Since President Donald Trump returned to office, the halls of Congress have echoed with a curious silence. Once a proud check on executive power, the legislative branch has, according to many observers, become either irrelevant or impotent in the face of a president determined to expand his authority. Nowhere is this more evident than in the ongoing U.S. military operations in the Caribbean, where a series of deadly strikes on suspected drug boats has ignited fierce debate—and, for many, a crisis of conscience about America’s role in the world.
The controversy centers on an incident that occurred on September 2, 2025. According to reporting by Rolling Stone and corroborated by other outlets, the U.S. military fired on a boat allegedly carrying drugs toward the United States. The first strike killed nine people; two survivors, seen clinging to the wreckage, were killed in a second attack. The laws of war, including the 1949 Geneva Conventions and the 1907 Hague Regulations, forbid the targeting of survivors. Yet, as BBC and Florida Today have noted, this did not prevent what critics are calling a 'double tap'—and what some legal experts are calling a war crime.
The September 2 incident is far from isolated. Since the Trump Administration's new campaign began, at least eighty-seven people have died in nearly two dozen attacks on boats in the Caribbean, according to data compiled by Rolling Stone and other sources. None of the victims were given a trial, and none were found guilty of drug trafficking before their deaths. "The administration is claiming without much evidence that they are only targeting 'narco terrorists,' a flimsy justification for the strikes that many believe are illegal regardless of who was on board the boats," Rolling Stone observed.
The scale of the military buildup is staggering. The Council on Foreign Relations reports that the Trump Administration has deployed almost ten thousand troops and six thousand sailors on U.S. ships near Venezuela. The armada includes the USS Gerald R. Ford aircraft carrier, destroyers, cruisers, amphibious assault ships, and a special forces support ship. A wide array of aircraft—bombers, fighters, drones, patrol planes—has also been active in the region. The financial cost is enormous, with some critics estimating the daily price tag at $18 million.
Officially, the administration insists these actions are necessary to combat the threat of narco-terrorism. But as Rolling Stone and several public commentators have pointed out, Venezuela is not a major source of fentanyl or other deadly drugs entering the United States. The December 10 seizure of a Venezuelan oil tanker on the high seas further suggests, to many, that the administration’s focus may have more to do with projecting power and influencing regime change than with stemming the flow of drugs.
Public opinion on these military actions is sharply divided. A recent poll of over 1,300 respondents, reported by Florida Today, found 52.59% opposed to military attacks on suspected drug boats, while 47.41% supported them. The debate has spilled out into letters, op-eds, and social media, with passionate arguments on both sides.
Some, like Mark Krumm of Melbourne, see the strikes as a betrayal of American values: “They just make up facts to support their plans. I do not want the USA to operate as the world’s worst thug or bully... The Narco-terrorist label is just a marketing scheme and is pure bs.” Others, such as Tom Timmins of Port St. John, argue that the ends justify the means: “Why in the world would anybody... have an issue with the killing of these highly paid smugglers? Look at their boats, what do they think are under those tarps, fish?”
Legal experts and military veterans have weighed in as well. Gregg Wiggins, referencing the Defense Department's Law of War Manual and the precedent set by the SS Peleus war crimes trial after World War II, wrote: “A ‘no quarter’ order is, from either a law enforcement or a military vantage, extraordinarily stupid. You can't interrogate dead people. The opportunity to learn more about the higher-level bosses was also exploded by the second missile.” Retired Air Force Colonel William C. Potter, a former JAG and war crimes prosecutor, was unequivocal: “In my opinion, these actions against alleged ‘narco-terrorists’ constitute violations of international law and the rules of armed conflict.”
Others, like Elise Dugwyler of West Melbourne, focus on the lack of due process: “I am against these strikes for several reasons but I'll mention two. First, and I believe most importantly, is the word ‘suspected’. These folks may indeed be drug traffickers, but the point is, we don't know. If we can bomb them so easily, surely we have the capability to intercept and apprehend them. Let's do that instead.”
Political divisions have only deepened the crisis. When a video of the September 2 incident was shown in a secret session to senior members of Congress, reactions split along party lines. Democratic Congressman Jim Himes called it “one of most disturbing things” he had ever seen, while Republican Senator Tom Cotton maintained that the video depicted actions that were “lawful and needful.” President Trump himself wavered on whether to release the video to the public, first indicating on December 3 that he would, then denying five days later that he had ever said so.
Congress, for its part, has struggled to assert its constitutional role. While the annual defense authorization bill now demands the Pentagon turn over unedited video of the strikes and the orders authorizing them—with a threat to withhold a quarter of Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth's travel budget if refused—many remain skeptical that real oversight will follow. As Rolling Stone notes, such predictions have often faded when the president pushes back.
Underlying the entire debate is a deep anxiety about America’s moral standing and the precedent these actions set. “We have a way to interdict suspected drug runners and have used it for years. It is the Coast Guard using helicopters and machine guns,” wrote one critic. “But the Trump team needs live big action shots to put on Fox news, so they use a $250K guided missile to blow up a 20 foot boat and everyone on it on the 6 O’clock news!”
Others question the administration’s motives, pointing to the recent pardon of former Honduran President Juan Orlando Hernandez, convicted for helping traffickers move more than 400 tons of cocaine into the U.S. “If policing the drug trade is truly a priority of this regime, then why did Trump just pardon Juan Orlando Hernandez?” asked Paul A. Skinner of Daytona Beach.
As the attacks continue and the death toll climbs, the question remains: will Congress reassert its authority and demand accountability, or will the United States drift further from the rule of law? For now, the country remains divided, the debate as heated as ever, and the world is watching closely to see which path America will choose.
