In a series of dramatic developments that have reverberated across the Americas, the Trump administration’s military campaign against alleged drug traffickers near Venezuela has come under intense scrutiny, with critics and lawmakers alike questioning both its motives and its legality. The campaign, which has resulted in more than 80 deaths since September 2025, has been cast by White House officials as a bold move to stem the flow of illicit drugs into the United States. But new revelations from within the administration suggest that regime change in Venezuela may be the true endgame.
The controversy erupted anew following a set of unusually candid interviews with Susie Wiles, White House chief of staff, published by Vanity Fair on December 16, 2025. Wiles, speaking over lunch in November, offered a rare glimpse into the administration’s thinking. She acknowledged that the strikes on so-called “drug boats” in the Caribbean Sea were not just about narcotics interdiction. “He wants to keep on blowing boats up until Maduro cries uncle,” Wiles told Vanity Fair’s Chris Whipple, referring to President Trump’s desire to pressure Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro into capitulation. “And people way smarter than me on that say that he will.”
Such language, as reported by Vanity Fair, points less to a conventional anti-drug operation and more toward a U.S.-backed effort to force political change in Caracas. The phrase “cries uncle” is evocative—suggesting that the administration’s goal is to bring Maduro to his knees, possibly through a coup or other means of regime change. “The president believes in harsh penalties for drug dealers, as he’s said many, many times.… These are not fishing boats, as some would like to allege,” Wiles continued. “We’re very sure we know who we’re blowing up.… One of the great untold stories of the U.S. government is the talents of the CIA. And there may be an interest in going inside territorial waters, which we have permission [to do] because they’re skirting the coastline to avoid getting [caught].”
Yet, the scope and intensity of the campaign have sparked alarm in Congress, with lawmakers demanding answers about the legal grounds for the strikes and the mounting death toll. According to reports from multiple outlets, including the Associated Press and Vanity Fair, U.S. Southern Command announced on Monday, December 15, 2025, that three boats in the Eastern Pacific had been bombed, killing eight people. These attacks, officials say, are part of the administration’s efforts to combat the illicit drug trade in and around the Caribbean Sea. But since September, more than 80 people have been killed in similar operations—an unprecedented escalation compared to previous administrations, which typically focused on arresting and prosecuting suspected traffickers rather than targeting them for lethal strikes at sea.
President Trump has been unapologetic about the shift in tactics. Speaking on December 15, 2025, he declared, “We’re going to start hitting them on land, which is a lot easier to do, frankly. But these are a direct military threat to the United States of America. They’re trying to drug out our country.” This rhetoric underscores the administration’s insistence that the targeted boats—often linked, at least by U.S. intelligence, to Venezuela’s government—pose an existential threat to American security.
But the administration’s actions have raised more than just eyebrows. Lawmakers from both parties have called for oversight and accountability, pointing to the lack of transparency around the strikes and the legal justifications offered by the White House. Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth have been scheduled to brief both House and Senate lawmakers about the ongoing operations, following a smaller, closed-door session last week. The briefings, according to AP, are expected to address the legal rationale for the airstrikes, the intelligence used to select targets, and the broader strategic objectives at play.
Meanwhile, the administration’s moves have not gone unnoticed in the region. On December 15, 2025, the government of Trinidad and Tobago agreed to allow the U.S. military to use its airports for routine supply and personnel flights, a decision that drew swift condemnation from Venezuela. Venezuelan officials accused their Caribbean neighbor of becoming a “U.S. aircraft carrier to attack Venezuela,” further inflaming regional tensions.
Critics, including some within the U.S. government, have pointed to inconsistencies in the administration’s approach to drug trafficking. As Vanity Fair noted, President Trump’s decision to pardon former Honduran president and convicted drug trafficker Juan Orlando Hernandez, as well as the seizure of a Venezuelan oil tanker, suggest that the White House’s real interests may lie in Venezuela’s vast oil reserves rather than in stemming the flow of narcotics. Wiles’s comments, in this context, appear to confirm what many observers have long suspected: “Trump couldn’t care less about the narco-trafficking. He just wants an in for their oil.”
The administration, for its part, maintains that its intelligence is sound and its actions are justified. “We’re very sure we know who we’re blowing up,” Wiles insisted. She added that the CIA’s capabilities have been instrumental in tracking the targeted boats, which she said are “skirting the coastline to avoid getting [caught].” The White House also claims that it has permission to operate inside Venezuelan territorial waters, although the basis for this claim remains unclear and is hotly disputed by Caracas.
The legal questions swirling around the strikes are not trivial. Previous U.S. administrations have generally relied on law enforcement mechanisms to combat drug trafficking, emphasizing the arrest and prosecution of suspects. The Trump administration, by contrast, has embraced a more militarized approach, arguing that the boats constitute a direct military threat and that preemptive strikes are therefore justified under U.S. and international law. This interpretation, however, has yet to be tested in court, and legal scholars warn that it could set a dangerous precedent for future military interventions.
For now, the strikes continue, and so does the debate. As the administration prepares to brief lawmakers and defend its actions, the world watches closely. Will the campaign succeed in bringing Maduro to heel, as Wiles predicts? Or will it further destabilize a region already on edge, fueling resentment and resistance both at home and abroad?
One thing is clear: the Trump administration’s campaign in the Caribbean is about far more than just drugs. With every new strike, the stakes—and the questions—only grow.
