The Trump administration has adopted a different legal strategy regarding the seizure of a Venezuelan oil tanker, distinguishing it from past operations targeting alleged narco-traffickers. Attorney General Pam Bondi described the action as an enforcement of sanctions based on a federal court warrant, rather than invoking wartime authority typical for military strikes against drug trafficking vessels.
The tanker, known as the Skipper, has a history of sanctions stemming from its involvement in transporting oil linked to Venezuela and Iran. This relationship allegedly supports foreign terrorist organizations, a claim that strengthens the U.S. justification for seizing the vessel. Bondi noted, “The tanker was taken into custody by the Coast Guard with help from the War Department after investigators executed a warrant off the coast of Venezuela.”
The administration’s approach relies solely on sanctions law, indicating a deliberate choice to use domestic legal authority rather than military force. This distinction underscores two separate legal frameworks in play: traditional sanctions enforcement for the tanker and a contentious assertion of wartime powers against drug cartels in the region. A senior administration official remarked that the sanctions designation is “the sole legal basis for seizing the ship.”
According to U.S. law, the Skipper’s designation as “blocked property” allowed the Justice Department to pursue a federal warrant for its seizure under civil forfeiture statutes. This legal framework is considered more conventional in nature, as it operates within the confines of domestic law rather than the complexities of international maritime conflicts.
The use of domestic legal authorities to detain a foreign vessel, particularly one not registered under the U.S. flag, can stir controversy within maritime law. Law professor Julian Ku indicated that if the Skipper is classified as a stateless vessel, this could strengthen the U.S. government’s case for seizure, stating, “The U.S. could treat this vessel as ‘stateless’ and subject to seizure since it is otherwise acting in violation of U.S. law.”
This action reflects a calculated legal maneuver, contrasting with the administration’s military campaigns. While the seizure pivots on the International Emergency Economic Powers Act and OFAC regulations, it avoids claims of battlefield authority or self-defense powers. A senior administration official reiterated that the Skipper’s seizure operates under this legal framework and does not invoke Article II wartime arguments, which had been used to justify strikes against cartel vessels.
The operation is characterized as a civilian enforcement action. However, it collaborates with military resources, highlighting the complexity of modern enforcement methods against foreign threats. Although these actions are distinctly categorized, they ultimately converge on a shared objective: increasing pressure on Venezuelan leader Nicolas Maduro to relinquish power.
This divergence in legal strategy illustrates the administration’s nuanced approach to foreign relations and enforcement. By relying on domestic law and established sanctions procedures, the administration seeks to firmly ground its actions within legal precedent while navigating sensitive international waters.
"*" indicates required fields
