In a dramatic escalation of its campaign against drug cartels in the Caribbean and Eastern Pacific, the United States carried out its fifteenth airstrike on an alleged drug-smuggling vessel this past Saturday, killing three men aboard. The operation, announced by Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, marks a significant moment in a controversial military initiative that has claimed at least 64 lives since its launch on September 2, 2025, according to multiple sources including BBC and ABC News.
Hegseth took to social media on Saturday evening to share details of the strike, stating, “Three male narco-terrorists were aboard the vessel during the strike, which was conducted in international waters. All three terrorists were killed, and no U.S. forces were harmed in this strike.” He emphasized that the targeted boat was “known by our intelligence to be involved in illicit narcotics smuggling, was transiting along a known narco-trafficking route, and carrying narcotics.” The statement was accompanied by a grainy video, released by the Pentagon, showing what appeared to be the moment the boat exploded after being hit—an image that has since circulated widely in international media.
This latest strike is part of a broader campaign led by President Donald Trump’s administration, which has declared a war on drug cartels and dramatically ramped up military presence in the region. The U.S. has deployed warships, fighter jets, marines, bombers, and drones to the Caribbean, a show of force that officials frame as a crackdown on narcotics trafficking. Yet, military analysts and critics argue that the scale of the deployment far exceeds what is necessary for anti-smuggling operations, suggesting deeper strategic motives may be at play.
Notably, the Trump administration has justified these lethal strikes by declaring the U.S. to be at war with drug cartels, providing a legal rationale for military action. However, this reasoning has drawn skepticism and outright criticism from both sides of the political aisle in Washington. Senate Democrats, in particular, have argued that the strikes may violate U.S. laws prohibiting assassinations and require explicit congressional approval—a point the administration has denied. Several Republican senators were reportedly briefed on a secret target list by the administration, signaling preparations for sustained operations. The meeting, however, was closed to Democrats, fueling further controversy over the transparency and legality of the strikes.
The international response has been equally contentious. According to BBC, Colombian President Gustavo Petro denounced the attacks as "murder" and accused the U.S. of using them to "dominate" Latin America. Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro echoed these sentiments, accusing Washington of "fabricating a war." Both leaders have found themselves increasingly at odds with the Trump administration, which has labeled Maduro’s government "illegitimate" and imposed sanctions on Petro and his inner circle following his criticism of the strikes. In a further show of pressure, President Trump has openly threatened military action against land targets in Venezuela, though he has acknowledged that such moves might require congressional consent.
Yet, not all voices in the region are critical. María Corina Machado, the Venezuelan opposition leader and recent Nobel Peace Prize winner, has publicly supported the U.S. campaign. In an interview with Mishal Husain on Bloomberg, Machado stated, “We asked for years, [for the] international community to cut the sources that come from drug trafficking and other criminal activities. Finally, this is happening.” She placed the blame for the deaths caused by the strikes squarely on Maduro and his government, saying, “These deaths are the responsibility of Nicolás Maduro. He, and the rest of the drug cartels in power in Venezuela, should stop these activities in order to prevent more deaths.”
Machado’s endorsement of the strikes is significant, given her stature as a prominent critic of Maduro and her recent Nobel accolade. She praised President Trump for his "decisive support" of democracy in Venezuela during her acceptance speech and revealed ongoing communication with U.S. officials, including Secretary of State Marco Rubio. When questioned about the lack of due process for those killed in the strikes, Machado responded, “There is a very cruel war going on. Maduro is not a conventional dictator. We’re facing a narcoterrorist structure that has turned Venezuelan territory, Venezuelan resources, Venezuelan institutions into the activities of a criminal cartel.”
Despite support from figures like Machado, the strikes have ignited fierce debate among international legal experts and human rights organizations. The United Nations’ human rights chief, Volker Turk, condemned the U.S. actions on Friday, declaring, “Over 60 people have reportedly been killed in a continuing series of attacks carried out by U.S. armed forces... in circumstances that find no justification in international law. These attacks – and their mounting human cost – are unacceptable.” According to BBC, announcements of these strikes are typically accompanied by limited evidence regarding the alleged drug trafficking activities or the identities of those on board, further fueling concerns about transparency and accountability.
The Trump administration, for its part, remains resolute. President Trump, speaking to reporters last week, made his position clear: “I think we’re just going to kill people that are bringing drugs into our country, OK? We’re going to kill them.” The president has also authorized the CIA to conduct covert operations in Venezuela and signaled that U.S. forces may not stop at sea-based strikes, hinting at the possibility of land operations in the near future.
As the campaign continues, the human toll mounts. The latest strike brings the total number of fatalities to 64, with several operations reportedly taking place off the coast of Venezuela. The U.S. maintains that all targets are "narco-terrorists," but the lack of verifiable evidence and the secrecy surrounding the operations have only intensified international scrutiny.
With the debate over legality, morality, and effectiveness raging on, the U.S. military’s campaign in the Caribbean and Eastern Pacific shows no sign of abating. For now, the region remains on edge, with governments, opposition leaders, and international bodies all watching closely as the next chapter in this high-stakes conflict unfolds.
