As 2025 winds down, the United States finds itself embroiled in a new wave of military and law enforcement operations along its southern maritime border, targeting both alleged narco-trafficking vessels and illegal fishing boats. These actions, spearheaded by the Trump administration, have triggered fierce debate about their legality, effectiveness, and the broader legacy of U.S. intervention in Latin America and the Gulf of America.
According to The Los Angeles Times, since September 2025, U.S. warplanes have bombed ten small ships in international waters off the coasts of Venezuela and Colombia. The Trump administration claims these vessels were packed with drugs and manned by “narco-terrorists.” The administration has released videos of each of the ten boats it has destroyed, presenting the bombings as routine counter-narcotics missions. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, a vocal supporter of the campaign, recently posted on social media, “Narco-terrorists intending to bring poison to our shores, will find no safe harbor anywhere in our hemisphere.”
Backing up these words with force, Hegseth ordered an aircraft carrier from the Mediterranean to the Caribbean, where it will join 10,000 U.S. troops in one of the region’s largest American deployments in decades. The official line: the military buildup and bombings are necessary to stem a drug epidemic that has devastated parts of the U.S. for over twenty-five years.
But the campaign has not been without controversy. The U.S. military’s eighth strike against a suspected drug boat, reported on October 22, killed two people. In total, at least 43 individuals have lost their lives to American missile strikes on these vessels. The Trump administration has also authorized covert CIA actions in Venezuela and has openly discussed launching strikes against land targets said to be used by Latin American cartels—regardless of whether host countries grant permission.
These actions have drawn sharp criticism from regional leaders. Colombian President Gustavo Petro publicly accused the U.S. of murder after one strike killed a Colombian fisherman with no ties to cartels. Trump, never one to back down from a fight, fired back on social media, lambasting Petro’s “fresh mouth,” accusing him of being a “drug leader,” and warning, “You better close up these killing fields [cartel bases] immediately, or the United States will close them up for him, and it won’t be done nicely.”
Secretary of State Marco Rubio, whose family history is deeply entwined with U.S.-Cuba relations, has emerged as a key supporter of the administration’s hardline approach. Rubio has advocated for regime change in Venezuela and has publicly cheered on Trump’s missile attacks. “Bottom line, these are drug boats,” Rubio told reporters, standing shoulder to shoulder with Trump. “If people want to stop seeing drug boats blow up, stop sending drugs to the United States.”
While the administration frames these operations as essential for national security, critics argue that they represent a continuation of a long history of American interventionism in Latin America. As The Los Angeles Times notes, the U.S. has treated Latin America as its backyard for over two centuries, from the Monroe Doctrine of 1823 to present-day military actions. The U.S. has repeatedly intervened—sometimes to prop up despots, sometimes to topple democratically elected governments—often with little regard for the region’s sovereignty or the human cost.
Supporters of the Trump approach, however, argue that traditional law enforcement strategies have failed to curb the flow of drugs and that military force is a necessary escalation. Some Latin American governments, such as Argentina, Paraguay, Ecuador, and the Dominican Republic, have cooperated with the U.S., designating certain cartels as terrorist organizations. Even Mexico, while defending its sovereignty, has made concessions, including deploying additional troops to its border and extraditing cartel leaders to the United States.
Beyond the high-profile bombings, the U.S. is also ramping up efforts to combat illegal fishing in the Gulf of America. As reported by The Washington Examiner, the U.S. Coast Guard and Customs and Border Protection Air and Marine Operations are conducting integrated patrols by air, land, and sea to intercept Mexican fishermen who cross into U.S. waters. These fishermen, often using small blue and white “lanchas,” are accused of siphoning millions from the U.S. commercial and recreational fishing industry. Their activities, authorities say, are frequently linked to cartel profits.
At the U.S. Coast Guard Station South Padre Island, just six miles north of the U.S.-Mexico border, nearly 60 seized lanchas sit in a makeshift graveyard—most confiscated since the start of the 2025 fiscal year. Patrols, typically consisting of four guardsmen, often take place at night and rely on high-speed Special Purpose Craft – Law Enforcement II vessels capable of more than 60 knots and a range of 250 nautical miles.
Technological advances have bolstered these interdiction efforts. The Argos aerostat, a blimp equipped with cameras and radar, now hovers above the Gulf, providing law enforcement with unprecedented visibility. “It’s a layered approach unlike anything I’ve ever seen before in my 26-year career in Customs and Border Protection,” said Robert Theriot, assistant deputy director at the Argos outpost, to The Washington Examiner. “We’ve been able to stack the threat and we’ve been able to physically push things further out.”
From the air, U.S. Coast Guard Air Station Corpus Christi deploys fixed-wing aircraft to spot illegal fishing vessels and direct interdiction teams at sea. Since the start of 2024, the Coast Guard at South Padre Island has conducted 46 interdictions, though only four have occurred since June. This drop coincides with the June guilty pleas of four Mexican fishermen, marking the first time the U.S. charged such offenders with possible jail time rather than simply sending them back to Mexico. One captain, arrested 28 times previously, was sentenced to eight months in jail under the Lacey Act, which prohibits trafficking in illegally acquired wildlife, fish, or plants.
While some see these actions as necessary to protect American industries and communities, others warn of the dangers of unchecked executive power and the erosion of legal norms. The Trump administration’s willingness to bypass congressional authorization for military strikes and to escalate covert operations in foreign countries has alarmed legal scholars and human rights advocates alike. Each time the President acts without oversight, critics argue, American democracy is chipped away, setting dangerous precedents for future administrations.
Supporters counter that the stakes are too high for half-measures. With drug cartels and illegal fishing operations threatening both national security and economic stability, they argue, robust action is not just justified—it’s essential. Some even point to the need to counter China’s growing influence in the region as another reason for increased American assertiveness.
As the debate rages on, one thing is clear: the United States’ southern maritime border has become a flashpoint for issues of law, sovereignty, and the limits of presidential power. Whether these actions will yield lasting security or simply perpetuate old cycles of intervention and resentment remains to be seen. For now, the boats keep coming—and so do the bombs and patrols.
