Last Tuesday evening, President Donald Trump posted a striking message on Truth Social calling for a “total and complete blockade” of all sanctioned oil tankers entering or leaving Venezuela. In the post, Trump cited asset theft, terrorism, and human trafficking, and asserted that Venezuela should be treated as a foreign terrorist organization.
The statement immediately sparked confusion across energy markets and political media. Trump offered no details on how such a blockade would be enforced, under what legal authority it would operate, or whether the U.S. military would be involved. But the language marked a sharp escalation from sanctions enforcement to what would amount to a direct economic and potentially military action.
Shortly after the post appeared, I began receiving messages asking what Trump was referring to. I believe I understand the context that is largely absent from the initial coverage. What follows is an attempt to explain what many are missing. In a nutshell, a corporate expropriation that involved my employer nearly two decades ago—handled through courts and arbitration—now appears to be resurfacing as a geopolitical flashpoint.
Before going further, it is important to be clear about intent. The following is not an argument in support of President Trump’s position, nor an endorsement of the language he used. It is an attempt to explain the historical and legal context that helps clarify what he may be referencing.
Why Trump Is Likely Referring to Chávez’s 2007 Oil Seizures
Based on the wording of Trump’s post, particularly his demand that Venezuela “return to the United States of America all of the Oil, Land, and other Assets that they previously stole from us,” the most plausible reference is the 2007 expropriation of U.S. oil assets by Venezuelan president Hugo Chávez.
At that time, oil prices were rising and Chávez’s government nationalized major oil projects operated by foreign companies, including ConocoPhillips, which was my employer at that time. The company had invested heavily in the country and its stakes in three large ventures—Petrozuata, Hamaca, and Corocoro—were seized without compensation. For those of us working in the industry at the time, it was an event that reshaped how companies viewed business risks in Venezuela.
What began as a corporate dispute became one of the largest unresolved U.S. claims against a foreign government.
The Legal Case Behind the Rhetoric
ConocoPhillips pursued international arbitration for years and ultimately won multiple awards. Most recently, in January 2025, arbitration rulings were upheld totaling approximately $8.7 billion plus interest. Venezuela has consistently refused to pay.
The U.S. Treasury has authorized ConocoPhillips to pursue enforcement actions worldwide, including the seizure of Venezuelan assets held abroad. Some assets have been targeted over the years, but full recovery has remained elusive.
Trump’s framing of Venezuela as having “stolen” American oil aligns directly with this legal history. While Venezuela claims sovereign authority over its resources, international tribunals ruled the expropriation illegal under international law. Trump appears to be elevating that unresolved legal judgment into a matter of U.S. foreign policy enforcement.
From Arbitration to Blockade: A Major Escalation
What makes Trump’s post extraordinary is not the underlying dispute, but the proposed response. A naval or economic blockade would represent a dramatic shift from legal remedies to coercive state action.
Such a move would carry enormous implications. Venezuela remains an oil exporter, and interference with tanker traffic could disrupt global energy markets, strain relations with U.S. allies, and provoke retaliation from Venezuela and its partners. It would also raise questions about international law, freedom of navigation, and congressional authorization.
What Comes Next
At this stage, it is unclear whether Trump’s post signals imminent policy action or rhetorical pressure aimed at forcing negotiations. What is clear is that the claim of “stolen oil” is rooted in a documented, adjudicated legal case involving U.S. corporate assets seized without compensation.
As this story develops, separating legal fact from political theater will be essential. Whether Trump’s threat leads to meaningful asset recovery—or instead deepens geopolitical conflict—remains an open question. But the underlying dispute he is invoking is real, unresolved, and now very much back at the center of U.S.–Venezuela relations.
Follow Robert Rapier on LinkedIn or Facebook