At the United Nations General Assembly on September 24, 2025, Colombian President Gustavo Petro delivered a speech that reverberated beyond the diplomatic halls of New York. In a move that stunned many, Petro called for a criminal investigation into U.S. President Donald Trump and other American officials, citing recent U.S. military strikes in the Caribbean that left over a dozen dead—many of whom, Petro insisted, were innocent, unarmed youths, possibly including Colombian citizens.
These deadly incidents, which began with the first attack on September 2, 2025, saw U.S. forces targeting vessels off the coast of Venezuela. The Trump administration framed these actions as part of a broader campaign to combat drug trafficking and what it described as “narcoterrorists.” However, the strikes quickly drew fierce international scrutiny. According to Devdiscourse, President Petro challenged the U.S. narrative, asserting that the victims were not drug traffickers or gang members, but rather underprivileged young people from Latin America seeking better lives.
“A criminal process must be initiated against those officials who are from the United States. This includes the senior official who gave the order, President Trump,” Petro declared, as reported by multiple outlets. His words underscored a growing rift between Colombia and the United States, once close allies in the decades-long war on drugs.
Petro’s condemnation didn’t stop at the U.S. military’s actions. He accused President Trump of unjustly targeting poverty and migration, arguing that the strikes were not about stopping drug traffickers but about punishing the vulnerable. According to Devdiscourse, Petro said, “These attacks are not against drug traffickers. They are against the poor and those who migrate out of desperation.”
The United Nations has weighed in as well, with its experts classifying the fatalities as “extrajudicial executions.” That label complicates the U.S. government’s justification for the strikes and adds significant pressure for further investigation—or at the very least, public accountability.
President Trump, who addressed the General Assembly just before Petro, offered no apologies. In fact, he doubled down on the U.S. approach, promising to escalate the fight against drug smuggling and terrorism. “To every terrorist thug smuggling poisonous drugs into the United States of America, please be warned that we will blow you out of existence,” Trump said, according to reports from the assembly. His words signaled not only a refusal to back down, but a willingness to intensify military involvement in the region.
The scale of the U.S. response has been considerable. The deployment of eight warships and a submarine to the southern Caribbean marks one of the largest U.S. military operations in the area in recent years. According to BBC and other sources, this show of force was intended to send a clear message to both drug traffickers and regional governments.
But the consequences of these actions are rippling across Latin America. Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro has accused the Trump administration of attempting to orchestrate regime change, a claim that echoes the turbulent history of U.S. interventions in the region. In response to what Maduro sees as an imminent threat, thousands of Venezuelans have reportedly joined civilian militias to bolster national defenses. The specter of escalating conflict looms large, with both governments trading accusations and preparing for the worst.
Petro and Maduro have found common ground in their criticism of the United States. Both leaders argue that the U.S. military strikes are less about drugs and more about exerting political influence in Latin America. Petro, in particular, has framed the attacks as part of a broader pattern of punishing those who are already suffering from poverty and instability. According to Devdiscourse, he said, “The passengers on those vessels were not members of the alleged Venezuelan gang as the U.S. administration asserted. They were underprivileged young people from Latin America.”
Meanwhile, the relationship between Colombia and the United States has deteriorated sharply. The U.S. administration recently declared that Colombia is no longer a reliable partner in its anti-drug efforts, though it stopped short of imposing economic sanctions. This move marks a significant shift in the dynamics of U.S.-Latin American relations, especially considering Colombia’s long-standing role as a key ally in the region’s fight against narcotics.
For many observers, the stakes are high—not just for the individuals directly affected by the strikes, but for the broader future of U.S. engagement in Latin America. The United Nations’ classification of the fatalities as extrajudicial killings has added a legal and moral dimension to the controversy, raising uncomfortable questions about accountability and the limits of military power.
In Colombia, the fallout from the strikes has been particularly intense. Petro’s government faces mounting pressure from families of the victims, human rights organizations, and political opponents. Calls for transparency and justice are growing louder, with many demanding that the international community hold the United States to the same standards it expects of others.
Venezuela, too, is bracing for more confrontation. Maduro’s government, already under strain from years of economic crisis and political isolation, has seized on the U.S. strikes as evidence of external aggression. The mobilization of civilian militias reflects both a genuine fear of invasion and a desire to rally popular support against a common foe.
Back at the United Nations, the debate continues. Some member states have echoed Petro’s call for an investigation, while others have defended the U.S. right to protect its borders from drug trafficking. The divide reflects broader tensions in global politics, where questions of sovereignty, intervention, and human rights often collide in unpredictable ways.
For now, the only certainty is uncertainty. The U.S. military remains active in the Caribbean, and both Colombia and Venezuela are on high alert. Whether Petro’s demand for a criminal investigation gains traction remains to be seen, but his speech has undoubtedly shifted the conversation. As the world watches, the fate of those lost at sea—and the future of U.S.-Latin American relations—hangs in the balance.
The events of September 2025 have left a mark that will not soon fade, forcing leaders and citizens alike to confront difficult truths about power, justice, and the costs of conflict in a region all too familiar with both.