The recent seizure of the tanker M/T Skipper by U.S. Coast Guard personnel off the coast of Venezuela has sparked intense debate. The operation, executed just before a legal warrant expired, is indicative of the Trump administration’s intensified campaign of sanctions aimed at disrupting the Venezuelan oil shipping networks. The Skipper, carrying about 1.1 million barrels of crude oil valued at nearly $78 million, was en route to Cuba with plans for distribution in Asia. This arrest marks a notable moment, being the first U.S. seizure of a Venezuelan oil tanker in years, and it briefly elevated global oil prices.
On December 10, 2025, Coast Guard units, aided by the FBI and Homeland Security Investigations, rappelled onto the Skipper to conduct the seizure mandated by a Justice Department warrant. The legal basis for this action ties into federal laws aimed at disrupting operations linked to terrorism-related activities. Attorney General Pam Bondi highlighted that this vessel had been under sanctions for its connections to an illicit network that supported foreign terrorist organizations. Such claims underscore the administration’s wider objectives to enforce sanctions and counter narcotrafficking operations linked to the Venezuelan government.
President Trump described the seizure as “the largest one ever seized,” with implications for how the U.S. might handle the oil cargo. His remarks, “We keep it, I guess,” reflected a casual yet assertive stance on U.S. ownership of the resource. This sentiment was echoed by Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem, who framed the action as a necessary response to a regime she accused of promoting drug-related violence in the U.S. White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt elaborated further, asserting that the administration aims to prevent sanctioned ships from enabling the black-market oil trade that funds narcoterrorism.
The operation is part of a broader strategy against Nicolás Maduro’s administration, featuring military maneuvers in the Caribbean and signals that further actions, including more seizures and land-based military strikes, could occur. Such military postures raise the stakes considerably, as failing to achieve a significant impact against Maduro could undermine U.S. credibility and Trump’s political capital. In a coincidental twist, the same day of the seizure saw Venezuelan opposition leader María Corina Machado praising the move as a critical blow against Maduro’s regime from her unexpected appearance in Oslo.
However, the Venezuelan government condemned the seizure as “international piracy” and “blatant theft.” They argued that it reveals ulterior motives focused on exerting control over Venezuelan natural resources rather than resolving critical issues such as drugs or democracy. Caracas’s planned appeal to international bodies adds another layer of complexity to this already contentious situation.
Legal experts have voiced concerns over the U.S. action. They argue that enforcing unilateral sanctions on non-U.S. entities in international waters may contravene established international law norms. Seizing a vessel outside of U.S. jurisdiction could set a precarious example. Although the U.S. government secured a warrant under its sanctions authorities, critics insist that applying these to non-U.S. actors on the high seas disrupts long-standing legal conventions. Past tensions already exist, illustrated by the continued operation of sanctioned tankers from Russia, suggesting selective enforcement of sanctions could lead to further geopolitical friction.
Supporters of the seizure maintain that the U.S. can invoke a range of legal arguments to justify the action, from terrorism financing to money laundering. The vessel’s prior sanctions designation may provide sufficient legal backing beyond mere sanctions enforcement. Yet, it remains crucial to consider the broader implications of such actions—especially with international stakeholders watching closely.
In conclusion, the seizure of the Skipper is a watershed moment for U.S. naval operations in international waters, illustrating the complexities of modern international law. With both legal justifications and political ramifications on the table, the situation in Venezuela continues to evolve, as does the global perspective on U.S. foreign policy in the region.
"*" indicates required fields
