On Thursday, October 16, 2025, the U.S. military struck a suspected drug-carrying submersible vessel in the Caribbean, killing two people and rescuing two survivors. The incident, announced by President Donald Trump on Saturday, October 18, marks the sixth such U.S. military action against alleged drug trafficking vessels in the region since early September. The two survivors, whose nationalities are Ecuadorian and Colombian, are being repatriated to their home countries for detention and prosecution, according to statements from the president and multiple U.S. officials.
President Trump took to social media to announce the results of the strike, declaring, “It was my great honor to destroy a very large DRUG-CARRYING SUBMARINE that was navigating towards the United States on a well known narcotrafficking transit route.” He further asserted, “U.S. Intelligence confirmed this vessel was loaded up with mostly Fentanyl, and other illegal narcotics.” Trump referred to the four individuals on board as “narcoterrorists,” and emphasized that the United States would not tolerate such threats, stating, “Under my watch, the United States of America will not tolerate narcoterrorists trafficking illegal drugs, by land or by sea.”
The survivors were rescued by a U.S. military helicopter and initially detained aboard an American navy warship in the Caribbean. Sources told Reuters that the decision to repatriate the men to Colombia and Ecuador was made to avoid the complex legal questions that would arise from detaining suspected drug traffickers in U.S. custody. The Trump administration has publicly justified this approach by claiming that America is engaged in an “armed conflict” with Latin American drug cartels, an argument reminiscent of the legal rationale used by the George W. Bush administration in the aftermath of the September 11 attacks.
This rationale has not gone unchallenged. Legal scholars and lawmakers from both sides of the aisle have raised questions about the legitimacy of using military force against suspected drug traffickers without judicial process. As Politico reported, some legal experts argue that drug trafficking is typically a law enforcement matter and does not automatically qualify as an armed attack under international law. The Trump administration, however, has doubled down, designating certain Latin American cartels as foreign terrorist organizations and labeling the individuals involved as “narcoterrorists.” This policy shift, formalized in February 2025, is intended to provide a broader legal justification for the strikes.
According to USA Today, at least 29 people have been killed in the six strikes carried out since September. The campaign has involved a significant U.S. military buildup in the Caribbean, including guided missile destroyers, F-35 fighter jets, a nuclear submarine, and approximately 6,500 troops. The strikes have been concentrated in the region near Venezuela, a country that has become a focal point of U.S. anti-narcotics efforts under Trump’s leadership.
The administration’s actions have also escalated diplomatic tensions with Venezuela. President Nicolás Maduro has flatly denied any connection to drug smuggling and denounced the U.S. strikes as violations of Venezuelan sovereignty and international law. In a letter to the United Nations Security Council, Venezuela’s ambassador, Samuel Moncada, called for a UN determination that the U.S. strikes are illegal and urged the international community to support Venezuelan sovereignty. These concerns have been echoed by some Democratic lawmakers in the U.S., who argue that the military campaign lacks sufficient congressional oversight.
Indeed, efforts to rein in the executive branch’s actions have so far been stymied. In October, Republican senators blocked a measure introduced by Democratic Sens. Adam Schiff and Tim Kaine that would have required congressional approval for further military strikes against suspected drug trafficking vessels in the Caribbean. The administration has yet to provide Congress with concrete evidence that the targeted vessels were carrying drugs or that the individuals on board were actually “narco-terrorists,” as reported by USA Today.
Trump’s aggressive anti-narcotics campaign has also included covert operations. On Wednesday, the president revealed that he had authorized the Central Intelligence Agency to conduct operations inside Venezuela, fueling speculation in Caracas that the United States may be seeking to destabilize or even topple the Maduro regime. While the White House and Pentagon have not provided further details, the move represents a significant escalation in the ongoing standoff between the two countries.
Questions about the legality and efficacy of the strikes continue to swirl. Critics argue that bypassing traditional law enforcement and judicial procedures sets a dangerous precedent and risks undermining international norms. “The strikes have disrupted longstanding procedures in maritime drug-interdiction, by shifting to lethal force without trial,” noted legal analysts quoted by Politico. Supporters of the administration, on the other hand, argue that the scale of the fentanyl crisis and the threat posed by powerful drug cartels justify extraordinary measures. Trump himself has suggested that military action at sea is only the beginning, telling reporters, “We are certainly looking at land now because we’ve got the sea very well under control.”
The fate of the two survivors now rests with the authorities in Ecuador and Colombia, where they face detention and prosecution. Their repatriation sidesteps the thorny issue of how suspected foreign traffickers would be treated within the U.S. justice system—a question that remains unresolved as the administration forges ahead with its controversial campaign.
As the U.S. continues its military operations in the Caribbean and tensions with Venezuela remain high, the world is watching to see how far the Trump administration is willing to go in its fight against international drug trafficking. The debate over the legality and morality of these actions is far from settled, and the outcome may have lasting implications for U.S. policy and international law.
