Brazilian President Luiz InĂĄcio Lula da Silva on Tuesday criticised US President Donald Trump‘s proposal to impose a 20 per cent charge on commercial ships transiting the Strait of Hormuz, mocking Washington as a „pirate“ state.
His remarks came after Trump announced that the US would reinstate what he called the „Iranian blockade“ and begin charging vessels for securing one of the world‘s busiest shipping lanes.
DĂaz-Canel wrote that for ârelations between the U.S. and Cuba to progress, they must be based on international law rather than hostility, threats, and economic coercion.â
He added: âWe have always been willing to hold a serious and responsible dialogue with the various US governments, including the current one, on the basis of sovereign equality, mutual respect, principles of International Law, and mutual benefit without interference in internal affairs and with full respect for our independence.â
DĂaz-Canel was quick to reject external interference in Cubaâs affairs.
âCuba does not aggress; it is aggressed upon by the United States for 66 years, and it does not threaten; it prepares, ready to defend the Homeland to the last drop of blood,â said DĂaz-Canel.
In an apparent reference to Trump, he said those who turn everything into a business, âeven human lives,â have no moral authority to point fingers at his country.
Trump said on social media that Cuba long lived off Venezuelan oil and money and had offered security in return, âBUT NOT ANYMORE!â
âTHERE WILL BE NO MORE OIL OR MONEY GOING TO CUBA – ZERO!â Trump said in the post as he spent the weekend at his home in southern Florida. âI strongly suggest they make a deal, BEFORE IT IS TOO LATE.â He did not explain what kind of deal.
Big picture view:
Democrats and five Republicans voted to advance the war powers resolution on a 52-47 vote tally and ensure a later vote for final passage.
But Thursdayâs successful vote is just the first step before the resolution officially passes. The Senate will have to take another vote, this time with the 60-vote filibuster threshold, before it becomes official.
„You will see war powers resolutions introduced on Cuba, Mexico, Colombia, Nigeria, Greenland,“ Senator Tim Kaine, a Virginia Democratic senator who has led several resolutions seeking to check U.S. presidents‘ use of military force without congressional approval.
„I just don‘t know who‘s necessarily going to be leading all of them, because I will likely be at least a co-sponsor and probably leading some,“ Kaine told reporters at a news conference ahead of a Senate vote expected on Thursday on whether to halt further military action in Venezuela without lawmakers‘ approval.
WASHINGTON (AP) â The Senate is expected to vote on a resolution Thursday that would limit President Donald Trump‘s ability to conduct further attacks against Venezuela, setting up a test for his expanding ambitions in the Western Hemisphere.
The war powers resolution would require Trump to get congressional approval before striking Venezuela again, and it comes after the U.S. military seized the president of the South American country, NicolĂĄs Maduro, in a surprise nighttime raid and as Trump‘s administration is seeking to control Venezuela‘s oil resources and its government.
Oil executives are set to meet with President Donald Trump at the White House on Friday to discuss investments in Venezuela, a White House official confirmed to ABC News.
Trump previously said he spoke to U.S. oil companies prior to the raid on Venezuela, even as he said he opted to forego disclosure to members of Congress ahead of time due to concerns about possible leaks. The attack resulted in the removal of Venezuela President Nicolas Maduro.
President Trump and his advisers are planning a sweeping initiative to dominate the Venezuelan oil industry for years to come, and the president has told aides he believes his efforts could help lower oil prices to his favored level of $50 a barrel, according to people familiar with the matter.
The Trump administrationâs foreign-policy ambitions are triggering a renewed, bipartisan push on Capitol Hill to curb the presidentâs military authority, as questions swirl about what actions the United States may take next in Venezuela and whether other countries or their leaders could face a similar fate.
A key focus of the debate is a War Powers Resolution. A vote is expected Thursday in the Senate, and if it passes both chambers, it would prohibit President Donald Trump from taking further military action in Venezuela without explicit congressional authorization.
Kaine argued on a call with reporters that Congress has the constitutional authority to weigh in on military action and was frustrated throughout Trumpâs second term that the check and balance was being bowled over.
„It‘s time for Congress to get its a– off the couch and do what the Constitution mandates that we do â the Constitution we take an oath to,“ Kaine said over the weekend. „We have to put this before the American people, not just in private settings, but in public hearings by the key oversight committees, Intelligence, Armed Services, Foreign Relations in both houses, and explore whether the United States should enter into yet another war with unforeseen consequences.“
(January 4, 2026)
STEPHANOPOULOS: So, what can the Congress do about it is the next question.
SCHUMER: Well, the next question is very simple, and that is that we have the War Powers Act. That‘s a privilege resolution, which means the Republicans can‘t block it.
Tim Kaine and I and Rand Paul are sponsors of it. It‘s going to come to the floor this week. And if it is voted for, if it‘s voted positively in both houses, then the president can‘t do another thing in Venezuela without the OK of Congress. We have to pass it.
(January 3, 2026)
The resolution to block the administration from engaging in further hostilities against Venezuela is privileged, which means Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-S.D.) cannot stop it from coming to the floor.
The measure is sponsored by Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (N.Y.) and Sens. Tim Kaine (D-Va.), Rand Paul (R-Ky.) and Adam Schiff (D-Calif.).
It needs only a simple majority to pass the Senate.
SALT LAKE CITY (ABC4) â A rally took place in Salt Lake City Monday. The protest was planned before the United States performed a military operation and took Venezuelan President NicolĂĄs Maduro into custody, but now, organizers said that itâs more relevant than ever.
The protesters called on Utahâs Senators Mike Lee and John Curtis to support the bipartisan War Powers Resolution in the Senate, which will be voted on this week. It would prohibit President Trump from launching additional hostilities against Venezuela without congressional approval.
Since the Trump administration began striking alleged drug smugglers in the Caribbean in September, there have been four failed votes on resolutions seeking to stop unauthorized attacks on either the boats strikes or Venezuelan soil. They all fell short.
Lawmakers are now preparing for another vote this week on a resolution in the Senate, their latest opportunity to pump the brakes.
(September 12, 2025)
As Iâve discussed at length recently, we have already witnessed the death of the global trading system as we have known it. But this slide away from the rules-based system isnât limited to trade. It is evident in the use of military force as well.
Three examples of unilateral military action over the past couple weeks are particularly instructive:
(…)
That is the real Hobbesian peril. Each of these actions can be seen as an isolated instance, but if one or two or three countries take kinetic action unilaterally, it risks creating a permission structure where others feel there are no guardrails to constrain them.
The US Treasury Department on Wednesday imposed sanctions on four companies and their associated oil tankers for allegedly transporting Venezuelan oil as the Trump administration seeks to escalate its pressure on the country.
The new sanctions come after the US seized two tankers off the coast of Venezuela that were carrying Venezuelan oil, cargo that President Trump has said the US intends to keep, an action that amounts to outright theft.
Yet, while Chile does not recognize the legitimacy of the Maduro regime, that countryâs representative rejected any armed activity that could risk regional peace and stability. She also underlined the imperative of respecting international law, which, Brazilâs representative observed, includes the UN Charterâs prohibition against the threat or use of force. The United Statesâ activities are generating tensions in a region characterized by âstability and peaceful coexistenceâ, added Colombiaâs representative, warning that military escalation not only heightens the risk of a broader conflict but also undermines collective efforts to prevent conflict and promote regional stability.
âHistory demonstrates that the threat or the use of force invariably leads to greater human suffering and the erosion of the international legal order,â observed Mexicoâs representative. He underscored that, regardless of the country or region involved, âdialogue and negotiation are the only legitimate and effective ways of resolving â in the long run â existing differencesâ. Urging all parties to act with restraint, he added: âIt is exclusively up to the Venezuelan people to determine [their countryâs] political future.â
Briefing on Venezuela
ARTICLE 3
1. Any person commits an offence if that person unlawfully and intentionally:
(a) seizes or exercises control over a ship by force or threat thereof or any other form of intimidation; or
(b) performs an act of violence against a person on board a ship if that act is likely to endanger the safe navigation of that ship; or
(c) destroys a ship or causes damage to a ship or to its cargo which is likely to endanger the safe navigation of that ship; or
(d) places or causes to be placed on a ship, by any means whatsoever, a device or
substance which is likely to destroy that ship, or cause damage to that ship or its cargo which endangers or is likely to endanger the safe navigation of that ship; or
(e) destroys or seriously damages maritime navigational facilities or seriously interferes with their operation, if any such act is likely to endanger the safe navigation of a ship; or
(f) communicates information which he knows to be false, thereby endangering the safe navigation of a ship; or
(g) injures or kills any person, in connection with the commission or the attempted
commission of any of the offences set forth in subparagraphs (a) to (f).
2. Any person also commits an offence if that person:
(a) attempts to commit any of the offences set forth in paragraph 1; or
(b) abets the commission of any of the offences set forth in paragraph 1 perpetrated by any person or is otherwise an accomplice of a person who commits such an offence; or
(c) threatens, with or without a condition, as is provided for under national law, aimed at compelling a physical or juridical person to do or refrain from doing any act, to commit any of the offences set forth in paragraph I, subparagraphs (b), (c) and (e), if that threat is likely to endanger the safe navigation of the ship in question.
(…)
ARTICLE 7
1. Upon being satisfied that the circumstances so warrant, any State Party in the territory of which the offender or the alleged offender is present shall, in accordance with its law, take him into custody or take other measures to ensure his presence for such time as is necessary to enable any criminal or extradition proceedings to be instituted.
2. Such State shall immediately make a preliminary inquiry into the facts, in accordance with its own legislation.
To the Senate of the United States:
With a view to receiving the advice and consent of the Senate to ratification, I transmit herewith the Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts against the Safety of Maritime Navigation, and the related Protocol for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts against the Safety of Fixed Platforms Located on the Continental Shelf, signed at Rome on March 10, 1988. I also transmit, for the information of the Senate, the report of the Department of State with respect to the Convention and Protocol.
The seizure of the Italian cruise ship Achille Lauro in 1985, and the murder of American passenger Leon Klinghoffer, demonstrated that no country, or form of transportation, is immune from the criminal savagery of those who engage in terrorist acts. This Convention is aimed at ensuring that those who engage in such acts on board or against ships engaged in navigation are brought to justice. The Protocol would do the same with respect to acts on or against fixed platforms on the continental shelf. Modeled on earlier conventions dealing with aircraft hijacking and sabotage (to which the United States is a party), they include provisions requiring States to provide severe punishment for such offenses, and to extradite or prosecute those who commit them.
Work on the Convention and Protocol began in 1986 under the auspices of the International Maritime Organization on the basis of an initial draft cosponsored by the Governments of Italy, Austria and Egypt. That work was completed, and the Convention and Protocol adopted by consensus, at an international conference in Rome in March 1988. The United States and 22 other States signed the Convention at that time, and the United States and 20 other States signed the Protocol. It is clear that the Convention already has broad support in the international community, and it is hoped that all States will join in this major step to deter acts against the safety of maritime navigation.
I recommend, therefore, that the Senate give early and favorable consideration to this Convention and Protocol and give its advice and consent to ratification.
RONALD REAGAN
The White House,
January 3, 1989.
10080th meeting – Threats to international peace and security
Der UN-Sicherheitsrat kommt heute zu einer Dringlichkeitssitzung zusammen, um ĂŒber die Spannungen zwischen Venezuela und den USA zu beraten. Die Regierung in Caracas hatte die Sitzung mit UnterstĂŒtzung Russlands und Chinas gefordert. Unterdessen wird auch die Rhetorik der US-Regierung gegenĂŒber Venezuela immer deutlicher.
resident Javier Milei clashed with Brazilian President Luiz InĂĄcio Lula da Silva on Saturday at the regional Mercosur summit about the fate of Venezuela, as US President Donald Trump ratcheted up the pressure on Caracas.
Sparring comments from Lula and Milei came at a meeting of the South American bloc, at which a future trade deal with the European Union was on the agenda.
The Case Concerning the Military and Paramilitary Activities in and Against Nicaragua (Nicaragua v. United States of America) (1986)[2] was a case where the International Court of Justice (ICJ) held that the U.S. had violated international law by supporting the Contras in their rebellion against the Sandinistas and by mining Nicaragua‘s harbors. The case was decided in favor of Nicaragua and against the United States with the awarding of reparations to Nicaragua.
(…)
In response to the ICJ‘s decision that US aid to the contra rebels violated international law, US State Department lawyer, Abraham Sofaer, said that the US would no longer recognize the ICJ‘s ‚compulsory jurisdiction‘ authority. Sofaer said „We felt the Nicaragua case was an unfortunate signal to us that we should be concerned about our security interests and about the use of the court for political-public relations purposes. . . . The President does not want the court used for those purposes–at the same time, he and others in this Administration want to continue to use the court for its intended purposes“. Paul Reichler, one of the lawyers representing Nicaragua in the case, said: „It‘s another indication that this Administration has no regard for international law–when international law conflicts with a foreign policy objective of the Administration, they will throw international law into the waste basket“.
The Venezuelan government described the action as a serious act of piracy, noting that it constitutes the commission of the crime stipulated in Article 3 of the 1988 Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts against the Safety of Maritime Navigation.
He also denounced the operation as a violation of Article 2 of the Charter of the United Nations, Article 2 of the Geneva Convention on the High Seas, and the Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Cooperation between States.
(…)
The Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela reaffirms that these acts will not go unpunished and will take all appropriate actions, including filing complaints with the United Nations Security Council, other multilateral organizations, and governments worldwide. International law will prevail, and those responsible for these grave acts will be held accountable before justice and history for their criminal conduct.
Caracas, December 20, 2025
The US seized a large oil tanker called the Skipper, which had been under sanctions for its ties to Iran, on December 10.
While Trumpâs directive this week targeted sanctioned tankers, the vessel the US seized Saturday is not under US sanctions, the official said. The seizure wasnât contested by the tankerâs crew.
The vessel was a Panamanian-flagged tanker carrying Venezuelan oil, according to the official, and was ultimately destined for Asia.
– U.S. forces seize a second merchant vessel off Venezuelaâs coast in less than two weeks as Trump escalates military pressure on President NicolĂĄs Maduro over oil assets.
– Trump announced a blockade of sanctioned oil tankers and demanded Venezuela return assets seized from American oil companies, citing compensation disputes dating back decades.
– Military strikes targeting alleged drug smugglers have killed 104 people since September and face scrutiny from U.S. lawmakers for lack of evidence and civilian casualties.
âThey have asked for no asÂsisÂtance about blockadÂing in Venezuela, no, they have not,â PerÂsad-BissesÂsar said afÂter atÂtendÂing the fuÂnerÂal for forÂmer colÂleague Daphne Phillips.
(,,,)
When asked about Trinidad and ToÂbaÂgoâs poÂsiÂtion should any US milÂiÂtary strikes ocÂcur, PerÂsad-BissesÂsar stressed that the GovÂernÂmentâs priÂorÂiÂty is to keep the counÂtry safe. She made it clear that T&T has no agÂgresÂsive inÂtent toÂwards Venezuela.
âT and T first, that will alÂways be our poÂsiÂtion. We have no inÂtenÂtion of enÂgagÂing in any war with Venezuela. Iâve alÂways said we stand in solÂiÂdarÂiÂty with the peoÂple of Venezuela and we will conÂtinÂue so to do.â
WASHINGTONâToday, House Republicans (and sadly, one spineless Democrat) shamefully rejected Congressman McGovern‘s War Powers Resolution, which would have directed President Trump to cease all hostilities within or against Venezuela.
âIâm furious that cowardly lawmakers have once again surrendered Congressâ Constitutional responsibility on matters of war to a wannabe dictator in the White House,â said Ranking Member McGovern. âThe Founders intentionally did not want any president to have unilateral power to start a war, much less one like Donald Trump, who campaigned on ending unnecessary foreign conflicts. He‘s now breaking that promiseâand his weak, pathetic lackeys in Congress are letting him drag us into yet another endless war that no one except their billionaire buddies in Big Oil want.â
„As I said earlier today on this floor, during the debate on my War Powers Resolution to end this administrationâs extrajudicial strikes on boats in the Western Hemisphere, those bombings are not about drugs. If the administration did want to stop drugs, Trump would not have pardoned the former President of Honduras, Juan Orlando HernĂĄndez, or Ross Ulbricht, who operated the Silk Road drug marketplace. He wouldnât be seizing an oil tanker off the coast of Venezuela. Or threatening CIA operations, blockades, and ground strikes on Venezuela.
„Itâs not about drugs, itâs about regime change, and itâs about oil. Thatâs not just me saying that. Itâs Trump himself saying it. Itâs President Trumpâs Chief of Staff, Susie Wiles, who said Trump wants to, and I quote, âkeep on blowing boats up until Maduro cries uncle.â And it relies on the magical thinking that military force can bring democracy in Venezuela or anywhere else.
„But his chief of staff also conceded, as any reasonable person with any knowledge of the constitution should, that if Trump, quote, âwere to authorize some activity on land, then itâs war, then [weâd need] Congress.â
„On that, sheâs right. Congress would need to pass an Authorization for the Use of Military Force if Trump wanted to put boots on the ground or conduct military strikes on Venezuela. And for that, Republicans in Congress would need to cast their vote on whether to commit U.S. armed forces to an open-ended conflict their constituents certainly do not want.
„Trump ran on ending forever wars, but now heâs forgotten what they are. What his own Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth characterized as, quote, âinterventionism, undefined wars, regime change, and feckless nation building.â Yet with Venezuela, Trump is provoking a new war right in our backyard and threatening to destabilize an entire region.
âAmericans do not want another Iraq. If we intensify hostilities in Venezuela, we have no idea what weâre walking into,â McGovern said. âAt least George Bush had the decency to come to Congress for approval in 2002. Donât the American people deserve that respect today?â
Bush in 2002 sought and received a formal authorization for his attack on Iraq. Without taking any similar steps, Trump has massed thousands of American service members in the Caribbean without formal approval.
The resolution was defeated 210-216, with seven lawmakers not voting. Two RepublicansâReps. Don Bacon of Nebraska and Thomas Massie of Kentuckyâvoted in favor of the measure. Democratic Texas Reps. Henry Cuellar and Vicente Gonzalez joined their GOP colleagues in voting down the proposal.
The second resolution, introduced by Rep. Jim McGovern (D-Mass.), would have directed Trump to âremove the use of United States armed forces from hostilities within or against Venezuela, unless explicitly authorized by a declaration of war or specific statutory authorization for use of military force.â
The resolution failed by a vote of 211-213, with nine members not voting. Republicans Bacon, Massie, and Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene of Georgia voted âyesâ on the legislation, while Cuellar voted against the proposal.
But overall, the bill represents a compromise between the parties. It implements many of Trump‘s executive orders and proposals on eliminating diversity and inclusion efforts in the military and grants emergency military powers at the U.S. border with Mexico. It also enhances congressional oversight of the Department of Defense, repeals several years-old war authorizations and seeks to overhaul how the Pentagon purchases weapons as the U.S. tries to outpace China in developing the next generation of military technology.
And it has a provision to withhold a chunk of Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth‘s travel budget if he does not provide Congress with unedited videos of military strikes on boats in the southern Caribbean and eastern Pacific. The Trump administration has said the strikes are directed at Venezuelan drug-traffickers.
The Senate vote came a day after Trump ordered a blockade of all sanctioned oil tankers entering and leaving Venezuela, his latest move to increase pressure on Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro‘s government.
It repeals the 1991 and 2002 Authorizations for the Use of Military Force (AUMFs) against Iraq, an attempt to reassert Congress‘ role in deciding to send troops into combat.