Two survivors of a U.S. military strike on a suspected drug-smuggling vessel in the Caribbean Sea are now being held aboard an American Navy warship, thrusting the Trump administration’s controversial anti-narcotics campaign into uncharted legal and political waters. The attack, which took place on October 16, 2025, marks the sixth such strike in the region since early September and the first known instance where not everyone on board was killed, according to multiple sources cited by Reuters, ABC News, and the Associated Press.
The operation targeted a semi-submersible vessel—essentially a submarine-like craft—allegedly used by drug traffickers to ferry massive quantities of narcotics while evading detection. After the strike, U.S. military surveillance captured images of survivors in the water. A Navy search-and-rescue helicopter was dispatched, retrieving the two individuals and bringing them to one of the eight Navy warships deployed to the area. Two others aboard the vessel died in the attack.
President Donald Trump confirmed the strike during a White House event with the Ukrainian president, stating, “We attacked a submarine, and that was a drug-carrying submarine built specifically for the transportation of massive amounts of drugs.” He added pointedly, “Just so you understand this was not an innocent group of people. I don’t know too many people that have submarines, and that was an attack on a drug carrying loaded up submarine,” as reported by CNN.
The Trump administration has linked its military campaign in the Caribbean to broader efforts to pressure Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro to step down, blaming Maduro for orchestrating the flow of illicit drugs into the United States. Earlier in the week, Trump threatened a possible land attack on Venezuela and ordered B-52 bombers—capable of carrying nuclear weapons—to fly near the country’s coast in a dramatic show of force. According to ABC News, these actions are part of a substantial U.S. military buildup in the region, which now includes guided missile destroyers, F-35 fighter jets, a nuclear submarine, MQ-9 Reaper drones, and about 10,000 troops.
The Venezuelan Foreign Ministry has condemned the strikes and the military buildup, calling them acts of “aggression, threats, and harassment against Venezuela.” Tensions have only increased with Trump’s public acknowledgement that he authorized covert CIA operations inside Venezuela, a move widely interpreted as an attempt to destabilize the Maduro government.
Prior to the October 16 strike, the Trump administration had boasted of five previous attacks on alleged drug-running speedboats, each resulting in the deaths of all those aboard. Surveillance videos of these operations were swiftly released to the public. The most recent incident, however, has presented a new dilemma: what to do with the surviving detainees. Their nationalities have not been disclosed, and the administration has yet to announce its intentions regarding their fate.
This legal gray area is causing significant consternation in Washington. The Trump administration has justified its actions by claiming the United States is in an “armed conflict” with drug cartels, drawing on the same legal authority invoked after the September 11 attacks to justify wartime detentions and lethal force. As reported by the Associated Press and The New York Times, this approach has drawn sharp criticism from legal experts and lawmakers alike, who question whether trafficking in illicit drugs truly constitutes grounds for a state of war under domestic or international law.
Brian Finucane, a former State Department lawyer specializing in the laws of armed conflict, explained to The New York Times that the administration now faces a thorny set of choices: release the detainees, transfer them to civilian law enforcement, claim the right to hold them as wartime prisoners, or potentially send them to the U.S. detention facility at Guantánamo Bay. “If the administration wants to continue holding them, that would raise the question of how to do so—including whether to hand them off to civilian law enforcement authorities or claim a right to hold them as military prisoners,” Finucane said. He noted that bringing the survivors to Guantánamo would almost certainly trigger judicial review, potentially forcing courts to decide whether the U.S. is truly at war with drug cartels for legal purposes.
Legal specialists point out that Congress has not authorized an armed conflict against drug traffickers, and the administration’s legal rationale remains largely secret. The Bush administration, facing similar questions after 9/11, ultimately relied on a 2001 congressional authorization to detain members of al Qaeda and its affiliates, but no such authorization exists in this case. The detained men could petition the courts for habeas corpus, challenging the legality of their detention—a move that could expose the administration’s secretive legal reasoning to public scrutiny.
Meanwhile, the strikes have sparked unease among both Democrats and Republicans on Capitol Hill. Some lawmakers have questioned the lack of transparency and oversight, noting that a recent classified briefing for the Senate Armed Services Committee did not include representatives from intelligence agencies or the military command responsible for Latin America. Democratic Senator Tim Kaine of Virginia, along with Senators Adam Schiff and Rand Paul, is preparing a resolution to prevent Trump from launching further attacks on Venezuela without explicit congressional approval.
Despite these concerns, most Senate Republicans have so far supported the administration, voting down a War Powers Resolution that would have required Trump to seek congressional approval for future strikes. However, their willingness to continue backing the administration may be tested as the legal and political stakes rise.
The Pentagon and the White House have declined to comment on the status of the detainees or the legal basis for their continued detention. Admiral Avlin Holsey, the officer overseeing military operations in the region, unexpectedly announced his resignation after less than a year in the post. According to ABC News, Holsey had expressed reservations about the ongoing operations, and sources suggest that tension between him and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth had been building for weeks. It remains unclear whether Holsey’s departure was directly related to concerns over the legality of the strikes or broader strategic disagreements.
The Trump administration’s aggressive military campaign in the Caribbean represents a dramatic shift from previous U.S. policy, which relied on law enforcement agencies to interdict drug shipments. The unprecedented use of lethal military force against suspected drug traffickers, and now the detention of survivors, has opened a new chapter in the decades-old struggle against narcotics smuggling—one fraught with legal, ethical, and geopolitical risks.
As the fate of the two detainees hangs in the balance, the administration faces mounting pressure to clarify its legal position and explain how its actions align with both U.S. law and international norms. With Congress poised for another showdown over presidential war powers and legal experts warning of the potential for judicial intervention, the coming weeks could prove pivotal in determining the future of America’s war on drugs at sea.
