, indicating that 48% of U.S. adults oppose military strikes on suspected drug boats near Venezuela without approval from a court. This suggests a lack of domestic agreement for aggressive military actions.
Despite this pushback, Trump has indicated that the military campaign could soon extend to land-based operations. In recent weeks, he has repeatedly suggested that U.S. military strikes against drug traffickers in Caribbean regions or on Venezuelan soil could start very soon. This talk has heightened tensions between the two countries to their highest level in decades. Diplomatic communication between Washington and Caracas has nearly collapsed and the rhetoric from both sides has grown increasingly aggressive. The Venezuelan government has responded to the blockade with heightened military readiness, calling the U.S. action illegal imperialist aggression.
Since 2017, the Trump administration has implemented increasingly severe economic sanctions, focusing on Venezuela’s vital oil industry, government officials and financial networks. Aimed at undermining Maduro’s power, these sanctions have been criticized by United Nations human rights experts and economists for pushing Venezuela’s economy toward collapse, leading over five million people to flee.
The “total and complete blockade” threatens to devastate what remains of Venezuela’s oil exports, which have already fallen to their lowest levels in 80 years due to prior sanctions. This risks further collapse of the nation’s last major source of income, potentially worsening the humanitarian crisis.
Regional reactions have been cautious. Many Latin American countries have historically been skeptical of U.S. military involvement in the region. The administration’s actions will likely be a topic of urgent debate at the Organization of American States, where U.S. policy on Venezuela has already created significant divisions. There is also a risk that this blockade could attract the involvement of other global powers. Russia and China, both with substantial interests in Venezuela, have condemned U.S. sanctions as illegal in the past. The presence of a large U.S. naval force in the Caribbean might lead to maritime clashes with Russian or Chinese vessels that continue to engage with Caracas despite U.S. restrictions.
Observers of Latin American politics argue that the administration’s strategy may backfire by strengthening Maduro’s backing from his military leaders. By presenting the conflict as a defense of national sovereignty against a foreign intruder, Maduro has effectively used anti-imperialist sentiment to solidify his political power.
As the U.S. naval fleet encircles Venezuela, the international community is on alert. The shift from economic sanctions to a lethal blockade and the potential for land strikes marks a critical moment in the administration’s foreign policy. Whether this escalation will succeed in achieving its goals of retrieving assets and removing Maduro or lead to a prolonged and violent conflict, remains a matter of serious debate.
For now, the Caribbean has become a frontline in a confrontation that shows little sign of de-escalation. With nearly 100 people already dead and a total blockade in place, the human and political costs of the administration’s policy are starting to rise, even as the president insists that the pressure will only increase.