Escalation with Venezuela: Trump sends warships after 16 boat strikes

By Alexander J. Schorr

Image by The Wandering Trader

November 9, 2025 (Washington, D.C.) — After the U.S. bombed multiple boats allegedly carrying drugs in foreign waters, tensions are high. President Donald Trump risks war with Venezuela as U.S. warships head across the Eastern Pacific toward Venezuela.

The Trump administration has continued a campaign of military strikes against alleged drug-smuggling vessels in the Caribbean and Eastern Pacific. The 16th announced strike occurred on November 4,  when two people aboard were killed in the Eastern Pacific Ocean. The incidents drew harsh criticism from some U.S. lawmakers and international bodies, including the UN human rights chief, who questioned the legality and evidence provided by the US government to justify them.

Family members of victims from earlier strikes in September have come forward, asserting that those killed were local fishermen and migrants seeking refuge, and not high-level gang members as the US has alleged. The November 4 boat strike has brought the death toll from the Trump administration's campaign in South American waters up to at least 66 people

The Venezuelan government has described the strikes as “serial executions: and “an undeclared war,” calling for the United Nations to investigate.

Conflicting Messages

Previously, President Donald Trump has said that he is not considering strikes within Venezuela, which appears to contradict his comments earlier in October amid a major US military build-up in the region. Now the U.S. has deployed fighter jets, warships, and thousands of troops to the Caribbean, with the aircraft carrier, the USS Gerald R. Ford, on its way towards the Venezuelan coast.

President Donald Trump has severely escalated his administration’s campaign against drug cartels which he has designated as unlawful combatants. According to US officials cited in The Wall Street Journal and The Miami Herald, the Trump administration is considering airstrikes on ports, airfields, and military facilities that sit “at the nexus of the drug gangs.”

To date, the Trump administration has acknowledged strikes against boats suspected of transporting narcotics. The Venezuelan government under Nicolás Maduro reportedly made private overtures to the Trump administration, offering a stake in their oil industry in exchange for easing sanctions, which were rejected in line with the official “maximum pressure” policy.

Donald Trump’s policy toward Venezuelan oil has focused on pressuring the Maduro regime through severe sanctions and tariffs rather than seeking to acquire it for the US market. His administration’s stated goal has been regime change and the restoration of democracy in Venezuela, not acquiring oil directly from the current government. This contrasts with some reports depicting Trump, in private conversations, expressing interest in the resources like oil as well as a desire to “take it over.” His administration’s official public policy has consistently been to use oil as a leverage to force regime change rather than purchasing it from Maduro.

According to former national security adviser John Bolton’s memoir, The Room Where It Happened, Donald Trump has expressed a desire to acquire control of Venezuela’s vast oil resources. Trump allegedly told Bolton that he thought “it would be ‘cool’ to invade Venezuela” and that the U.S. should “take it over” because “it's really part of the United States,” and that it has “all of that oil.” In other private remarks to aides, Trump emphasized the country’s oil wealth, at one point reportedly stating, “We want the oil.” These alleged private comments contrast with his administration's official public policy of using sanctions against the Maduro regime for a potential democratic transition, not for obtaining the country’s resources.

A Recap of What Happened

As of late October 2025, a series of U.S. military strikes have targeted small boats in and around the Venezuelan waters, with the Trump administration claiming that the vessels were run by “narco-terrorists.” The attacks have resulted in dozens of deaths and have created a diplomatic and legal crisis, and has prompted condemnation from the Venezuelan government as well as concerns from regional neighbors and international law experts.

 These strikes are part of a wider U.S. military buildup in the Caribbean that has come to include the deployment of warships and bomber aircraft. The U.S. has justified the campaign by stating that the counter-narcotics operation boat strikes are in line with stopping drug trafficking to the U.S. from groups like the Venezuelan gang Tren de Aragua. Additionally, the U.S. has also designated the Tren de Aragua gang as a Foreign Terrorist Organization (FTO) and has reportedly determined that it is in a “non-international armed conflict” with drug cartels.

The Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro has denied the US claims and has called the strikes illegal and provocative: Maduro’s government views the actions as a pretext for regime change and has vowed to defend its sovereignty. U.S. actions have been widely criticized by international and maritime law experts, who argue that the strikes may constitute unlawful, extrajudicial killings. Critics, such as U.N. human rights experts and some U.S. lawmakers, question the legal basis for using lethal military force against alleged traffickers in international waters.

Since early September 2025, the U.S. has conducted numerous strikes:

• September 2: The first publicly announced strike killed 11 people in the southern Caribbean. Some U.S. officials later acknowledged that the boat may have been turning back to Venezuela when it was hit.
• September 14: Venezuela accused a U.S. destroyer of illegally seizing a fishing boat and its crew for eight hours within Venezuelan waters.
• October 14: A U.S. strike near the Venezuelan coast killed six more people, with President Trump confirming the operation on social media.
• October 16: The U.S. reported a strike that, for the first time, resulted in survivors. The two individuals, from Colombia and Ecuador, were repatriated.
• October 27: In the deadliest single day of strikes, the U.S. military attacked four boats in the Eastern Pacific, killing 14 people.
• November 4: The 16th announced strike killed two people aboard a vessel in the Eastern Pacific Ocean.

The Broader Impacts

Venezuelan fishermen have expressed fear of becoming casualties in the conflict, as many have refused to go out to sea due to the risks. The boat strikes have strained relations between the U.S. and Venezuela and even other regional countries. Colombian President Gustavo Petro has condemned the killings and questioned the U.S. claims about the boats.

The legality and justification of the strikes are a point of contention within the U.S. and abroad, with senators raising concerns and human rights groups urging Congress to act. U.S. officials have provided limited and even vague evidence to justify the strikes on the boats off the coast of Venezuela, with most public claims relying on signals intelligence and assertions from President Trump and Defense secretary Pete Hegseth. Publicly, the President’s administration has offered little to back its claim that the vessels were carrying drugs or were linked to “narcoterrorist” networks.

There is vague and inconsistent evidence being distributed by the Trump administration: it has broadly cited “intelligence” to justify the strikes but has not presented specific evidence. After one strike, Defense claimed on social media that intelligence confirmed the vessel was “trafficking narcotics” and were associated with “illicit narcoterrorist networks.” Brief, grainy video clips of the strikes have been posted on social media by Trump and Hegseth; these videos however have been edited and provide no clear confirmation of the boat’s contents or operators.

President Trump has claimed to have “recorded proof and evidence,” citing intercepted communications and overhead imagery. He also claimed to have seen “big bags of cocaine and fentanyl” scattered in the ocean, though experts note that most illicit fentanyl comes from Mexico, not Venezuela. Additionally, aerial videos do not show drug bundles. Some strikes have also been linked to the gang Tren de Aragua by the US earlier this year.

However, officials privately acknowledged a lack of sufficient intelligence to conclude that all individuals on the boats were members of the gang. Some U.S. officials, speaking anonymously, have suggested that the intelligence regarding the gang affiliation was not conclusive and that the vessels may have been operated by unaffiliated, low-level traffickers.

The administration has not offered public evidence to prove that the boards were carrying drugs or what specific types and what quantities. One boat was reportedly turning back toward the shore just after being spotted by a military aircraft before being struck, which undermines the Trump administration's claim of self-defense. Two survivors of a strike were repatriated, but prosecutors in Ecuador released one of the men after stating that they had no evidence that he had committed a crime.

After one strike, Colombian President Gustavo Petro refuted the claims that the boat was Venezuelan, stating that it was “Colombian with Colombian citizens inside.” Family members of one of the victims also claimed that he was a fisherman and not a cartel member.

Congressional Concern and International Law

Members of Congress, including some Republicans, have expressed frustration over the administration’s lack of information and have requested unedited videos and details on the intelligence being used. The Trump administration has held classified briefings but has refused to provide lawmakers with raw footage.

International law experts and human rights organizations have condemned the strikes as extrajudicial killings, pointing out that the military force used against the suspected drug smugglers is not justified under international law. They note that the U.S. was not in an armed conflict with the targeted cartels and should have pursued a more law enforcement-based approach like the Coast Guard’s typical interdiction procedures. Legal experts and international bodies have put forward several legal arguments against the U.S. military strikes on boats: the core issues involve questions about the legal basis for using military force against non-state actors outside of a recognized armed conflict, as well as potential violations of sovereignty and the law of the sea.

Regarding the Trump administration’s claim of “non-international armed conflict” with Tren de Aragua, legal experts say the reasoning for the strikes is flawed for several reasons: critics argue that this stretches the legal definition of armed conflict beyond its breaking point by treating drug trafficking as a justification for military action, rather than a criminal offense. International Humanitarian Law (IHL) allows for the targeting of members of an armed group; it is difficult to determine whether everyone on the board was a member of the armed wing of Tren de Aragua, and therefore a legitimate target.

The administration has not provided evidence to show that the targeted individuals posed an imminent threat to the U.S. For actions outside of a legitimate armed conflict, international human rights law applies; experts argue that these strikes amount ultimately to extrajudicial killings and violate the right to life.

Some Alternatives to Violence

The use of lethal force is only justified in exceptional circumstances where there is an imminent threat to life. Critics argue that carrying narcotics does not constitute an imminent threat that justifies lethal force, and the US has not provided evidence for such a threat. US policy typically involves the Coast Guard interdicting suspecting vessels and arresting crew members, rather than using military force. The decision to bomb the boats instead of interdiction is legally suspect.

The strikes likely violate principals of the law of the sea, which regulate the use of force in international waters:

• Under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), countries agree not to interfere with vessels operating in international waters. The US is not a signatory to UNCLOS but has historically acted in a manner consistent with its provisions.
• Exceptions exist for actions like “hot pursuit” of a vessel from national waters, and even then, the use of force should be non-lethal.
• The strikes also violate Venezuelan sovereignty, as they involve the use of armed force against what the US has called Venezuelan-linked vessels— possibly inside Venezuelan waters.

The strikes also face domestic legal challenges related to presidential power and the separation of powers. Critics argue that the strikes were conducted without congressional approval, as required by the War Powers Resolution. Additionally, concerns have been raised that the strikes could violate the US assassination ban and criminal murder prohibitions.

A classified memo from the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel reportedly provides a “golden shield” of immunity for officials involved in the campaign, but its legal justification is questionable and unpublished.

The campaign to use lethal military force against suspected drug traffickers in international waters is viewed as a dangerous precedent that undermines international legal norms. Critics worry that the strikes could be a pretext for further military action against Venezuela and could also prompt other countries to use similar justifications for military strikes against their own rivals. The administration’s secrecy and resistance to congressional oversight of the strikes are seen as an erosion of the rule of law.

In response to the US strikes on the boats, critics point to a range of non-military alternatives for combating narcotrafficking that relies more on law-enforcement, diplomacy, and addressing underlying social issues. These methods are considered more effective and legally sound than lethal military force; unlike broad military strikes, intelligence-driven law enforcement focuses on dismantling criminal networks with precision rather than attracting transit routes with deadly force:

• The U.S. Coast Guard, as the lead agency for maritime drug interdiction in international waters, regularly employs law enforcement detachments on US and partner-nation ships and seize suspect vessels. This approach aims for apprehension, not elimination, and allows for potential prosecution and intelligence sharing.
• Rather than focusing on low-level transporters, law enforcement agencies like the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) and the Treasury Department’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) can target and dismantle the financial networks of drug cartels. This includes freezing illicit funds and prosecuting high-level figures to disrupt the entire criminal enterprise. Collaboration with regional partners is a proven strategy for disrupting drug trafficking, which operates regardless of borders.
• The US already participates in joint counter-narcotics efforts through entities like the Joint Interagency Task Force–South (JIATF-South), which relies on cooperation with over 20 partner nations for intelligence and operational support. International agreements facilitate law enforcement operations in international and sometimes territorial waters.
• The U.S. Department of State’s Bureau of International Narcotics and Law Enforcement Affairs (INL) provides training, equipment, and technical assistance to help foreign governments strengthen their own law enforcement and criminal justice systems.
• Engaging with regional governments as partners, rather than adversaries, allows for implementing counter-narcotics strategies more effectively and on a much larger scale. Recent diplomatic efforts with China resulted in the formation of a joint counternarcotics working group to address fentanyl trafficking.