In a dramatic escalation of U.S. foreign and domestic policy, President Donald Trump has declared that the United States is engaged in a "non-international armed conflict" with drug cartels operating in the Caribbean, following a series of lethal military strikes on suspected narco-trafficking vessels. This unprecedented move, which has drawn both staunch support and fierce criticism at home and abroad, marks a significant shift in the American approach to combating the flow of illegal drugs into the country.
According to The New York Times and CBS News, the Trump administration informed Congress on October 4, 2025, that the U.S. military had carried out four targeted strikes on boats alleged to be smuggling narcotics toward American shores. The most recent strike occurred on October 3, off the coast of Venezuela, resulting in the deaths of four individuals aboard the vessel. Secretary of War Pete Hegseth announced the action, stating, "Earlier this morning, on President Trump's orders, I directed a lethal, kinetic strike on a narco-trafficking vessel affiliated with Designated Terrorist Organizations in the USSOUTHCOM area of responsibility." Hegseth claimed that the boat was "transporting substantial amounts of narcotics - headed to America to poison our people."
This latest strike brings the total number of fatalities from these operations to 21, with previous attacks on September 2, September 15, and September 19, killing 11, 3, and 3 people respectively. The administration has provided few details about the identities of those killed or the specific nature and quantity of drugs allegedly on board. Nevertheless, the White House has insisted that its intelligence "without a doubt, confirmed that this vessel was trafficking narcotics, the people onboard were narco-terrorists, and they were operating on a known narco-trafficking transit route," as Hegseth wrote on social media.
President Trump, in a confidential notice sent to Congress, justified the military campaign by declaring that the cartels' actions constitute an "armed attack" against U.S. citizens. The administration has designated several major criminal organizations—including Venezuela's Tren de Aragua, Mexico's Sinaloa Cartel, and El Salvador's MS-13—as foreign terrorist organizations and specially designated global terrorists. This classification, made official through an executive order issued on Trump's second day of his second term, has enabled the administration to invoke emergency powers and wartime statutes in its fight against the cartels. In March, the White House even invoked the 1798 wartime Alien Enemies Act against Tren de Aragua, accusing its members of engaging in "irregular warfare" against the U.S., sometimes at the direction of the Venezuelan government.
White House spokesperson Anna Kelly has consistently defended the legality and necessity of the strikes, saying, "The President acted in line with the law of armed conflict to protect our country from those trying to bring deadly poison to our shores, and he is delivering on his promise to take on the cartels and eliminate these national security threats from murdering more Americans." She reiterated this position in statements to both CBS News and The Center Square.
However, the administration's rationale has not gone unchallenged. Legal scholars, members of Congress, and international leaders have raised serious concerns about the legitimacy and consequences of these actions. Brian Finucane, a former State Department attorney-adviser on counterterrorism, argued, "This justification put out here that the U.S. is somehow in an armed conflict does not do the trick because it's not supported by the facts. There has been no armed attack on the United States." David Bier, director of immigration studies at the Cato Institute, went further, calling the strikes "both illegal and unconstitutional." He explained, "The law is clear that the military is only authorized to intercept vessels to communicate with them and refer them to civilian law enforcement. The Constitution prohibits war without congressional authorization, and even in a war, the military may not intentionally kill civilians."
Prominent lawmakers have also weighed in, reflecting a deep divide within the U.S. political establishment. Vice President J.D. Vance has vocally supported the strikes, declaring, "Killing cartel members who poison our fellow citizens is the highest and best use of our military." In stark contrast, Senator Rand Paul of Kentucky decried the actions, stating, "Vance says killing people he accuses of a crime is the 'highest and best use of the military.' Did he ever read To Kill a Mockingbird? Did he ever wonder what might happen if the accused were immediately executed without trial or representation? What a despicable and thoughtless sentiment it is to glorify killing someone without a trial."
International reaction has been equally charged. Colombian President Gustavo Petro, speaking at the United Nations General Assembly, called for a criminal investigation into President Trump and other U.S. officials responsible for the strikes. "Unarmed young people are being shot at with missiles in the open seas," Petro said, demanding accountability for what he characterized as extrajudicial killings. Meanwhile, Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro has denied U.S. allegations that his government is collaborating with cartels, and has threatened to declare a state of emergency in response to what he termed American "aggression." The deployment of U.S. Navy vessels off Venezuela's coast has only heightened tensions.
On the ground, the aftermath of the strikes has included significant drug seizures. After one of the operations, authorities from the Dominican Republic's National Drug Control Directorate and Navy intercepted 377 packages of suspected cocaine about 80 nautical miles south of Beata Island, Pedernales province, as reported by The Center Square.
Despite the administration's claims of acting in self-defense, critics argue that the strikes set a dangerous precedent. Bier pointed out that while previous presidents have used military force against suspected terrorists abroad, "there is some precedent for the U.S. covertly helping foreign countries use their militaries to kill drug suspects, which was exposed in 2011 when the CIA helped kill a U.S. missionary in Peru." Yet, he asserted, "Trump’s tactics won’t dent drug supplies in the U.S. significantly. It will certainly reduce drug trafficking by boats near Venezuela, but will do little to reduce total supply coming to the United States because drug trafficking is a global phenomenon with a variety of channels."
As the debate rages on, the Trump administration has made clear its intention to continue military operations against what it calls "narco-terrorists." In a warning posted to social media after the first strike, Trump wrote, "Please let this serve as notice to anybody even thinking about bringing drugs into the United States of America. BEWARE!"
With the legal, ethical, and geopolitical implications of these actions still unfolding, the world is watching to see whether this bold new chapter in America's war on drugs will bring about the security the administration promises—or provoke even greater controversy and conflict.
