On November 10, 2025, the Trump administration’s campaign of military strikes against vessels suspected of drug trafficking in the Caribbean and Pacific near Venezuela entered a new and controversial chapter. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth announced that two boats had been destroyed in the eastern Pacific Ocean the previous day, resulting in the deaths of six people. These latest actions bring the official tally to 19 known attacks and a death toll of at least 75 since the operation began in early September, according to the Associated Press.
The campaign, which has shifted focus from the Caribbean Sea to the eastern Pacific—an area notorious for cocaine smuggling from South America’s largest producers—has been justified by the Trump administration as part of an “armed conflict” with drug cartels. President Donald Trump has maintained that these cartels, allegedly supported by foreign terror groups, are responsible for flooding American cities with narcotics. In his words, the United States is fighting back against organizations that "are flooding America's cities with drugs." Yet, the administration has not publicly provided concrete evidence to support its claims that the targeted boats are operated by such groups or that they pose a direct threat to U.S. security.
Hegseth, in a social media post, stated, “These vessels were known by our intelligence to be associated with illicit narcotics smuggling, were carrying narcotics, and were transiting along a known narco-trafficking transit route.” The post was accompanied by video footage—now a routine part of these announcements—showing dramatic explosions at sea. In one clip, a boat floats serenely before erupting into a fireball. Another segment shows a vessel loaded with what appear to be packages, followed by a sudden blast and plumes of smoke. The visual evidence, however, has not been matched by a public accounting of the intelligence behind the strikes, fueling skepticism and concern in Washington and beyond.
Former National Security Adviser H.R. McMaster, who served during Trump’s first term, weighed in on the growing ethical debate surrounding the strikes. According to CBS News, McMaster discussed the moral implications of the campaign, highlighting the need for transparency and caution when deploying military force, especially in an environment where civilian casualties and international tensions are both real risks. His comments come as lawmakers from both parties have pressed for more information about the administration’s legal justifications and criteria for targeting vessels.
The lack of public evidence has not gone unnoticed on Capitol Hill. Both Democrats and Republicans have demanded greater clarity about who is being targeted and under what authority the strikes are being carried out. Last week, Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Defense Secretary Hegseth met with a bipartisan group of lawmakers overseeing national security, offering what was described by the Associated Press as one of the first high-level glimpses into the legal rationale and overall strategy of the campaign. Nevertheless, Democratic lawmakers said the explanations fell short, and concerns linger about the risk of escalation and the potential for unintended consequences.
Despite these concerns, a significant political divide remains. Senate Republicans, for their part, voted down legislation that would have required President Trump to seek congressional approval before launching attacks against Venezuela or its interests. The vote underscored a willingness among many in the GOP to grant the president broad latitude in matters of national security, particularly when framed as a fight against narcotics trafficking and terrorism. For some, this is seen as necessary flexibility in the face of rapidly evolving threats. For others, it raises alarms about unchecked executive power and the possibility of mission creep.
The Trump administration’s military buildup in the region has also drawn attention. An aircraft carrier has been deployed to South American waters, signaling a major escalation of U.S. presence and capabilities. According to the Associated Press, the administration has made no secret of its willingness to use overwhelming force, a posture that has been interpreted by some observers as a pressure tactic aimed at Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro. Maduro himself has fiercely rejected the U.S. allegations, insisting that Washington is “fabricating” a war against him. He has accused the United States of using the pretext of drug interdiction to pursue regime change, a charge that echoes longstanding suspicions in Caracas about American intentions.
The campaign’s origins trace back to early September, when the first strikes targeted vessels in the Caribbean Sea. Over time, the focus has shifted westward, reflecting changes in smuggling routes and intelligence assessments. The eastern Pacific, where the latest strikes occurred, is a major corridor for cocaine shipments destined for North America. The Trump administration argues that by targeting these vessels at sea, it can disrupt the flow of drugs before they reach U.S. shores. Critics, however, question the effectiveness of such a strategy and worry about the potential for collateral damage, including the loss of innocent lives and the destabilization of already fragile regional dynamics.
There is also the matter of international law. The administration’s assertion that the United States is in an “armed conflict” with drug cartels and terror organizations is a novel interpretation that has not been widely accepted outside the executive branch. Legal scholars and human rights advocates have pointed out that the use of lethal force in international waters raises serious questions under both U.S. and international law. Without clear evidence and transparent procedures, they argue, the risk of abuse and error is unacceptably high.
As the death toll mounts and the strikes continue, the debate in Washington shows no signs of abating. Lawmakers on both sides of the aisle are demanding answers, while the administration insists that its actions are necessary to protect American lives and interests. The stakes are high—not only for those directly involved in the operations, but also for the broader principles of accountability, transparency, and the rule of law in U.S. foreign policy.
With the world watching, the Trump administration’s campaign against alleged drug traffickers near Venezuela has become a flashpoint for questions about the limits of presidential power, the ethics of military intervention, and the enduring challenges of the global drug trade. As more information comes to light, the balance between security and liberty will remain at the center of the national conversation.
