Did Trump declare war on Venezuela? What the US oil blockade implies that puts Maduro on the edge

LOOK: Venezuela 11 km away: How is Trinidad and Tobago now a key territory for the United States and its siege against Maduro?

The government of USA maintains that the Skipper was involved in oil transportation that violated sanctionsboth Venezuelan and those related to evasion networks that include Iranian oil.

On Tuesday, trump wrote on his Truth Social platform: “Today I order A TOTAL AND COMPLETE BLOCKADE OF ALL SANCTIONED OIL TANKERS entering and leaving Venezuela“.

The magnate accused Venezuela of stealing American assets, such as oil and land, and “terrorism, drug trafficking and human trafficking.”

He justified the blockade by stating that “The Venezuelan regime had been designated as an international terrorist organization” for its administration.

According to the Axios portal, Currently 18 tankers sanctioned by the United States are fully loaded with oil in Venezuelan waters. They are all being watched by Washington.

Eight of these vessels are classified as large cargo ships, similar to the Skipper.

Axios stressed that the Government of trump It plans to seize these oil tankers if they enter international waters.

In Venezuelathe regime described as “irrational” and “grotesque threat” the blockade announced by Trump.

“The president of the United States intends to impose in an absolutely irrational manner a supposed naval military blockade on Venezuela with the aim of stealing the wealth that belongs to our country”, the Maduro government stated in a statement.

As of November 2025, Venezuela exported around 921,000 barrels of crude oil per dayin what was the third highest average of the year. This despite growing military and political pressure from the United States.

80% of these exports were destined for China and some 150,000 barrels were destined for the United Statesmainly through special licenses for Chevronthe only North American company that currently continues to export under White House rules.

Between January and October of this year, Sales of crude oil and oil products from Venezuela reached about 12.25 billion dollars. This figure represents a decrease close to 5% compared to the same period in 2024, despite exporting a slightly larger volumemainly due to a lowest average price of crude oil in international markets and greater discounts applied on sales to intermediaries.

According to the Venezuela budget project for 2025the oil revenue represent the 53% of the current income of the Venezuelan State.

At this point, it is worth remembering that until before 2017 About 95% of foreign exchange from exports came from crude oil. That was a historic and practically immovable figure.

“The blockade points to the financial heart of a criminal structure”

For the Venezuelan political scientist José Vicente Carrasquerothe order of trump will have a immediate and severe impact on the financial heart of the regime.

“The direct effect is the absolute lack of liquidity. If you can’t sell oil, you have no income, and that instantly hits the finances of power,” points out to The Commerce.

In his opinion, It is also an opaque economic systemwith poorly audited accounts and without clear documentation, which aggravates the impact of the measure.

Carrasquero maintains that the objective of Washington’s decision goes beyond economic pressure. “Trump seeks to dismantle what he considers a criminal structure, linked to drug trafficking and human trafficking, and at the same time highlight the illegitimacy of Ripewho was not elected”he states.

From this logic, the analyst considers that the regime’s response – which accuses the United States of wanting to appropriate Venezuelan wealth – eludes the central point of the conflict: the lack of political legitimacy.

However, Carrasquero warns that economic collapse alone does not guarantee Maduro’s departure from power. “The regime does not care about Venezuelans. Their priority is to survive,” he says.

The analyst describes the Venezuelan ruling elite as a group trapped inside the country, with arrest warrants, rewards and restrictions on international movement. ““They have made Venezuela their own prison, and that explains, to a large extent, the electoral fraud of 2024.”

Even so, does not rule out that the blockade has unforeseeable internal consequences. “The impact can translate into social unrest and fissures within the Armed Forces, with sectors that eventually refuse to repress,” explains.

That scenario, he maintains, would once again test the ability of Ripe to maintain power, an ability that, remember, until now has relied on the systematic use of state terrorism.

Is it a declaration of war?

Francesco Tucciprofessor of Political Science and International Relations at the Peruvian University of Applied Sciences (UPC), tells The Commerce that from the point of view of international law, the order of trump to block sanctioned oil tankers entering and leaving Venezuela It moves in a legal gray area: it is not a formal declaration of war, but it cannot be considered a simple economic measure either..

He adds that according to international doctrine, a classic naval blockade constitutes a act of waras established by the London Naval Conference, the San Remo Manual and the UN itself, which considers the blockade of ports or coasts as a typical act of aggression.

“However, this blockade presents a fundamental peculiarity that differentiates it from the traditional concept: It is selective. It does not block all ships but only the ‘sanctioned oil tankers’he refers.

Tucci indicates that this selectivity, added to the absence of formal notification through diplomatic channels and its announcement via social networks, prevents it from being recognized as a war blockade in the strict sense. However, the use of naval force to prevent commercial operations in international waters It also distances it from the framework of traditional economic pressure, he points out.

The analyst warns that the most serious risk of this measure is the possible military escalation if the United States intercepts ships from third countries, especially China or Iran. Explains that under the Law of the Sea Convention, freedom of navigation on the high seas is protected, and cAny intervention could be interpreted by these powers as a serious violation or even as “state piracy.” There are historical precedents—from the Cuban missile crisis to blockades in Kosovo or Lebanon—where Similar actions without declared war ended on the brink of major conflicts.

Regarding its political effectiveness in VenezuelaTucci suggests that The blockade will hardly force Maduro’s immediate departure. He emphasizes that the sanctions have not managed to break the regime in previous years and, on the contrary, have reinforced its internal survival logic.

Consider that Trump’s measure thus appears as a high risk gamble that could involve: a tool of maximum pressure to force Maduro into a negotiation, or the prologue to a major escalation embodied in ground operationsfollowing a historical pattern in which “Undeclared” blockades rarely remain at the economic level.

He cites as an example the Gaza blockade by Israel from 2006 until today. Without a formal declaration of war, multiple armed conflicts resulted. He adds that the San Remo Manual concluded that it violated humanitarian law.

Also Kosovo in 1999, where NATO’s undeclared blockade led to a 78-day air campaign.

“Are there precedents where the undeclared blockade generated pure economic pressure without escalation? The historical answer is negative. The ‘peaceful’ blockades of the 19th century (France-Turkey 1827) escalated into open wars,” Tucci finishes.