In recent months, the United States has dramatically ramped up its military presence in the Caribbean, igniting a fierce debate in Washington and beyond about the scope and legality of its actions against Venezuela and suspected drug trafficking operations. As the Trump administration touts its efforts as a counter-narcotics campaign, a growing chorus of lawmakers from both parties is questioning whether the White House is edging the nation toward war—without Congress ever casting a vote.
Between August 15 and October 15, 2025, the U.S. military has steadily amassed troops and advanced weaponry in the region, according to a detailed report by CNN. The buildup includes the deployment of more than 4,500 Marines and sailors, the Iwo Jima Amphibious Ready Group, the 22nd Marine Expeditionary Unit, three guided-missile destroyers, an attack submarine, a special operations ship, a guided missile cruiser, and P-8 Poseidon reconnaissance aircraft. The U.S. has also stationed 10 F-35 fighter jets and at least three MQ-9 Reaper drones in Puerto Rico, which has become a central hub for these operations. Notably, Naval Station Roosevelt Roads in Puerto Rico, shuttered since 2004, is now back in action, its reopening confirmed by satellite imagery and on-the-ground photos.
At José Aponte de la Torre Airport, a staging ground for these military activities, at least one AC-130J Ghostrider—bristling with Hellfire missiles—has been photographed, underscoring the seriousness of the U.S. posture. Over 200 military flights have been conducted in the Caribbean during this period, involving 83 aircraft, including intelligence-gathering planes and refueling tankers. Since late August, three Boeing P-8 Poseidons, used for signals intelligence, have crossed the Atlantic into the Caribbean theater, and in early October, "Little Bird" helicopters and MH-60M Black Hawks were spotted conducting training off Trinidad and Tobago.
While the administration insists these moves are part of a counter-drug trafficking effort, the scale of the buildup has raised eyebrows. According to Elliott Abrams, who served as the U.S. envoy to Venezuela during Trump’s first term, "The military presence in the Caribbean is too big for just hitting a few speedboats, though it is not big enough for an invasion of Venezuela." Abrams told CNN, "What’s in the middle, I think, is a pressure campaign, meant to rattle Venezuela." Peter Singer, a defense strategist at New America, echoed this sentiment: "It’s enough to cause pain but not to seize terrain. We’re not talking about an invasion and occupation force."
Despite these assurances, the U.S. has demonstrated its ability to strike inside Venezuela from afar. On October 15, B-52 bombers flew near Venezuela’s coast for four hours, coming within 48 miles of Los Roques, a small Venezuelan island. The bombers remained in international airspace, but their proximity sent a clear message. The U.S. military has also conducted live-fire training and flight operations near Venezuela and flown at least five T-38 jet missions in the Caribbean since late September.
Venezuela, for its part, is not defenseless. The country possesses S-300 anti-aircraft missile systems, anti-aircraft guns, shoulder-launched air defense weapons, and F-16 fighter jets. Its difficult terrain and the ongoing hurricane season add further complications for any potential U.S. military action.
Yet, as the military maneuvers continue, the political battle in Washington is heating up. On October 19, Senator Rand Paul (R-Ky.) condemned the U.S. strikes on alleged drug cartel boats in the Caribbean, calling the actions "against all of our tradition." Appearing on NBC News’ "Meet the Press," Paul argued, "When the U.S. kills someone, you really need to know someone’s name, at least, you have to accuse them of something. You have to present evidence. So all these people have been blown up without us knowing their name, without any evidence of a crime."
Paul’s criticism comes as concerns mount over the lack of transparency and the assumption that boats, some 2,000 miles from U.S. shores, are a direct threat to the homeland. "If our policy now is to blow up every ship we suspect or accuse of drug running, that would be a bizarre world in which 25% of the people might be innocent," Paul said. He added, "The idea they’re coming here is like, it’s a huge assumption. You have to present some proof. It is the difference between war and peace. In war, though, you don’t ask people’s name."
Paul, who has often supported President Trump but disagreed on military actions, has also taken aim at Vice President JD Vance’s support for the strikes. Responding to Vance’s comment that "Killing cartel members who poison our fellow citizens is the highest and best use of our military," Paul shot back on X (formerly Twitter), "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."
The constitutional question looms large. Paul emphasized, "If the U.S. does want to go to war with Venezuela, then Congress should vote on a declaration of war. The president shouldn’t do this by himself." Last week, Paul joined Democratic Senators Tim Kaine (Va.) and Adam Schiff (Calif.) to introduce a resolution blocking unauthorized military hostilities within or against Venezuela. The measure narrowly failed in the Senate, 48-51, with Paul and Senator Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) crossing party lines to support it, while Democratic Senator John Fetterman (Pa.) voted with Republicans against it.
Senator Tim Kaine has been especially vocal about reclaiming Congress’s war powers. Speaking to NPR, Kaine said, "It is a resolution that's very simple, very short. It just says we should not be at war with Venezuela or conducting military operations in Venezuela without a vote of Congress." Kaine, who serves on the Senate Armed Services Committee, highlighted that the administration has not provided sufficient evidence that the targeted boats were actually carrying narcotics, nor a legal rationale for the strikes. "If you interdict, you seize evidence. You get people. You squeeze them, and they rat out the higher-ups. And then you use that to build criminal prosecution. If you sink a boat to the bottom of the ocean, you don't get the evidence. They have not answered any of those questions to our satisfaction," Kaine told NPR.
The debate has even spilled into the military itself. Admiral Alvin Holsey, head of U.S. Southern Command (SOUTHCOM), stepped down from his post two years early, reportedly due to reservations over the legality and scope of the strikes in the Caribbean and the expanding campaign against Venezuela, according to NPR. Kaine and others have pointed to this as evidence that concerns about executive overreach aren’t limited to Capitol Hill.
As the U.S. continues its show of force in the Caribbean, the constitutional tug-of-war over war powers and transparency is far from settled. The stakes are high—not just for U.S.-Venezuela relations, but for the very balance of power between the branches of American government.
