US Air Strike Sinks Boat Near Venezuela as Trump Administration Escalates “Narco-Terror” Campaign
The United States has carried out yet another controversial air strike in the Caribbean Sea, with Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth announcing that a fourth vessel suspected of trafficking drugs was destroyed near Venezuela. The move, authorised by President Donald Trump, has sparked fresh debate over international law, America’s use of military power, and the administration’s broader strategy of framing narcotics networks as “terrorist threats.”
Fourth Strike in a Month
In a post shared Friday on X (formerly Twitter), Hegseth released a video showing a small, fast-moving boat skimming across the waves before being hit by an aerial strike. Within seconds, the vessel erupted into flames and came to a halt.
According to Hegseth, four men described as “narco-terrorists” were on board and all were killed. No US forces were injured in the operation. “The strike was conducted in international waters just off the coast of Venezuela,” Hegseth wrote. “The vessel was transporting substantial amounts of narcotics – headed to America to poison our people.”
The attack follows three similar strikes last month, including one on September 2 that killed 11 people, and two more on September 15 and 19 that killed three individuals each. In every case, the Trump administration claimed the boats were drug smuggling vessels bound for the US. However, critics point out that no independent evidence has been provided, and the identities of those killed remain unverified.
Trump and Hegseth Double Down
Hegseth defended the strikes as necessary to protect Americans. “Our intelligence, without a doubt, confirmed that this vessel was trafficking narcotics,” he said. “These strikes will continue until the attacks on the American people are over!”
President Trump echoed that sentiment on Truth Social, claiming the destroyed boat carried “enough drugs to kill 25 to 50 thousand people.”
The aggressive rhetoric underscores the administration’s push to treat narcotics trafficking not as a criminal issue but as a form of warfare. This narrative has allowed Trump to justify the use of military force in a region already on edge due to strained relations with Venezuela.
Legal Questions and International Backlash
The strikes have triggered alarm among international law experts and human rights advocates. Extrajudicial killings outside of declared conflicts are widely considered unlawful under international conventions. Traditionally, drug trafficking is not classified as an “armed attack” under the United Nations Charter, which would be necessary to invoke a right to self-defense.
Still, the Trump administration insists its actions are legal. White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt argued on Friday that the air strikes fall under the president’s constitutional powers as commander-in-chief. “President Trump has directed these actions against Venezuelan drug cartels and their boats to protect American lives and interests abroad,” she said.
Adding to the controversy, reports surfaced this week of a confidential memo presented to Congress. In it, the administration claims the US is now engaged in a “non-international armed conflict” with drug cartels, designating them as “unlawful combatants.” This designation, usually applied to internal conflicts such as civil wars, raises fresh concerns about executive overreach.
Under the US Constitution, only Congress has the power to declare war, yet lawmakers have not formally authorised military operations against narcotics networks.
Venezuela Tensions on the Rise
The latest strike has further inflamed tensions with Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro’s government. Caracas has reportedly ordered a military build-up along its coastline, while Washington has increased its presence in the region, deploying fighter jets to Puerto Rico and other bases across the Caribbean.
The administration has also sought to link Venezuela’s government to Tren de Aragua, a powerful criminal group. Trump has accused Maduro of masterminding the cartel’s operations. However, a declassified US intelligence report released in May found no evidence of such ties.
Despite this, Trump has relied on the alleged connection to justify invoking the Alien Enemies Act of 1798, a rarely used law designed for times of war. The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals recently ruled that the law had been “improperly invoked” by the administration, noting that there was no evidence of “an invasion or a predatory incursion” on US soil.
Military Force Against Cartels
Beyond legal disputes, reports emerged in August that Trump secretly signed an order authorising direct military force against drug cartels. Secretary of State Marco Rubio appeared to confirm this, stating the US would “target these groups if we have an opportunity.”
This dramatic escalation has drawn sharp criticism from legal scholars, rights advocates, and even some former military officials. Tess Bridgeman, a visiting scholar at New York University, warned that the administration’s vague definition of who qualifies as a “terrorist” could set a dangerous precedent.
“Four more people were killed this morning,” she wrote on social media platform BlueSky. “Trump has offered no definition or limiting principle for who can be labeled a ‘terrorist’ and summarily killed.”
Reframing the Drug War
Since February, the Trump administration has officially designated several Latin American cartels as “foreign terrorist organisations.” This sweeping move effectively allows the president to treat drug traffickers like militant groups. While the administration argues this classification empowers the US to better defend itself, critics say it undermines international law and risks escalating violence in the region.
For Trump and his allies, however, the messaging is clear: drugs entering the United States are no longer just a law enforcement issue—they are framed as acts of aggression. By blurring the line between criminal networks and armed threats, the White House is attempting to justify extraordinary military measures.
The Bigger Picture
With the fourth strike carried out in just over a month, it is clear the Trump administration is determined to pursue its hardline strategy. Supporters argue the operations demonstrate strength and protect Americans from dangerous narcotics. Detractors counter that they represent unlawful killings, set troubling legal precedents, and risk drawing the US into unnecessary conflict with Venezuela.
As the debate intensifies, families of those killed at sea remain unidentified, their stories untold. And while Washington frames the strikes as victories in the “war on drugs,” questions of legality, morality, and effectiveness linger—casting a shadow over America’s expanding military role in the Caribbean.