President Donald Trump’s administration has dramatically escalated its approach to fighting drug cartels, declaring that the United States is now engaged in a formal "armed conflict" with these groups, which it has labeled "unlawful combatants" and "terrorist organizations." The move, first reported on October 2, 2025, by The New York Times and confirmed by a confidential memo sent to several congressional committees, marks a significant shift in both rhetoric and policy—one that has sparked fierce debate on Capitol Hill and beyond.
The confidential notice to Congress, obtained by outlets including ABC News, El País, and The Hill, was sent after a series of deadly U.S. military strikes last month on boats in the Caribbean Sea. These strikes, carried out by U.S. forces, targeted at least three vessels suspected of drug smuggling. Two of the boats were said to have originated from Venezuela, and the attacks resulted in the deaths of 17 people. The Trump administration claims these actions were justified under the law of armed conflict, arguing that the cartels’ activities constitute an "armed attack against the United States."
According to the memo, President Trump determined that the cumulative effects of hostile acts by these nonstate armed groups—specifically, drug cartels designated as terrorist organizations—have reached a "critical point." The document states, “Based upon the cumulative effects of these hostile acts against the citizens and interests of the United States and friendly foreign nations, the president determined that the United States is in a noninternational armed conflict with these designated terrorist organizations.”
The legal rationale for the strikes, as laid out in the memo and reported by The Associated Press, hinges on the administration’s claim that these cartels are not merely criminal enterprises but transnational terrorist organizations. The memo asserts, “These groups are now transnational and conduct ongoing attacks throughout the Western Hemisphere as organized cartels.” It continues, “Therefore, the President determined these cartels are non-state armed groups, designated them as terrorist organizations, and determined that their actions constitute an armed attack against the United States.”
This reframing of the cartels’ status has allowed the Trump administration to justify the use of military force, rather than relying solely on law enforcement. As Secretary of State Marco Rubio bluntly put it in an interview last month, “Interdiction doesn't work. What will stop them is when you blow them up, when you get rid of them.” Rubio further argued, “It gives us legal authorities to target them in ways you can't do if they're just a bunch of criminals. It's no longer a law enforcement issue. It becomes a national security issue.”
The strikes themselves have been highly controversial. The first attack, announced by President Trump on September 2, 2025, targeted a boat he claimed was operated by members of the Venezuelan criminal organization Tren de Aragua. All 11 people aboard were killed. The administration added Tren de Aragua to its list of foreign terrorist organizations earlier this year, further cementing its new legal framework for action. A subsequent strike on September 15 killed three more people aboard another vessel, which the U.S. intelligence community assessed to be affiliated with a designated terrorist organization and engaged in trafficking illicit drugs. The memo justified this action by stating, “The vessel was assessed by the U.S. intelligence community to be affiliated with a designated terrorist organization and, at the time, engaged in trafficking illicit drugs, which could ultimately be used to kill Americans.”
Despite these justifications, the administration’s actions have drawn sharp criticism from legal experts, human rights organizations, and lawmakers—especially Democrats. Many argue that the strikes appear illegal under both U.S. and international law and liken them to extrajudicial killings. As reported by Al Jazeera, rights observers and war powers scholars have questioned the administration’s claim that drug smuggling constitutes an “armed attack” on the United States. Brian Finucane, a senior adviser at the International Crisis Group and former State Department lawyer, was particularly blunt: “'Baloney' is the technical legal term for that claim,” he wrote.
Democratic senators have demanded explanations from the White House regarding the legality of the attacks, reminding the administration that under U.S. war powers law, Congress must authorize any military action. Senator Jack Reed, the top Democrat on the Senate Armed Services Committee, stated on social media, “Every American should be alarmed that Pres Trump has decided he can wage secret wars against anyone he labels an enemy. Drug cartels must be stopped, but declaring war & ordering lethal military force without Congress or public knowledge – nor legal justification – is unacceptable.”
The administration’s notice did not specify which cartels are being targeted, and Pentagon officials have reportedly been unable to provide a list of designated terrorist organizations involved in this "non-international conflict." This lack of transparency has frustrated some lawmakers, according to the Associated Press. The memo also notes that U.S. forces "remain postured to carry out military operations as necessary to prevent further deaths or injury to American citizens by eliminating the threat posed by these designated terrorist organizations."
The Trump administration has also accused Venezuelan leader Nicolas Maduro of facilitating drug trafficking, a charge he denies. The U.S. government has placed a $50 million bounty on Maduro’s head for his arrest. Meanwhile, Venezuelan Defense Minister Vladimir Padrino López has denounced the presence of five U.S. fighter jets near Venezuelan territory, calling it “a provocation, a major threat against the nation’s security.”
The rationale for these military actions is rooted in the administration’s argument that drug inflows into the United States have reached such dangerous levels that extraordinary measures are required. The memo claims that these cartels “illegally and directly cause the deaths of tens of thousands of American citizens each year.” Nearly 100,000 Americans die annually from drug overdoses, though most of those deaths are linked to fentanyl, which experts point out primarily comes from Mexico, not Venezuela.
While several Republican lawmakers have supported the strikes, seeing them as a necessary escalation in the fight against powerful and violent drug cartels, others in both parties warn of the precedent being set. The absence of congressional authorization for military force—known as an Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF)—has reignited debates over the limits of executive power and the constitutional role of Congress in matters of war.
The Trump administration’s decision to treat drug cartels as terrorist organizations and justify military action against them marks a dramatic shift in U.S. policy, raising profound legal, ethical, and geopolitical questions. As the United States navigates this new frontier in its war on drugs, the debate over the balance of power, the rule of law, and the future of U.S. foreign policy in Latin America is likely to intensify.
For now, the nation—and the world—watches closely as the boundaries between crime, terrorism, and war become ever more entangled in America’s ongoing struggle against the deadly flow of narcotics.
