In a recent social media post, he announced that the largest naval force ever assembled in South America would remain around Venezuelan territory until the United States was compensated for the resources it claimed were stolen.
He also proclaimed that he had designated the government of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela as a “FOREIGN TERRORIST ORGANIZATION.”
Editorial: La Tabla/Data Journalism Platform 16 DEC 2025
Former President Trump accused Venezuela of “stealing” oil, land, and assets from the U.S., demanding an “immediate” return. This narrative, framed as a cause for conflict, does not refer to any actual criminal act, but rather to the historical nationalization processes, which is a sovereign right recognized in international law.
By equating the interests of U.S. companies to national property that has been “stolen,” Trump creates an extreme rhetorical justification for maximum pressure actions (such as a total naval blockade). His objective is to redefine the conflict: it is not a geopolitical dispute but a struggle against a “terrorist organization” that has robbed American assets.
The accusation, particularly the claim of “stolen land” without any historical basis, reveals a mercantilist and colonial view of international relations, where another country’s sovereignty over its resources is denied. The real issue is not the threat of a blockade but this discursive leap that seeks to legitimize an unprecedented escalation against Venezuela.
Journalistic Analysis: Trump claims Venezuela “stole” oil and land from the U.S.,
In a public statement filled with rhetoric and extraordinary claims, former President Donald J. Trump alleged that the Venezuelan government had “stolen” oil, land, and other assets from the United States, a claim which lacks foundation in international law and the diplomatic history between the two nations.
The core of Trump’s statement lies in the phrase: “[Venezuela must] return to the United States… all the oil, land, and other assets that were previously stolen from us.” This narrative of “theft” does not refer to any Venezuelan military incursion into U.S. territory, something that has never occurred.
Analysts and international relations experts interpret this accusation as a reference to the nationalization processes of the Venezuelan oil industry, particularly those carried out in the past that affected the interests of multinational corporations, including some American ones.
· Historical Context: Venezuela, as a sovereign nation, has historically exercised control over its natural resources. The nationalization of oil in the 1970s under the 1975 law, and the subsequent changes in contract terms with foreign companies during the governments of Hugo Chávez and Nicolás Maduro, are acts of economic policy and national sovereignty.
In international law, a state has the sovereign right to control its own resources.
· Narrative of “Stolen Assets”: Trump’s stance equates the interests of private U.S. companies (whose assets were compensated or subject to legal disputes) with the property of the government or the “people” of the United States. This is an extreme rhetorical amplification that constructs a casus belli by presenting Venezuela not as a geopolitical rival or an adversarial government, but as a thief that has taken U.S. national property.
The focal point of the news, therefore, is not the order for a “total blockade” (an extreme measure that would have huge legal and global consequences), but the construction of a justificatory narrative for any future actions.
1. Personalization of the conflict: By speaking of “our oil” and “our land,” Trump shifts a complex dispute of foreign policy and corporate interests to an emotional level of personal aggression against the American nation.
2. Total criminalization: By designating the Venezuelan government as a “Foreign Terrorist Organization” and linking it directly with the “theft” of assets, the statement seeks to eliminate any diplomatic nuances, framing the situation as a binary struggle between the United States and a criminal entity.
3. Basis for actions: This language provides public justification for maximum pressure measures, like the mentioned blockade, additional sanctions, or support for destabilizing actions, framing them as the “recovery of stolen goods” and the fight against “terrorism,” rather than mere political pressure for regime change.
The claim that Venezuela possesses “stolen lands” from the U.S. is particularly outrageous and does not correspond to any historical territorial conflict between the two countries. The general accusation reflects a mercantilist and patrimonial view of international relations, where the sovereignty of another country over its resources is denied when it clashes with economic interests perceived as American.
The statement represents a significant verbal escalation that blurs the line between political rhetoric and the established principles of international law that recognize permanent sovereignty of states over their natural resources.
In summary, the news is not about the blockade (a threat already hinted at in the past), but the extraordinary narrative of legitimization employed by Trump: transforming historical disputes over nationalizations and sanctions into a direct accusation of the theft of U.S. national property, a story that seeks to reset the terms of the conflict and prepare the ground for unprecedented hard actions.