President Donald Trump has acknowledged that the United States has already taken crude from Venezuelan tankers seized under his administration’s expanding oil blockade. The admission, delivered in a media interview, confirms that the seizures are not only a tool of pressure on Caracas but also a direct source of supply for the U.S. market. It also sharpens a long-running dispute over who owns Venezuela’s oil and who should benefit from the tankers now held under American control.
The comments arrive after months of escalating maritime operations, legal maneuvers, and political messaging that cast Venezuela’s energy sector as both a security threat and a prize. They also follow Trump’s repeated claims that Venezuela “stole” American oil, a rhetoric that has framed the seizures as a form of restitution rather than simple confiscation. His latest remarks, however, move the debate from theory to practice by confirming that the cargoes are already being drawn down.
Trump’s admission and the mystery of the missing cargo
The clearest account of the president’s remarks comes from an interview in which President Donald Trump told a tabloid that the United States “has taken” oil from seized Venezuelan tankers and is now using it domestically. That description, relayed in a report attributed to Reuters, confirms that the cargoes are not simply impounded as evidence but are being monetized. A separate account of the same exchange, carried in a wire story reproduced on a portal that noted the US has taken, reinforces that the president was not speaking hypothetically. In both tellings, Trump declined to specify where the tankers are now located, citing security concerns and a desire to keep adversaries guessing.
Video clips of the president’s remarks, including one segment labeled Trump Says US, show him boasting that the cargoes are now under American control while refusing to Reveal Tanker Locations. The tone is consistent with his broader messaging on Venezuela, in which he has portrayed the seizures as a personal victory and a warning to other sanctioned states. That posture has unsettled legal experts who note that, in normal forfeiture cases, presidents avoid suggesting that seized assets are theirs to dispose of at will.
From warrants to a de facto oil pipeline
The admission caps a sequence of moves that began with seizure warrants targeting ships tied to the Venezuelan oil trade. Earlier this month, officials confirmed that the United States had taken control of a second tanker, the M/T Sophia, in the Caribbean, with U.S. Southern Command confirming the operation. Officials described the broader effort as part of a strategy to “control Venezuela’s oil resources indefinitely,” language that goes well beyond traditional sanctions enforcement. Around the same time, a separate operation off the Venezuelan coast saw U.S. forces board another vessel, prompting the Venezuelan government to denounce what it called a “blatant theft.”
Those seizures sit within a wider maritime campaign described in accounts of the United States oil blockade during Operation Southern Spear, where United States forces targeted tankers suspected of moving sanctioned crude. In that context, when Trump confirmed the seizure of a tanker named Skipper, he highlighted that it had sailed under a Russian flag to evade sanctions. More recent footage shows U.S. forces taking a sixth sanctioned tanker with ties to Venezuela, part of what commentators in that clip describe as Trump’s effort to control its oil. A separate video on the same theme notes that tensions remain high between the United States and Venezuela after the capture of Venezuelan leader Nicolas Maduro and the military’s role in seizing another oil tanker.
Who owns Venezuela’s oil, and who gets the proceeds
Trump has tried to justify these moves by arguing that Venezuela first stole from the United States. In a televised address, he claimed that the U.S. “built” the Venezuelan oil industry and that Venezuela then “stole it by force,” a claim that prompted fact-checking of Donald Trump’s historical narrative. Analysts pointed out that early development involved a mix of foreign and local actors, including companies that evolved into modern majors, a point echoed in a separate Ben Chu segment that traced the role of Chevron’s predecessor. A detailed explainer on the dispute over assets notes that when President Trump announced the capture of former When President Trump detained Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro and his wife on Saturday, he again framed the move as redress for alleged theft of American oil assets.
Behind the rhetoric lies a more technical fight over who should receive the money from seized cargoes. In one live update, U.S. officials said they were “pleased to announce” that the Interim Authorities in Venezuela would be turning over between 30 and 50 million barrels of high-quality crude, suggesting that Washington sees itself as the steward of Venezuelan resources during the standoff. Another report quoted US President Donald Trump saying he would personally control the proceeds from the sale of tens of millions of barrels of Venezuelan oil, while officials said the United States would “indefinitely” control Venezuela’s energy industry, a claim repeated by President Donald Trump.
Legal gray zones, domestic politics, and Venezuelan backlash
Inside Washington, the White House has tried to frame the seizures as a lawful extension of sanctions and criminal forfeiture. A spokesperson named Leavitt said an investigative team is on the ground as one seized tanker undergoes the forfeiture process, and that Individuals onboard the vessel are being questioned. The same briefing stressed that the United States intends to keep the oil as part of efforts to cut off the Venezuelan government’s main source of revenue, a line that dovetails with Trump’s broader promise to punish Caracas. In a separate update, officials reiterated that the United States intends to keep seized tanker oil, a stance repeated in another White House account that emphasized the impact on Caracas’s budget.