Colombian President Gustavo Petro has launched a stinging attack on the Trump administration’s recent military strikes in the Caribbean, calling for a criminal investigation against U.S. President Donald Trump and other American officials involved. The strikes, which targeted boats allegedly carrying drugs, have left at least 17 people dead and ignited a heated international debate about the legality and morality of the United States’ approach to drug enforcement in the region.
According to reporting by The Washington Post and the Associated Press, the United States has sunk at least three vessels between September 2 and September 20, 2025. The first strike, on September 2, reportedly killed 11 people, while two additional strikes on September 16 and 20 claimed three lives each. U.S. authorities have justified these actions by claiming the boats were linked to Venezuelan drug traffickers, specifically the Tren de Aragua gang, but have yet to provide concrete evidence supporting these claims.
President Petro has not minced words in his condemnation of the strikes. Speaking at the United Nations General Assembly on September 23, he declared, "Criminal proceedings must be opened against those officials, who are from the U.S., even if it includes the highest-ranking official who gave the order: President Trump." He went on to assert that those killed were not gang members, but rather, "They were simply poor young people from Latin America who had no other option."
Petro’s criticisms extend beyond the recent deaths. He accused the Trump administration of criminalizing poverty and migration, arguing that the U.S. approach targets the most vulnerable rather than the true architects of the drug trade. "It’s murder," Petro told The Washington Post. "Because they don’t have weapons, because they don’t have the capacity, and because that’s not how you stop drug trafficking." He further contended that the real masterminds behind the illegal drug trade are not the Venezuelan gangs identified by the U.S., but rather Mexican and European cartel leaders. According to Petro, effective disruption of trafficking networks can only come through local law enforcement investigations and intelligence—not through military force.
The strikes have also raised questions about international law and respect for national sovereignty. Petro complained that he was neither forewarned nor briefed about the U.S. operations, despite their proximity to Colombia’s northern border with the Caribbean. Expressing concern over the potential for escalation, he warned, "If they start on one side, they could do it on the other. It seems to depend on political friendship between the governments."
The Trump administration, for its part, has defended its actions vigorously. The White House insists that the strikes are "fully consistent with the law of armed conflict" and maintains that President Trump "is prepared to use every element of American power to stop drugs from flooding into our country and to bring those responsible to justice." Secretary of State Marco Rubio echoed this sentiment, stating after the first fatal strike that it had been necessary because the boat in question posed an "immediate threat to the United States." Yet, the administration has not elaborated on how it confirmed the alleged gang affiliations or the presence of drugs on board, leaving many details shrouded in secrecy.
Vice President JD Vance, in a blunt admission earlier this month, told reporters he did not "give a s***" whether the strikes amounted to war crimes. This cavalier attitude has only fueled the outrage among critics who see the strikes as a dangerous precedent for the use of military force in anti-drug operations.
The U.S. State Department has pushed back against Petro’s criticism, pointing to what it describes as a surge in coca cultivation and cocaine production under the Colombian leader’s tenure. In a statement to The Washington Post, the department argued that Petro’s "failed attempts to seek accommodations with narco-terrorist groups only exacerbated the crisis." In a further sign of deteriorating relations, the United States recently moved to decertify Colombia as a partner in its anti-drug campaign, citing Bogota’s "failure to meet drug control obligations."
Petro, however, remains steadfast in his critique of the decades-long U.S. “war on drugs.” He argues that targeting impoverished farmers forced to grow coca to survive is neither practical nor just. "For several decades now, the strategy has been completely wrong," he told The Washington Post. Instead, Petro advocates for addressing the root causes of the drug trade, including North American demand for cocaine, and prioritizing social and economic solutions over military interventions.
Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro has also entered the fray, condemning the U.S. strikes and accusing Washington of using drug trafficking allegations as a pretext for military operations aimed at destabilizing his government. Maduro has announced upcoming constitutional decrees to defend Venezuela’s sovereignty should further U.S. action occur. He has called for dialogue rather than violence, echoing Petro’s emphasis on diplomatic engagement and mutual respect for national boundaries.
Petro’s position is further complicated by the fact that he restored diplomatic ties with Venezuela after taking office in 2022, marking a significant shift in Colombia’s foreign policy. The renewed relationship has become a point of contention, with the U.S. viewing it as a sign of Petro’s willingness to accommodate groups it labels as narco-terrorist organizations.
Meanwhile, details about the strikes remain limited. U.S. officials have briefed Congress that the first boat was fired upon after it changed course and attempted to return to shore, but have offered little information about the intelligence used to identify the vessels as legitimate targets. The lack of transparency has fueled suspicions that the strikes may have been conducted more for show than for strategic effect—a point Petro underscored by claiming the operations were carried out "only for television."
The controversy has exposed deep divisions not only between the United States and Colombia, but also within the broader South American region. While some leaders see the strikes as an unacceptable violation of sovereignty and human rights, others, particularly in Washington, argue that decisive action is necessary to stem the flow of drugs into North America. The debate raises uncomfortable questions about the balance between security, legality, and compassion in the ongoing fight against international drug trafficking.
As the dust settles over the Caribbean, the world is left to grapple with the fallout from a series of deadly strikes that have put the ethics and effectiveness of America’s anti-drug strategy under the microscope. With calls for accountability growing louder and diplomatic tensions simmering, the path forward remains as murky as the waters where the tragedy unfolded.