U.S. President Donald Trump looks on as he walks to board Marine One to depart for Joint Base Andrews, from the South Lawn at the White House in Washington, D.C., U.S., November 22, 2025. REUTERS/Aaron Schwartz
President Donald Trump made his designs on a potential invasion of Venezuela clearer than ever with a public threat issued on his Truth Social platform on Tuesday evening.
"Venezuela is completely surrounded by the largest Armada ever assembled in the History of South America," said Trump, who has spent the last few months striking ships in the area ostensibly to combat drug trafficking. "It will only get bigger, and the shock to them will be like nothing they have ever seen before — Until such time as they return to the United States of America all of the Oil, Land, and other Assets that they previously stole from us."
This proclamation provoked instant response on social media, with analysts warning this was heading to a very dark place.
"It is international law 101 that a military blockade is not just a violation of the UN Charter, but a crime of aggression. Unless that blockade is in response to an 'armed attack.' None of President Trump's list of complaints come close to an armed attack," wrote New York University law professor and former Pentagon special counsel Ryan Goodman, quoting the definition of aggression from the United Nations: "'Any of the following acts, regardless of a declaration of war, shall ... qualify as an act of aggression: ... The blockade of the ports or coasts of a State by the armed forces of another State.'"
"Without an order from Congress, it is illegal to blockade any foreign nations trade, unless it is US bound," wrote policy consultant Adam Cochran. "But it’s increasingly clear Trump intends to invade Venezuela to distract from the Epstein files and to seize Venezuelan oil."
"What is Trump babbling about now?" wrote author James Surowiecki. "'The United States of America' has never owned any oil fields in Venezuela, and has no claim to Venezuelan oil. American oil companies did, but going to war on behalf of ExxonMobil seems like a bad idea."