Democrats are sounding alarm bells after the Trump administration seized a Venezuelan oil tanker Wednesday, with lawmakers worrying that the move could lead to increased conflict or even war in the region.
The U.S. has been attempting to ratchet up pressure on Caracas in recent months as part of its campaign against Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro, and the seizure of what President Trump labeled a “very large” tanker marks the latest escalation.
It’s left Democrats worried about escalation in the region, searching for more information and questioning the motives behind the administration’s moves.
“It is needlessly and recklessly escalating a potential conflict,” said Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.), a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee. “Trump seems to be stumbling into war without any endgame or strategy. He seems to be making decisions without telling the American people, let alone Congress, what his plan is in seizing tankers or killing supposed drug traffickers who come from Venezuela.”
“My fear is that the armada in the Caribbean and the reckless military actions that he’s taking so far are going to stumble us into war,” Blumenthal added.
The Coast Guard, FBI and Homeland Security Investigations executed a seizure warrant for the tanker on Wednesday. Attorney General Pam Bondi posted a video to social media of U.S. forces jumping from helicopters onto the ship and subsequently taking control of it.
The tanker, known as Skipper, was sanctioned in 2022 and has reportedly been used to transport crude oil from Venezuela to Iran despite that designation.
Bondi wrote on the social platform X that the oil tanker had been sanctioned because of “its involvement in an illicit oil shipping network supporting foreign terrorist organizations.” She added that the seizure was conducted “safely and securely.”
The ship was loaded with oil from PDVSA, Venezuela’s state-owned oil company, and was reportedly bound for Cuba when it was seized.
House Armed Services Committee ranking member Adam Smith (D-Wash.) said that while he hasn’t gotten a chance to get the justification of the oil tanker seizure, “it seems like a very bad idea.”
“It clearly has the potential to provoke a larger conflict. I mean, we seized another country’s vessel. Maybe there’s a justification for it. I haven’t seen that yet, but clearly Venezuela will view that as a hostile act. And with all of our troops in the region, it seems that President Trump is indicating that it will not be the last hostile act,” he said.
The attempt to use oil as a cudgel against Maduro’s leadership marks the latest U.S. maneuver against him. Maduro and Venezuela are heavily reliant upon oil, with the nation sitting on the world’s largest proven oil reserves and exporting an average of roughly 900,000 barrels per day. That total is slightly up from last year, but down precipitously from nearly 20 years ago.
It follows the U.S. military’s ongoing campaign against alleged drug boats in the region, which has so far included more than 20 strikes that have killed at least 87 people.
The Trump administration in particular has been facing intense bipartisan scrutiny over a Sept. 2 operation off the coast of Venezuela, in which the military carried out a second strike on a suspected drug boat that killed two survivors.
That has not dissuaded Trump, who has kept up public pressure against the Venezuelan strongman. Trump recently told reporters that Maduro’s “days are numbered” and has declined to rule out sending troops into Venezuela.
The State Department last month designated Venezuela’s Cartel de los Soles, a drug-trafficking network, as a foreign terrorist organization. The administration has alleged that Maduro is the head of the group.
Nevertheless, Democrats are questioning Trump’s reasoning for the attacks.
“More escalation and a muddying of the purpose,” said Sen. Tim Kaine (D-Va.), a member of both the Senate Foreign Relations and Armed Services committees. “Is it about narcotics? Is it about oil? Is it about regime change? There were those questions about what’s really going on here.
“Even before this, is it about narcotics when you just pardoned the biggest narco-trafficker that’s ever been convicted in U.S. courts?” he continued, referring to Trump’s pardoning of former Honduran President Juan Orlando Hernández. “But now this raises additional questions about what’s the motive here.”
Rep. Gregory Meeks (D-N.Y.), ranking member on the House Foreign Affairs panel, added that the incident shows “that the president was lying in the first place when he said it’s all about drugs.”
“With the shootings and the killings that are taking place, it’s not about drugs. It’s about, obviously, regime change. And I think, obviously, trying to get his hands on Venezuelan oil. That’s the main thing to me. It just shows you what that motivation is, really. He talks about he’s doing things because of drugs. Nah,” Meeks said.
“It’s a deal that he’s trying to put his hands on. Is Maduro a good guy? No. He’s not. But you don’t go about things the way this administration is doing it,” he added.
Meeks, along with Smith and other Democrats, introduced a war powers resolution in November to block the Trump administration from using U.S. armed forces to conduct strikes in the Caribbean and eastern Pacific. The House has not taken action yet on the resolution.
Democrats are also pushing for oversight of this latest decision via briefings and public hearings. Kaine said the lion’s share of information he has received about the operations in the Caribbean have been classified.
“I know a lot about this, but I’m not allowed to describe what I know, because everything I know is from a SCIF,” Kaine said, using the acronym for a Sensitive compartmented information facility. “We got to do the public hearings that would normally be done on an operation like this.”
The U.S. has put in place sanctions to ward off companies from trading Venezuelan oil, having also warned countries that Trump will slap tariffs on them for purchasing the product. However, the administration has given some companies a limited green light to do business there, headlined by Chevron, which had its license to operate in Venezuela reissued.
Notably, Republicans are signaling few issues — if any — with the administration’s actions. In their view, it’s cut and dry that the boat was carrying a sanctioned product. Sen. Mike Rounds (R-S.D.), an Armed Services Committee member, told The Hill he has “no objections whatsoever” to the action.
Others were more pointed.
“We need more of that,” said Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas). “Iran and Russia have become experts at circumventing sanctions, and we need to put some teeth into it. This is a good way to do that.”
Mike Lillis contributed.