Which branch of service captured the oil tanker
This fact-check may be outdated. Consider refreshing it to get the most current information.
Executive summary
U.S. officials and senior administration figures said a U.S. operation seized a large oil tanker off Venezuela’s coast on Dec. 10, 2025; Attorney General Pam Bondi and multiple outlets say the FBI, Homeland Security Investigations and the U.S. Coast Guard executed a seizure warrant with support from the Department of Defense [1] [2] [3]. Reports describe U.S. military presence and helicopter landings but attribute the legal execution to federal law‑enforcement agencies — not solely a single military branch [1] [4] [5].
1. Who the government says carried out the seizure — “law enforcement, with DoD support”
Attorney General Pam Bondi’s social posts and news reporting state that the FBI, Homeland Security Investigations (DHS/HSI) and the U.S. Coast Guard “executed a seizure warrant” on the tanker, and those agencies were supported by the Department of Defense [1] [2] [5]. Multiple outlets repeat that formulation: law‑enforcement agencies carried out the legal action while the military provided operational backing, according to Bondi’s statement and reporting by Reuters, CNN and The Guardian [3] [6] [1].
2. Visual evidence and reporting that show military-style tactics
Published footage and reports show forces rappelling from helicopters and U.S. personnel landing on the deck — imagery that resembles a military boarding operation and was shared publicly by Bondi and widely circulated by outlets including Fox News and Sky News [4] [5]. Those images underpin descriptions of a joint operation: law enforcement executing a warrant with “support from the Department of Defense,” per The Guardian and Sky [1] [5].
3. Why multiple outlets name different participants — legal versus tactical roles
Coverage consistently draws a distinction between the agencies that executed the legal seizure (FBI, HSI, Coast Guard) and those that supported the mission (DoD). Reuters, PBS, CNBC and others cite Bondi’s language that places the FBI/HSI/Coast Guard at the center of the warrant execution while the Department of Defense provided force protection or transport — explaining why reports list both law‑enforcement bodies and military involvement [6] [7] [2].
4. Conflicting emphases in reporting reflect political framing
Conservative outlets and administration statements emphasized dramatic military action — “armed agents rappelled from helicopters” and “U.S. military seized” — language that foregrounds kinetic force and presidential credit [4] [2]. International and left‑leaning outlets and analysts highlighted legal warrant execution by federal investigative bodies and noted Venezuela’s denouncement as “piracy,” framing the incident as a law‑enforcement action with geopolitical consequences [1] [8].
5. What the sources explicitly do and do not say about which single branch “captured” the tanker
No source in the set identifies one single U.S. military branch as the sole captor; instead, the reporting names the FBI, DHS/HSI and U.S. Coast Guard as the executing agencies, with Department of Defense support — a multiagency operation rather than a unilateral Navy or Marine action [1] [2] [3]. Available sources do not mention a single military branch (e.g., Navy SEALs, Marine Corps) as the principal force that “captured” the ship [1] [4].
6. Why the distinction matters — legal authority, precedent and international reaction
Labeling the action a law‑enforcement seizure backed by DoD implies the U.S. framed this as executing domestic warrants against sanctioned property rather than an act of overt warfare, a distinction cited by reporters and Bondi’s statement [1] [7]. Venezuela called the operation “an act of international piracy,” a response underscoring how framing (law enforcement vs. military strike) shapes diplomatic fallout and legal debate [1].
7. Unanswered questions and reporting limitations
Reports confirm the agencies involved and show dramatic boarding footage, but sources do not provide a full operational chain‑of‑command, which specific DoD units provided support, or public details on the warrant’s legal basis beyond assertions of sanctions and illicit networks [1] [5] [2]. Investigative outlets note the tanker’s history of location‑spoofing and sanction ties, but detailed legal filings or after‑action military statements are not present in these reports [9] [6].
Bottom line: the available reporting identifies a multiagency law‑enforcement execution — FBI, Homeland Security Investigations and the U.S. Coast Guard — carrying out a seizure warrant with Department of Defense support; no single U.S. military branch is named as the sole captor in the sources provided [1] [2] [3].