In a move that has sent shockwaves through Latin America and drawn fierce debate in Washington, the United States has launched one of its most formidable military operations in decades in the Caribbean, targeting alleged drug cartel activities and ratcheting up pressure on Venezuela’s embattled government. Dubbed ‘Operation Southern Spear,’ the campaign, which officially began in November 2025, has seen the deployment of a vast armada of American naval, air, and special operations forces—raising questions about motives, legality, and the future of US-Venezuela relations.
Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, speaking at the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library on December 6, 2025, staunchly defended the strikes on suspected drug cartel boats. "If you're working for a designated terrorist organization and you bring drugs to this country in a boat, we will find you and we will sink you. Let there be no doubt about it," Hegseth declared during his keynote address at the Reagan National Defense Forum, according to the Associated Press. He insisted that President Donald Trump “can and will take decisive military action as he sees fit to defend our nation's interests. Let no country on earth doubt that for a moment."
But the scale and intensity of the operation has prompted a wave of scrutiny, both at home and abroad. The campaign has resulted in at least 87 deaths, with roughly 20 vessels attacked by US forces as part of what officials describe as an anti-drugs initiative. However, critics and legal experts have raised concerns that the strikes may violate international law and bypass crucial congressional oversight. As reported by the Elcano Royal Institute, the military campaign has proceeded without explicit authorization from Congress, igniting a clash between the executive and legislative branches over the use of force and the scope of presidential power.
The roots of Operation Southern Spear stretch back to mid-August 2025, when the Iwo Jima Amphibious Ready Group departed Norfolk, Virginia, for the Caribbean. The deployment included around 4,500 personnel, 2,200 marines from the 22nd Marine Expeditionary Unit, seven destroyers, and a nuclear-propelled attack submarine. In November, the US dramatically escalated its presence with the arrival of the USS Gerald R. Ford aircraft carrier strike group, complete with F-35 fighters, MQ-9 Reaper drones, B-52 and B-1 bombers, and a special operations support vessel. Old military bases in Puerto Rico were reactivated and adapted for sustained operations, transforming the island into a key logistics hub.
While the official justification for the operation has been to stem the flow of drugs from Venezuela to US shores, many analysts remain skeptical. According to the Elcano Royal Institute, the majority of cocaine entering the US actually comes via Ecuador and the Pacific, and the real public health crisis—fentanyl and other synthetic drugs—originates in Mexico and Central America. The sheer scale of the US military build-up, experts argue, far exceeds what would be necessary for a genuine anti-narcotics campaign. Instead, they suggest, the operation is part of a broader political and strategic effort to pressure the regime of Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro, potentially paving the way for regime change or increased US access to Venezuela’s vast oil reserves.
The campaign’s legal underpinnings are equally contentious. The Washington Post revealed that the White House had ignored warnings from its own legal advisors, who cautioned that the sustained and lethal nature of the attacks could trigger the War Powers Resolution of 1973, which requires congressional notification and approval for extended military engagements. The Trump administration has argued that these strikes "do not constitute hostilities" in the traditional sense, as they are conducted from ships and drones in international waters, with targets that do not directly engage US forces. Yet constitutional scholars warn that this rationale undermines democratic oversight and sets a dangerous precedent.
Adding another layer of intrigue, the US government has reportedly issued a ‘presidential finding’ authorizing the CIA to conduct covert activities in Venezuela. This move, according to analysts at the Elcano Royal Institute, gives Washington greater strategic flexibility to operate against Maduro’s regime, even as diplomatic channels have abruptly closed. In early October, President Trump ordered his special envoy, Richard Grenell, to halt all diplomatic dealings with Caracas, just as the military dimension of US policy toward Venezuela reached its peak.
Behind the scenes, the Trump administration’s hardline approach has been shaped in large part by Marco Rubio, now serving as Secretary of State and National Security Advisor. Rubio’s worldview, deeply influenced by his Cuban-American heritage and longstanding opposition to Latin American authoritarianism, has driven the expansion of sanctions, diplomatic pressure, and now military action against what the administration calls the "Latin American axis of evil"—Venezuela, Cuba, and Nicaragua.
Despite the saber-rattling, few believe that a full-scale US invasion or occupation of Venezuela is imminent. Trump, wary of the quagmires in Iraq and Afghanistan, has consistently voiced skepticism toward prolonged military campaigns. Instead, the likely options include escalating attacks on drug shipments, targeting oilfields or military bases, or even covert operations aimed at regime targets. As the Elcano Royal Institute notes, "Trump likes the rapid, overwhelming and decisive use of force, and has always voiced doubts about prolonged military campaigns, with no clear end in sight."
Meanwhile, the designation of the Cártel de los Soles—a network of high-ranking Venezuelan military officials allegedly involved in drug trafficking—as a terrorist organization by the US State Department in November 2025, has further raised the stakes. This move, experts say, provides a more robust legal basis for sanctions, covert operations, and potential military escalation, directly implicating the Maduro regime in both terrorism and organized crime.
Inside Venezuela, the mood is tense and uncertain. The opposition, including figures like María Corina Machado, has voiced hope that Operation Southern Spear could spell the end of chavismo-madurismo and usher in a new era of democracy. Yet, as the Elcano Royal Institute cautions, the aftermath of any regime change could be fraught with instability, reprisals, and questions about who would lead a post-Maduro Venezuela. The Venezuelan military, deeply infiltrated by Cuban intelligence and riven by internal repression, remains a "black box"—its loyalties and capabilities largely unknown.
For now, the game between Washington and Caracas is one of brinkmanship. The US, having invested significant military and political capital, is unlikely to withdraw without tangible results. Trump’s domestic political calculus—especially with midterm elections looming and a growing Venezuelan-American constituency in Florida—adds further complexity. At the same time, the Maduro regime, bolstered by support from Russia, China, and Cuba, is determined to portray itself as a victim of imperial aggression, rallying its base and seeking to deter further US action.
As both sides edge closer to a potential tipping point, the region watches anxiously. The outcome of Operation Southern Spear may well shape not only the fate of Venezuela, but the future of US influence in Latin America for years to come.