In a dramatic escalation of U.S. involvement in Latin America, the Trump administration’s aggressive policies have sparked outrage, fear, and debate across the region and within the United States itself. From lethal military strikes in the Caribbean to punitive economic measures in Brazil and Argentina, the administration’s approach is drawing comparisons to the Monroe Doctrine of the 19th century, with critics warning of a dangerous return to unilateral interventionism and neocolonial ambitions.
On September 15, 2025, a U.S. Navy vessel fired upon an incapacitated fishing boat drifting in Colombia’s territorial waters. According to reporting from Señal Colombia, the vessel’s distress signal was clearly visible due to engine failure, and those on board were fishermen— not the drug smugglers U.S. officials claimed to be targeting. This incident is not isolated; since Donald Trump’s return to office, attacks on small civilian vessels in the Caribbean have multiplied, often under the pretext of combating narcotics trafficking. Yet, as The Peoples Dispatch notes, the U.S. government has failed to provide any evidence that these operations have targeted anyone other than civilians.
The use of overwhelming military force in these operations has alarmed observers both at home and abroad. By October 20, 2025, the U.S. Navy had destroyed multiple small watercraft off Latin America’s coast with ship-to-ship missiles. In one incident, two survivors were repatriated, and one of the deceased was reportedly a fisherman returning home. Traditionally, such interdiction missions fall under the Coast Guard’s jurisdiction, which would involve searching the vessel and questioning those aboard before any use of force. The Navy’s involvement—employing advanced weaponry against boats that pose no threat to U.S. ships or borders—has led to accusations of extrajudicial killings. As one commentator put it, "If the Navy can be convinced to do this, what else might they be convinced to do?" (Heisenberg Report).
This pattern of military aggression has been particularly pronounced off the coast of Venezuela. According to Chicago Tribune columnist Elizabeth Shackelford, the U.S. military has destroyed five boats near Venezuela, resulting in the deaths of 27 civilians, all under the banner of the so-called war on drugs. The Trump administration has justified these attacks by declaring a formal "armed conflict" with drug cartels, labeling those targeted as "unlawful combatants." Yet, legal and human rights organizations, including the New York City Bar Association (NYCBA), have condemned these actions as illegal summary executions, in violation of both U.S. and international law. The NYCBA stated, "Because the recent attacks on Venezuelan vessels and their crews were unauthorized by U.S. law and in violation of binding international law, they were illegal summary executions—murders."
The administration’s approach extends beyond Venezuela. In Brazil, Trump imposed a staggering 50% tariff in July 2025, ostensibly in retaliation for the prosecution of former president Jair Bolsonaro. While Trump has claimed his tariffs are meant to correct trade deficits, the U.S. actually maintains a trade surplus with Brazil. His executive order made plain that the tariffs were punishment for what he described as "political persecution" of an ally, with Brazil’s current president refusing to back down and defending the country’s democratic process.
Meanwhile, Argentina has become the focus of a major financial intervention. As Chicago Tribune reports, Trump offered President Javier Milei a $20 billion bailout, with another $20 billion in private-sector loans, in a bid to shore up Milei’s government ahead of legislative elections. Argentina, already the International Monetary Fund’s largest debtor after receiving $20 billion in April 2025 and owing $43 billion prior, is teetering on the edge of economic collapse. The bailout is explicitly conditional on Milei’s party winning the elections—a move that many see as blatant election interference. U.S. farmers have voiced frustration, with American Soybean Association President Caleb Ragland writing, "US soybean prices are falling, harvest is underway, and farmers read headlines not about securing a trade agreement with China, but that the US is extending $20 billion in economic support to Argentina."
Underlying these actions is a revived Monroe Doctrine mentality, as several analysts have pointed out. President James Monroe’s 1823 doctrine asserted U.S. authority over the Western Hemisphere, warning European powers to stay out. The Trump administration’s heavy-handed tactics—military strikes, economic coercion, and support for allied strongmen—echo this vision of hemispheric dominance. As Shackelford observes, "Trump’s heavy-handed approach to our southern neighbors is built on the same assumption" as the Monroe Doctrine.
In Venezuela, the situation has grown particularly tense. The U.S. has suspended diplomatic dialogue, and sightings of U.S. B-52 bombers in Venezuelan airspace have further heightened fears of outright war. The deployment of a massive naval force—including warships, drones, and special operations units—has been interpreted by regional leaders as a prelude to regime change. Venezuelan Ambassador to the UN, Samuel Moncada, told the international community, "The United States believes that the Caribbean belongs to it because it has been using the expansionist Monroe Doctrine for over 100 years, which is nothing more than a remnant of colonialism." President Nicolás Maduro, for his part, has called for renewed dialogue, stating, "Our diplomacy isn’t the diplomacy of cannons, of threats, because the world cannot be the world of 100 years ago." Yet, he has simultaneously mobilized national defense exercises to prepare for a possible assault.
Secretary of State Marco Rubio has refused to rule out military options, insisting that Maduro’s regime poses a "threat to the region and even to the United States." Reports have surfaced that Trump has secretly authorized the CIA to conduct lethal covert action in Venezuela, fueling further speculation that regime change is the true goal. Critics argue that the administration’s rhetoric about drug trafficking and terrorism is a thinly veiled pretext for seizing Venezuela’s vast oil reserves and dismantling its socialist government—a strategy reminiscent of the lead-up to the Iraq War in 2003.
While some voices in Congress and the broader public have begun to question the legality and wisdom of these actions, the administration remains undeterred. Supporters argue that a show of strength is necessary to combat drug cartels and hostile regimes, while detractors warn that these policies risk plunging the region into chaos, undermining international law, and damaging America’s standing in the world.
As the situation continues to escalate, the world watches anxiously. The stakes—regional stability, the rule of law, and the future of U.S.-Latin American relations—have rarely been higher.