In a move that has set off a firestorm of controversy both at home and abroad, the United States military has carried out two deadly strikes against Venezuelan boats in international waters this September, killing a total of 14 people. President Donald Trump, who ordered both operations, insists the vessels were operated by violent drug cartels and posed a direct threat to American security. Yet the administration’s lack of transparency and mounting international criticism are fueling debate over the legality, morality, and strategic wisdom of these actions.
On September 16, 2025, President Trump took to social media to announce the second strike. “This morning, on my Orders, US Military Forces conducted a SECOND Kinetic Strike against positively identified, extraordinarily violent drug trafficking cartels and narcoterrorists in the SOUTHCOM area of responsibility,” he wrote, emphasizing the threat these groups allegedly pose to US national security (Xinhua). Trump’s post included a video, marked “unclassified,” showing a vessel aflame in unknown waters. According to the president, three men were killed in this latest operation.
This action came less than two weeks after an earlier strike, also ordered by Trump, which killed 11 people aboard a different boat. Trump claimed those killed were all “positively identified Tren de Aragua (TDA) Narcoterrorists,” referencing a Venezuelan gang he has repeatedly linked to drug trafficking and terrorism (Xinhua; NBC News). The administration has designated Tren de Aragua and several other Latin American gangs as foreign terrorist organizations, a move that expands the legal authority for military action against them (NBC News).
Despite Trump’s confident assertions, the US government has provided little concrete evidence that either vessel was actually transporting drugs. When pressed by reporters in the Oval Office about proof that the second boat carried narcoterrorists, Trump responded, “Well, we have proof. All you have to do is look at the cargo that was, like — it spattered all over the ocean, big bags of cocaine and fentanyl all over the place, and it was — plus, we have recorded evidence that they were leaving” (NBC News). However, no independent verification or detailed intelligence has been released to the public or lawmakers.
Critics have seized on this lack of transparency. Senator Tim Kaine of Virginia, along with 24 other Democratic senators, sent a letter to the White House demanding a legitimate legal justification for the strikes and greater transparency about the administration’s decision-making (The Independent). Senator Jack Reed, the top Democrat on the Senate Armed Services Committee, called the actions an “outrageous violation of the law,” warning, “These reckless, unauthorized operations not only put American lives at risk, they threaten to ignite a war with Venezuela that would drag our nation into a conflict we did not choose” (NBC News).
Legal scholars, too, have raised red flags. Charles Dunlap, a former senior Air Force lawyer and now a Duke University law professor, told Politico, “Depending on the evidence, there might be paths where the strikes could be legal. But I don’t think it’s helping the administration by not being fully transparent about everything they had to draw them to the conclusion that a military/law-of-war-type response was what was necessary” (The Independent).
The Trump administration’s approach is rooted in a broader campaign promise to crack down on immigration and crime from Latin America. During the 2024 presidential campaign, Trump repeatedly linked immigration from Venezuela and Haiti to rising crime, though some of the cases he cited have since been questioned or debunked (The Conversation). Upon taking office, he declared several gangs, including Tren de Aragua, as terrorist organizations, and entertained the idea of using the military to target criminal groups. Now, with a significant military buildup in the Caribbean—including warships, submarines, and fighter jets—the administration has turned that rhetoric into reality (The Conversation).
Yet, the effectiveness of bombing boats as a strategy to curb drug trafficking is highly questionable. Experts note that most drugs, such as fentanyl, enter the US over land borders, not by sea. Destroying individual boats is unlikely to significantly disrupt trafficking networks. Instead, critics argue, the strikes serve more as a projection of American power and a reinforcement of the narrative that the US faces an existential threat from foreign drug cartels (The Conversation).
The strikes have also provided a nationalist rallying point for Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro. While Maduro’s popularity lags behind that of his predecessor, Hugo Chavez, he remains firmly in control. US attempts to destabilize his government—including an unsuccessful effort in 2019—have failed, and American sanctions have only deepened the antagonism between the two countries (The Conversation). After the first strike, Maduro denounced the action as “unlawful” and accused Washington of fabricating drug trafficking claims as a pretext for regime change. He insisted that Venezuela is free of coca cultivation and cocaine production (Xinhua).
Communication channels between Washington and Caracas have reportedly broken down entirely, with Maduro blaming “threats and blackmail” from the US for the collapse (Xinhua). Venezuela’s Interior Minister Diosdado Cabello accused the US of deliberately provoking an open military confrontation, stating, “Some hope we will fall into the provocations that the U.S. deliberately makes to generate an open military confrontation” (NBC News).
On the US side, the administration remains defiant. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth posted video of the explosion on social media, declaring, “We will stop at nothing to defend our homeland and our citizens. We will track them, kill them, and dismantle their networks throughout our hemisphere — at the times and places of our choosing” (NBC News). Vice President JD Vance, speaking to supporters in Michigan, praised the military’s actions, quipping, “I wouldn’t go fishing right now in that area of the world.” The remark, intended to be lighthearted, drew sharp criticism online, with one user remarking, “The Vice President of the United States doesn’t even know if they are killing drug dealers or fishermen” (The Independent).
Venezuelan officials maintain that those killed in the first strike were not members of Tren de Aragua or drug traffickers at all. “We have done our investigations here in our country and there are the families of the disappeared people who want their relatives, and when we asked in the towns, none were from Tren de Aragua, none were drug traffickers,” Cabello said on state television (The Independent).
As debate rages over the legality and morality of these strikes, one thing is clear: the US-Venezuela relationship has entered a new, more dangerous phase. With both sides digging in, the risk of escalation—and unintended consequences—looms large.