Since early September 2025, the Caribbean has become the stage for a dramatic and controversial escalation in the U.S. war on drugs. President Donald Trump’s administration has authorized a series of military strikes on boats it claims are ferrying narcotics from South America to the United States, sparking international outrage, legal debate, and a diplomatic rift with Colombia. The stakes are high, the facts are fiercely contested, and the fallout is reverberating across the Americas.
The first public sign of this new approach came in September, when President Trump announced that U.S. forces had destroyed a vessel in international waters, which he said was operated by Venezuela’s Tren de Aragua cartel and was carrying drugs bound for U.S. shores. According to BBC, similar strikes soon followed, each accompanied by grainy video footage but scant evidence about the boats’ cargo or the identities of those onboard. U.S. officials insist they are acting in self-defense, targeting what they describe as “narco-terrorists” intent on flooding American streets with dangerous drugs.
But the reality is far murkier. On September 15, U.S. forces blew up a boat in the Caribbean, killing three men whom Trump described as “confirmed narcoterrorists from Venezuela.” Yet just weeks later, Colombian President Gustavo Petro publicly challenged this account, stating that one of the dead, Alejandro Carranza, was not a drug trafficker at all, but a Colombian fisherman with “no ties to the drug trade.” Petro claimed the attack occurred not in international waters, but in Colombian territory, and that Carranza’s boat was adrift, broadcasting a distress signal due to engine failure. “That man’s death...qualified as murder,” Petro declared on October 18, 2025, adding that even if Carranza had been smuggling drugs, the summary execution was unjustifiable.
The U.S. response was swift and combative. President Trump, without actually refuting Petro’s claims, lashed out, calling the Colombian leader “an illegal drug leader” and vowing to end all “payments and subsidies” to Colombia. By October 21, the Trump administration had indeed cut off aid and imposed new tariffs on the country, escalating tensions to a new high, as reported by Caracol Televisión’s Margarita Rojas on “The Daily Report.”
Trump has repeatedly acknowledged the risk of targeting innocent fishermen, even joking after the first strike, “I think anybody that saw that is going to say, ‘I’ll take a pass.’ I don’t even know about fishermen. They may say, ‘I’m not getting on the boat. I’m not going to take a chance.’” At a press conference in mid-October, he added, “If you want to go fishing, a lot of people aren’t deciding to even go fishing.” The president’s remarks, while flippant, underscore a grim reality: the line between cartel operative and civilian is perilously thin in these waters.
Senator Rand Paul (R–Ky.) has sounded the alarm, noting that U.S. Coast Guard statistics show “about one in four interdictions finds no drugs.” That means innocent people could easily be caught in the crossfire. Paul and other lawmakers from both parties have criticized the administration for failing to provide evidence or transparency about how targets are selected. “They have failed to demonstrate the legality of these strikes, provide transparency on the process used, or even a list of cartels that have been designated as terrorist organizations,” said Rep. Adam Smith, the top Democrat on the House Armed Services Committee, in a statement on October 20.
The Trump administration has leaned heavily on the argument that the United States is in an “armed conflict” with drug cartels, which it claims justifies the use of military force under the law of war. In February 2025, groups like Tren de Aragua and Sinaloa were formally designated as foreign terrorist organizations. A memo sent to Congress on September 30 asserted that the U.S. is engaged in a “non-international armed conflict” with drug smugglers, and that at least seven strikes had been conducted off the coast of Venezuela.
Legal experts, however, are not convinced. According to BBC, Professor Luke Moffett of Queen’s University Belfast explained that under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea—whose principles the U.S. says it follows—countries are generally prohibited from interfering with vessels in international waters, except in cases of “hot pursuit” or when there is an immediate threat to life. “Force can be used to stop a boat but generally this should be non-lethal measures,” said Moffett, adding that the U.S. actions were “likely unlawful under the law of the sea.” Professor Michael Becker of Trinity College Dublin further argued, “The fact that U.S. officials describe the individuals killed...as narco-terrorists does not transform them into lawful military targets. The U.S. is not engaged in an armed conflict with Venezuela or the Tren de Aragua criminal organisation.”
Further complicating matters, the Pentagon has declined to share the legal advice it received before carrying out the strikes. The White House has also been criticized for failing to consult Congress, as required by the War Powers Resolution, before introducing U.S. forces into hostilities. While some constitutional experts suggest that the president’s powers as Commander in Chief could justify such actions against military targets, it is far from clear that this extends to non-state actors like drug cartels. As Rumen Cholakov of King’s College London told BBC, “It is not immediately obvious that drug cartels such as Tren de Aragua would be within the President’s AUMF powers, but that might be what ‘narco-terrorists’ is hinting at.”
Meanwhile, the strikes have had real human consequences. On October 16, a U.S. attack left two survivors—a Colombian and an Ecuadorian—who were repatriated for “detention and prosecution.” The region is now bristling with U.S. military hardware: satellite images analyzed by BBC show at least 14 U.S. warships, including guided missile destroyers and amphibious assault ships, as well as planes and drones stationed in Puerto Rico. Trump has also authorized the CIA to conduct covert operations in Venezuela and has put a $50 million bounty on President Nicolas Maduro, whom the U.S. accuses of drug trafficking.
The domestic fallout has been swift. The commander of U.S. Southern Command, Admiral Alvin Holsey, announced his early retirement in October—an unusual move that Fox News reports may be linked to concerns over the legality and oversight of the strikes. Lawmakers, including Senators Adam Schiff, Tim Kaine, and Rand Paul, have introduced a war powers resolution to prohibit U.S. armed forces from participating in hostilities against Venezuela, warning that the administration may be edging toward a broader conflict.
For now, President Trump remains defiant, telling reporters on October 14 that the alleged drug vessels are “fair game” because they are “loaded up with drugs.” But as the legal, diplomatic, and ethical questions mount, the world is left to wonder: where does the war on drugs end, and the rule of law begin?
The controversy swirling around these strikes—spanning questions of legality, morality, and international relations—shows no sign of abating. With lives at stake and the specter of escalation looming, the eyes of the world remain fixed on the Caribbean’s troubled waters.
