Did venezuela steal oil from us
This fact-check may be outdated. Consider refreshing it to get the most current information.
Executive summary
The United States seized a sanctioned oil tanker off Venezuela’s coast in early December 2025, an action Washington says targeted a vessel used to move sanctioned Venezuelan and Iranian crude; Venezuela called the move “blatant theft” and “international piracy” [1] [2]. The seizure and a later U.S. order for a “total and complete blockade” of sanctioned tankers have sharply escalated tensions, reduced Venezuelan exports and sparked wider dispute about legality and motive [3] [4] [5].
1. What happened: a seizure framed as law-enforcement, denounced as piracy
U.S. officials — including the FBI, Homeland Security Investigations and the U.S. Coast Guard with Department of Defense support — executed a seizure warrant against a large crude tanker known in reporting as the Skipper, which U.S. authorities say was involved in transporting sanctioned oil from Venezuela and Iran [1] [2] [6]. The Venezuelan government immediately denounced the action as “blatant theft” and “an act of international piracy,” saying it was an assault on Venezuela’s sovereign resources [1] [2].
2. How much oil and whose oil: large cargo, mixed claims
Reporting identifies the seized VLCC as carrying roughly 1.1 million barrels of crude when taken and notes that documents seen by the Associated Press suggested about half the cargo belonged to a Cuban state-run importer; other outlets say the tanker had links to a so-called “shadow fleet” used to evade sanctions and had made trips between Venezuela and Iran [6] [7]. The U.S. describes the vessel as sanctioned and part of illicit shipping networks; Venezuela argues the cargo is its sovereign resource [2] [6].
3. Legal and political context: sanctions, prior expropriations and big-dollar claims
This seizure occurred against a background of U.S. sanctions on Venezuelan oil since 2019 and longstanding litigation and arbitration awards against Venezuela — including multi-billion-dollar claims that U.S. firms have sought to enforce — which some U.S. policymakers cite when arguing for seizure or enforcement actions [8]. News outlets note that Republican and Trump administration actions have shifted how U.S. companies like Chevron operate in Venezuela and that Washington has previously authorized enforcement actions tied to arbitration awards [9] [8].
4. U.S. rhetoric and escalation: from seizure to blockade and “terrorist” designation
After the tanker seizure, President Trump publicly framed the action as part of a broader campaign, later designating the Venezuelan government as a “foreign terrorist organization” and ordering a “complete and total blockade” of sanctioned oil tankers going into and out of Venezuela — language and measures that regional and international actors warned could jeopardize navigation and diplomacy [10] [5] [4]. Media outlets highlight that market participants were watching for enforcement details and that oil exports reportedly fell sharply after the seizure and fresh sanctions [3] [4].
5. Conflicting narratives and motives: theft claim vs. sanctions enforcement
The Trump administration presents the seizure as enforcement against sanctioned vessels linked to illicit networks and as part of denying revenue to Maduro; Venezuela frames it as theft of its oil and an illegal act by the United States [1] [2]. Fact-checking and analyst pieces say Trump’s broader claim that Venezuela “stole” U.S. oil or land is not supported in the same terms by reporting — outlets note his language conflates legal disputes, past expropriations of U.S. companies, and seizure operations [11] [8].
6. Immediate effects: markets, exports and regional friction
The seizure pushed oil prices up modestly and appears to have caused a sharp fall in reported Venezuelan exports as buyers and ship operators assessed seizure risk; Washington also imposed sanctions on vessels and linked parties, and Venezuela accused neighboring states (for example Trinidad and Tobago) of complicity, deepening diplomatic strain [3] [5] [12].
7. What reporting does not say: ownership chain outcomes and international legal rulings
Available sources detail the seizure, the U.S. claim that the tanker was sanctioned, and assertions about cargo ownership, but they do not provide a final, independent adjudication of title to the oil, nor do they report the outcome of any international court ruling specifically adjudicating whether the seized cargo legally belonged to Venezuela or third parties at the time of seizure. Those resolutions are “not found in current reporting” in the provided sources [6] [1].
8. Bottom line for the query “did Venezuela steal oil from US?”
Reporting shows the U.S. seized a tanker it considered sanctioned and tied to illicit shipments, and U.S. political statements have asserted Venezuela “stole” assets — but independent coverage does not document a clear, adjudicated case that Venezuela stole U.S. oil in the plain sense; instead, the story involves sanctions enforcement, historical expropriations and large legal claims that U.S. actors have pursued [1] [8] [11]. Both governments present competing narratives: the U.S. frames enforcement against sanctioned shipping, and Venezuela frames the seizure as theft of its sovereign oil [2] [1].