As tensions simmer across the Caribbean and the broader Latin American region, the United States finds itself at the center of a growing controversy over military strikes on boats allegedly smuggling drugs from Venezuela and neighboring countries. Over the past two months, President Donald Trump’s administration has taken an increasingly aggressive stance, launching more than a dozen strikes on vessels in the Caribbean and the eastern Pacific. According to figures released by the administration, these attacks have killed more than 60 people and left just three survivors, a development that has not only heightened regional anxieties but also sparked fierce debate in Washington over the legality and transparency of these operations.
The controversy reached a new pitch as President Trump, in a recent interview with CBS News’ “60 Minutes,” dismissed the notion that the United States was on the brink of war with Venezuela. When asked directly if the U.S. was preparing for war, Trump responded, “I doubt it, I don't think so.” Yet, he notably refused to rule out the possibility of land strikes on Venezuelan territory, declining to provide details about any future plans. Instead, he reiterated his belief that Venezuelan leader Nicolás Maduro could soon be ousted. “I would say yeah, I think so, yeah,” Trump said when pressed on whether Maduro’s days in power were numbered.
Despite the president’s public denials of imminent war, the U.S. military’s actions tell a more complex story. The administration recently deployed the Gerald R. Ford Carrier Strike Group to the region, a move widely interpreted as a show of force and a signal of escalating pressure on Venezuela. In addition, Trump has authorized the CIA to conduct covert operations inside the country, further fueling speculation about Washington’s intentions. According to The New York Times and The Washington Post, these developments have not gone unnoticed by regional leaders, leading to the postponement of the Summit of the Americas—a key diplomatic gathering—until 2026. Organizers cited the intensifying tensions and divisions over U.S. military actions as the primary reason for the delay.
On the legal front, the Trump administration’s campaign of strikes has entered murky territory. The War Powers Resolution, a federal law passed in 1973, requires the president to obtain congressional approval for military action after 60 days. Trump’s strikes began on September 2, 2025, and the White House formally notified Congress on September 4. That 60-day window closed on November 3, 2025. Yet, instead of seeking congressional authorization, the White House has argued that these operations do not constitute “hostilities” as defined by the law because they are “precise strikes conducted largely by unmanned aerial vehicles launched from naval vessels in international waters at distances too far away for the crews of the targeted vessels to endanger American personnel.” This legal rationale, as reported by both The New York Times and The Washington Post, echoes the Obama administration’s justification for continued involvement in the NATO-led air war over Libya in 2011, which also skirted congressional approval.
The administration’s stance has drawn sharp criticism from some lawmakers and legal experts. Former State Department counsel Brian Finacune warned in Just Security that the White House’s interpretation “is yet another legal abuse and arrogation of power by the executive. And it is a power grab in the service of killing people outside the law based solely on the President’s own say so.” He called on Congress to reject this “strained legal interpretation” and to take legislative action to halt unauthorized military activity. Senator Mark Warner, a prominent Democrat, also voiced concerns, urging the administration to “come clean” about the legal basis and justifications for the strikes. “And the fact is, if, as the administration says, these are all bad guys, and yeah, they're all drugs on these boats, interdict these boats and show the world,” Warner said on CBS News’ “Face the Nation.”
Republican leaders, however, have largely backed the president’s actions, with House Speaker Mike Johnson insisting that the administration has briefed top lawmakers of both parties—the so-called “Gang of Eight”—and possesses “exquisite intelligence” about the targets. “It’s reliable,” Johnson said in an interview with Fox News. Still, he declined to discuss classified details.
Amid the legal wrangling, questions have also arisen about the evidence supporting the administration’s claims. NBC News reported that the White House has “produced no evidence supporting its allegations about the boats, their passengers, the cargo or the number of people killed, injured or surviving.” This lack of transparency has only fueled skepticism, especially as the strikes continue to rack up a mounting death toll. By November 3, 2025, the U.S. military claimed to have conducted 15 strikes, killing 65 people and leaving three survivors.
The fallout from these operations has not been confined to Washington. Across Latin America, the strikes have intensified divisions and raised fears of a broader conflict. According to Bloomberg, the postponement of the Summit of the Americas underscores just how destabilizing the U.S. campaign has become. Regional leaders, already wary of Washington’s motives, now face the prospect of a militarized standoff on their doorstep. The deployment of the Gerald R. Ford Carrier Strike Group and the authorization of covert CIA operations have only deepened suspicions.
Inside the Pentagon, the situation has led to tighter controls on information. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth has reportedly forbidden military officials from discussing the boat strikes with lawmakers without prior approval, according to CNN. This clampdown on transparency has prompted further criticism from members of Congress, including Republican Rep. Don Bacon, who lamented on social media, “The new rules have put a large barrier between the military & Congress.”
Meanwhile, the broader context for U.S. military intervention in Latin America remains fraught. The Trump administration’s aggressive posture extends beyond Venezuela, with reports from NBC News indicating that the Pentagon is also considering operations inside Mexico to target drug cartels. Training for potential ground operations, which would rely heavily on drone strikes, has reportedly begun, though no final decision has been made.
As the debate rages on, the administration’s refusal to provide concrete evidence or clear legal justification for its actions continues to draw scrutiny. International observers, including the United Nations human rights chief, have criticized the strikes as violations of international law, as reported by the BBC. Venezuelan officials, for their part, have pleaded with allies such as Russia for support, according to The Washington Post, while U.S. military officials and maritime experts told Reuters that preparations in Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands suggest the potential for future operations inside Venezuela.
With the Summit of the Americas postponed and the region on edge, the stakes have rarely been higher. The coming months will test not only the Trump administration’s resolve but also the ability of Congress and the international community to hold the executive branch accountable. For now, the world watches as Washington’s war on alleged drug traffickers at sea threatens to spill over into a much wider—and potentially far more dangerous—conflict.
