On October 28, 2025, the United States military, under the direction of President Donald Trump, launched a series of deadly strikes on four vessels off the coast of Colombia, resulting in the deaths of 14 people. According to Secretary of War Pete Hegseth, the targeted boats were operated by what the US government described as "designated terrorist organizations" trafficking narcotics along established smuggling routes. Hegseth declared on social media, "The four vessels were known by our intelligence apparatus, transiting along known narco-trafficking routes, and carrying narcotics." He added a chilling promise: "We will track them, we will network them, and then, we will hunt and kill them."
These latest attacks are part of a much broader campaign. Since early September 2025, the US has conducted at least 13 disclosed strikes in the region, bringing the death toll to at least 57. The Trump administration claims these actions are a necessary escalation in the fight to stem the flow of drugs into the United States. President Trump himself has been blunt about the strategy, stating, "I'm not going to necessarily ask for a declaration of war. I think we're just going to kill people that are bringing drugs into our country. Okay? We're going to kill them, you know, they're going to be like, dead."
The scale and intensity of this campaign have drawn both domestic and international scrutiny. As reported by Black Star News, the US now maintains a formidable military presence in the Caribbean and off the coasts of Venezuela and Colombia. This includes several attack boats, a nuclear-capable submarine, an aircraft carrier strike group, a Marine expeditionary unit, and a squadron of ten F-35 fighter jets—altogether involving around 10,000 soldiers and sailors. It’s a show of force that, critics argue, far exceeds the demands of traditional drug interdiction efforts.
Despite the administration's claims, there is a conspicuous lack of evidence that the destroyed boats were actually carrying drugs or were en route to US ports. No attempts were made to stop, board, or even warn the vessels before they were attacked—standard procedure in most anti-narcotics operations. As Black Star News observed, "No proof has been offered that the boats carried drugs or were headed to US ports. No warnings were issued to the boats such as would probably have saved lives—43 so far."
The apparent disregard for established legal norms has led to high-profile resignations within the US military. Admiral Alvin Holsey, head of the US Southern Command, reportedly stepped down in protest over the legality of the strikes. Though Holsey has not issued a public statement, sources suggest he was deeply troubled by what he saw as extrajudicial killings conducted without congressional oversight or adherence to international law.
President Trump’s approach has also extended to diplomatic and economic pressure. He recently announced an end to all US aid to Colombia and imposed new tariffs, demanding that Colombia halt drug production. Trump has not hesitated to target foreign leaders with harsh rhetoric, labeling Colombia’s president Gustavo Petro “an illegal drug dealer” and warning, "better close up these killing fields immediately, or the United States will close them up for him, and it won’t be done nicely." Secretary of State Marco Rubio echoed this hardline stance, declaring that Venezuelan leader Nicolás Maduro is "an indicted drug trafficker in the United States, and he’s a fugitive of American justice."
Yet, the administration’s sweeping military actions have not been accompanied by meaningful consultation with Congress. Senator Rand Paul has introduced resolutions seeking to require Trump to obtain congressional authorization before launching attacks, describing the strikes as "extrajudicial killings." But Trump remains defiant, insisting he does not need Congress’s approval—even for potential invasions. As he put it, "I think we're just going to kill people that are bringing drugs into our country." Efforts to invoke the War Powers Act, which compels presidential consultation with Congress and limits unauthorized military action to 60 days, have thus far stalled.
The lack of transparency and oversight has alarmed a broad spectrum of observers. Foreign Policy columnist Howard W. French draws stark parallels between Trump’s current campaign in Latin America and the United States’ own history of "gunboat diplomacy"—a term used to describe the use of overwhelming naval power to coerce weaker nations, often with disastrous consequences for democracy and human rights. French warns that, "Trump’s aggressiveness in what he is now treating as a U.S. lake is troubling for its domestic implications involving the rule of law—due to what amounts to extrajudicial killings—along with a disrespect for legal norms about the use of military power."
There are also significant international repercussions. French argues that the US’s unilateral and extralegal actions in Latin America undermine Washington’s ability to credibly challenge similar behavior by rising powers like China. In recent years, China has asserted sweeping claims in the South China Sea, building military outposts, seizing vessels, and using force against its neighbors. The US had previously criticized these actions and sought to rally international support for the rule of law. Now, with the Trump administration adopting tactics reminiscent of those it once condemned, "it is hard to imagine any limits to [China’s] behavior at all," French writes. "What principled complaint could Washington make if Chinese naval or coast guard vessels were to ram or sink a Japanese counterpart?"
The echoes of past US interventions in Latin America are hard to ignore. From support for military dictatorships to covert operations, Washington’s legacy in the region is fraught with controversy. Critics contend that the current campaign risks repeating these mistakes, sacrificing legal and moral authority in pursuit of short-term objectives. As French cautions, "Once the rule of law becomes the law of the jungle because of Washington’s own actions, the United States becomes just another bully at worst and just any old country at best instead of a nation to rally around."
Meanwhile, the domestic impact of this aggressive foreign policy is beginning to show. Some worry that the administration’s disregard for legal norms abroad could bleed into domestic governance, citing recent episodes where federal agents detained individuals without warrants—a trend that, for many, signals a worrying erosion of the rule of law at home.
The United States stands at a crossroads, with the Trump administration’s actions in Latin America raising profound questions about the future of US foreign policy, the limits of executive power, and America’s standing on the global stage. As the region braces for further escalation, the world watches to see whether the US will reaffirm its commitment to the rule of law—or continue down a path that many fear leads only to greater instability and diminished influence.
