In a dramatic escalation of both domestic and foreign policy, the Trump administration in early September 2025 launched a two-pronged campaign that has drawn fierce criticism from civil rights advocates, foreign policy experts, and even former military officials. On the home front, Washington, D.C. has seen the deployment of militarized federal agents and National Guard troops under the pretext of fighting crime, despite a declining crime rate in the nation’s capital. Simultaneously, a massive U.S. military build-up in the Caribbean has targeted Venezuela and other Latin American nations under the banner of a renewed "war on drugs."
According to The Intercept and other outlets, President Donald Trump announced on September 2 that the U.S. military had conducted a precision strike against a drug-carrying vessel that departed from Venezuela. "We just … shot out a drug-carrying boat, lot of drugs in that boat. These came out of Venezuela," Trump stated. A senior U.S. defense official confirmed this, explaining the strike targeted a vessel operated by a designated narco-terrorist organization.
This strike marked the first acknowledged attack in what has become a significant ramp-up of American military force in Central and South America. Last week, the U.S. dispatched three Aegis guided-missile destroyers to waters off Venezuela, part of a larger deployment that includes seven warships and a nuclear-powered submarine, all either in the Caribbean or soon to arrive. Thousands of troops have been sent to U.S. Southern Command, including two amphibious warfare units. Beginning August 31, U.S. Marines and sailors from the 22nd Marine Expeditionary Unit began amphibious landing exercises in southern Puerto Rico—training designed to ensure rapid deployment capabilities for coastal operations.
These moves come on the heels of a secret directive signed by Trump, authorizing the Pentagon to use military force against Latin American drug cartels designated as terrorist organizations. In February, the administration labeled Venezuela’s Tren de Aragua, El Salvador’s MS-13, and six Mexican cartels as foreign terrorist organizations. More recently, the Venezuelan Cartel de los Soles, alleged to be led by President Nicolás Maduro and top officials, was added to the list of specially designated global terrorist groups. Maduro, indicted in 2020 on federal charges of narco-terrorism and conspiracy to import cocaine, now faces a $50 million U.S. reward for information leading to his arrest, as reported by The Intercept.
The U.S. military escalation has been justified by administration officials as a necessary response to the threat posed by drug cartels. Stephen Miller, deputy White House chief of staff, stated on Friday, "What you are seeing is the resolve of the president and the United States military to combat and dismantle drug trafficking organizations, criminal cartels, and these foreign terrorist organizations in our hemisphere." Yet, critics argue the approach is reminiscent of the early 20th-century "big stick" policies invoked under the Monroe Doctrine, when the U.S. frequently intervened militarily in Latin America to secure its interests.
"This approach is more likely to strengthen the region’s resolve to partner with countries like China over the medium to long term," said Erik Sperling of Just Foreign Policy, who spoke to The Intercept. Sperling warned that the administration’s interventionist tactics are likely to further reduce U.S. influence in the region. He added, "While the administration may hope to bolster U.S. power in the hemisphere in the short-term with military threats and intervening in Latin American politics, this approach is more likely to strengthen the region’s resolve to partner with countries like China over the medium to long term."
Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro has condemned the U.S. military presence as the greatest threat his country has faced in a century, urging citizens to enlist in the militia. "Venezuela is facing its greatest threat in 100 years. Having been defeated in all forms of hybrid warfare," Maduro declared, according to Monthly Review. Meanwhile, Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum has publicly rejected any possibility of a U.S. military invasion, stating, "The United States is not going to come to Mexico with the military. We cooperate, we collaborate, but there will be no invasion – that is ruled out, absolutely ruled out."
Despite these reassurances, the Trump administration has not ruled out further military action. When pressed about the possibility of ordering U.S. special forces into Mexico to "take out" the cartels, Trump replied, "Could happen … stranger things have happened." This ambiguity has alarmed defense experts like Wes Bryant, a former Pentagon adviser, who told The Intercept, "If we head down the treacherous path of designating any group or individual person that commits a crime, or even an act of violence, as being part of a terrorist organization in order to justify the use of America’s warfighting capacity, we will find ourselves as a nation falling even further toward militarization and authoritarianism."
While the U.S. flexes its military muscle abroad, a parallel process of militarization is unfolding domestically. In Washington, D.C., the Trump administration federalized the Metropolitan Police Department and deployed hundreds of federal agents from the FBI, DEA, and U.S. Marshals Service. This move, authorized by an executive order promoting "aggressive policing," has been widely criticized as an abuse of power. The administration’s plans for a standing National Guard "quick reaction force" for civil disturbances have been condemned by retired Army Major General Randy Manner as "unneeded and dangerous." "We should not be using the military against our own people in any capacity," Manner stated.
The militarization of police in the U.S. is not new. It traces back to the 1960s, with legislation such as the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act, and has been reinforced by decades of the "War on Drugs." These policies have disproportionately targeted Black and brown communities, turning police departments into heavily armed forces. The world watched in 2014, after the killing of Michael Brown in Ferguson, Missouri, as local police responded to protests with armored vehicles and sniper rifles. The same was true during the 2020 George Floyd protests, when acting Defense Secretary Mark Esper described city streets as a "battlespace."
Washington, D.C.'s unique legal status—lacking voting representation in Congress and subject to Congressional review of local laws—has made it especially vulnerable to presidential overreach. As Monthly Review notes, the city’s residents, most of whom are Black, have historically been denied a voice in their own governance, rendering D.C. an "internal colony." This has made it an ideal starting point for the administration’s aggressive domestic policies.
Experts and advocates warn that the connection between repression at home and intervention abroad is no coincidence. Both, they argue, reflect an authoritarian impulse to dominate and control, whether the target is a multiracial urban center or a foreign government. "The struggle against police militarization in our own communities, which disproportionately targets Black people, is inseparable from the struggle against U.S. military intervention abroad," writes Manolo De Los Santos in Monthly Review.
As U.S. warships patrol the Caribbean and federal agents occupy American streets, the lines between domestic and foreign policy, policing and warfare, have never seemed blurrier. The coming months will test the nation’s commitment to democracy at home and its reputation abroad as the Trump administration’s dual campaigns of militarization continue to unfold.
