In the churning waters of the Caribbean Sea, a series of U.S. military airstrikes against suspected drug-trafficking boats has ignited a firestorm of controversy, legal debate, and international outrage. Since early September 2025, at least 17 people have been killed in three separate strikes, all authorized by President Donald Trump as part of a sweeping campaign to stem the tide of fentanyl and other narcotics entering the United States. But as the smoke clears, questions linger—about the legality of the attacks, the wisdom of the strategy, and whether the United States is teetering on the edge of a new and unintended conflict with Venezuela.
According to reporting by the BBC and local commentary, the first strike occurred on September 2, when a U.S. airstrike targeted a civilian speedboat in international waters off the coast of Venezuela, killing 11 people. Just under two weeks later, another strike on September 15 claimed three more lives, followed by a third attack on September 19 that killed three additional individuals. The Trump administration has consistently described the targets as narco-terrorists, specifically members of the notorious Tren de Aragua cartel, allegedly en route to the United States. However, details about the individuals killed and the precise nature of their activities remain murky, with U.S. officials offering little in the way of transparency or proof.
The fallout has been swift and international. Colombia’s President Gustavo Petro, in a pointed interview with the BBC on September 24, called the strikes an “act of tyranny” and demanded criminal proceedings against U.S. officials if investigations find Colombians were among the dead. “Why launch a missile if you could simply stop the boat and arrest the crew?” Petro asked, adding, “That’s what one would call murder.” He argued passionately that “there should be zero deaths in stopping speedboats believed to be involved in drug smuggling,” drawing on Colombia’s long history of collaborating with American agencies in non-lethal maritime seizures. “No one has ever died before. There is no need to kill anyone,” Petro insisted.
Petro’s outrage is echoed by a chorus of legal experts, lawmakers, and human rights advocates. United Nations experts have described the U.S. strikes as extrajudicial executions, while Democratic lawmakers in Washington have pressed the White House for answers. Rhode Island Senator Jack Reed, the ranking member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, did not mince words, labeling the attacks “reckless, unauthorized operations” that could “drag our nation into a conflict we did not choose.” Reed warned that “miscalculation on anyone’s part during or after the attacks could have triggered a war.” California Senator Adam Schiff added, “Blowing up boats without any legal justification risks dragging the United States into another war and provoking unjustified hostilities against our own citizens.”
The legal questions are as thorny as the political ones. International law permits attacks on naval vessels in international waters during armed conflict, or in peacetime if there is a clear threat—such as terrorism or weapons of mass destruction. Drug smuggling, while a serious crime, typically falls under the purview of law enforcement, not military action. Using the U.S. military to destroy suspected drug boats without proving who or what was aboard, and without offering evidence before or after the strikes, appears to stretch the boundaries of both international and domestic law. Domestically, critics argue the actions may represent an overreach of executive authority. The U.S. War Powers Resolution, enacted in 1973 to limit presidential war-making powers, requires the president to consult Congress before introducing armed forces into hostilities. In this case, Congress was neither consulted nor fully informed.
After the first two attacks, Senators Schiff and Tim Kaine of Virginia introduced a joint resolution under the War Powers Act to block the military from engaging in hostilities with certain nonstate actors without congressional authorization, but the effort gained little traction. Kentucky’s libertarian Senator Rand Paul has also voiced concern, arguing the U.S. “can’t simply kill people suspected of wrongdoing without due process.”
Despite the backlash, the Trump administration has held firm. In response to criticism, the White House told the BBC that Trump was “prepared to use every element of American power to stop drugs from flooding into our country and to bring those responsible to justice.” Since returning to office in January 2025, Trump has ramped up his rhetoric and actions against Latin American criminal organizations, designating groups like Tren de Aragua and the Cartel of the Suns—allegedly headed by Venezuelan leader Nicolás Maduro and senior officials—as terrorist organizations. The U.S. military has also bolstered its presence in the southern Caribbean, deploying additional naval vessels and thousands of Marines and sailors over the past two months.
But the regional and global implications of these actions are hard to ignore. Venezuela, the primary focus of the strikes, counts China as its largest customer for oil. In March 2025, Trump issued an executive order imposing a 25% tariff on countries importing Venezuelan oil, a move widely seen as an attempt to squeeze both Caracas and Beijing. After the first two attacks, China voiced its support for Venezuela and warned the U.S. against “bullying.” As one commentator noted, “Choking Venezuelan oil hurts China. The U.S. starting a war with Venezuela would have even further direct implications for China.”
President Petro, for his part, has not shied away from taking on Trump directly. In his BBC interview, he accused the Trump administration of humiliating South American nations and declared that countries like his would not “bow down to the king.” Petro recalled that Trump had previously insulted him during a presidential campaign, calling him a terrorist. When pressed about the risk of isolating Colombia by speaking out, Petro countered that it was Trump who was isolating the United States through his foreign policies.
At the heart of the controversy lies a fundamental debate about the best way to combat the drug crisis. The Trump administration has framed the strikes as a necessary escalation to protect Americans from the scourge of fentanyl and other narcotics. Yet critics point out that the drug crisis is not just a supply issue, but one of demand—a challenge that requires holistic and immediate government action at home, not just military might abroad.
With the death toll rising and the specter of a broader conflict looming, the United States finds itself at a crossroads. As Senator Reed put it, “If we are not at war—and Congress has not authorized such—then these illegal, provocative, political-theater attacks must stop.” Whether that warning will be heeded remains to be seen, but one thing is certain: the world is watching, and the stakes are higher than ever.
