The United States has interdicted and seized a second sanctioned vessel off Venezuela in international waters, three U.S. officials told Reuters on Saturday, confirming that the December 10 capture of the tanker Skipper was not a one-time operation but the opening move in a sustained maritime enforcement campaign. With the Coast Guard leading the operation, the seizure comes just four days after President Donald Trump announced a "total and complete blockade" of all sanctioned oil tankers entering and leaving Venezuela, marking a fundamental shift from financial pressure to physical interdiction on the high seas.
The escalation reshapes the enforcement landscape around Venezuela's shadow tanker fleet and raises acute questions about legal authority and collision risk. What began as targeted sanctions on individual vessels has evolved into a standing interdiction regime applied across international waters against hulls the administration deems sanctioned—a posture that legal scholars warn edges into act-of-war territory if sustained as a true blockade, even as Pentagon officials prefer the narrower term "quarantine."
From Skipper template to recurring enforcement
The December 10 seizure of the Skipper established the operational model. U.S. agencies—including the FBI, Department of Homeland Security, Coast Guard, and in some accounts Marines—boarded the tanker in the Caribbean Sea under a sealed federal seizure warrant issued November 26 and executed two weeks later. Officials tied the vessel to an oil-trafficking shadow fleet allegedly linked to Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps and Hezbollah, part of a network moving sanctioned crude. Venezuela's government condemned the action as "international piracy," but the administration framed it as lawful sanctions enforcement against a vessel that had lost legitimate flag protection.
The December 20 interdiction confirms the Skipper was a template, not an exception. More than 150 tankers have been identified by analysts as potentially vulnerable if connected to sanctioned shipments; on December 11 alone, the U.S. sanctioned six additional hulls—White Crane, Monique, Kiara M, Lattafa, H. Constance, and Tamia. Each designation expands the pool of vessels subject to boarding and seizure, effectively creating a maritime enforcement zone in waters where international law presumes exclusive flag-state jurisdiction. The initial seizure marked the pivot from paper sanctions to physical enforcement; the second capture institutionalizes it.
President Trump's December 16 announcement amplified the shift. He declared a "total and complete blockade" of sanctioned tankers and designated Venezuela's government as a foreign terrorist organization, a pairing that administration allies argue unlocks broader extraterritorial enforcement authorities. Yet Pentagon officials have carefully avoided the word "blockade" in briefings, preferring "quarantine"—a terminological retreat that reflects acute legal discomfort. Under the law of the sea, a blockade is a wartime measure imposed by belligerents to cut off enemy commerce, while a quarantine must be narrowly tailored and grounded in recognized legal bases such as flag-state consent, UN mandate, self-defense, or vessel statelessness.
Members are reading: How the U.S. is constructing a legal basis for high-seas interdictions that international law scholars warn blurs enforcement and acts of war.
Tactical disruption without full stoppage
Early market data shows behavioral shifts but not a complete embargo. Tanker-tracking firms report some vessels avoiding Venezuelan waters, longer loading times at major terminals, and several loaded ships staying put to avoid seizure—effectively a self-imposed temporary embargo. Yet total ship movements from Venezuelan ports had not shown a steep drop as of mid-December, suggesting the interdiction campaign has achieved tactical disruption rather than a stranglehold on exports.
This pattern reflects both the limits of current enforcement capacity and the resilience of shadow-fleet economics. Operators can employ AIS spoofing, ship-to-ship transfers in remote waters, and flag-hopping to evade detection. The administration's broader maritime strike campaign—more than two dozen lethal strikes on alleged narcotics boats since early September, killing at least 100 people and drawing congressional scrutiny—demonstrates the scale of resources Washington is willing to deploy in Caribbean waters, but also the difficulty of sustained interdiction across thousands of nautical miles.
For Venezuela, the economic pressure is real but not yet decisive. Oil revenue remains a lifeline for the Maduro government, and past assumptions about imminent regime collapse under sanctions have proven optimistic. The interdictions do, however, complicate Venezuela's ability to negotiate deals with buyers and insurers, raising costs and uncertainty. Marginal global supply tightening is possible if seizures accelerate, though traders note Venezuela's production had already been constrained by sanctions and infrastructure decay long before the first boarding.
What escalation looks like from here
The second seizure establishes a pattern: the U.S. intends to enforce its sanctions architecture at sea, repeatedly and visibly, against a widening pool of vessels. Three indicators will clarify whether this remains a targeted disruption or expands into a broader confrontation. First, whether interdictions extend beyond clearly sanctioned or stateless hulls to vessels with ambiguous sanctions exposure or contested flag status—a move that would test international tolerance and legal limits. Second, whether Caracas follows through on threats to escort tankers with naval assets, creating a direct military dimension. Third, whether ship movements from Venezuelan terminals decline sharply in late December and January, signaling that the enforcement threat has achieved its intended chokepoint effect.
For now, the U.S. has demonstrated it can seize sanctioned tankers in international waters and sustain the operational tempo. Whether it can do so without triggering a wider maritime standoff, legal pushback from flag states, or a direct clash with Venezuelan forces remains the open question as the interdiction campaign moves from proof of concept to sustained enforcement.
Subscribe to our free newsletter to unlock direct links to all sources used in this article.
We believe you deserve to verify everything we write. That's why we meticulously document every source.
