Trump Aide Says US Military Has “Every Authorisation Needed” for Caribbean Strikes
The United States is once again drawing global attention with its military operations near Venezuela. In a recent interview with Fox News’ The Sunday Briefing, US Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth stated that the US military has “all necessary authorizations” to conduct strikes in the Caribbean. He added that these operations target ships suspected of carrying illegal drugs, part of what the Trump administration describes as an expanded campaign against drug trafficking networks.
Hegseth’s comments come just days after reports confirmed that the US had carried out another attack on a ship in the region, the fourth such attack in recent weeks. According to Reuters, four people were killed in Friday’s attack, although the US government has not released any details about the identities of those killed or the nature of the ship’s cargo. This escalating crackdown raises questions about the legal basis for these actions and the Trump administration’s broader objectives in the region.
The Administration’s Justification
Defence Secretary Hegseth framed the strikes as part of a necessary offensive against what he described as “foreign terrorist organisations.” In his view, the vessels operating north of Venezuela and suspected of carrying narcotics represent a direct threat to the United States. “If you’re in our hemisphere, if you’re in the Caribbean, if you’re north of Venezuela and you want to traffic drugs to the United States, you are a legitimate target of the United States military,” he said.
President Donald Trump echoed this sentiment in comments made at the White House on Sunday. He claimed that the heightened military presence in the Caribbean had significantly reduced drug trafficking from South America. “There’s no drugs coming into the water,” Trump told reporters, adding cryptically that the administration would soon consider “phase two” of the operation. His remarks suggested that the US could expand its military posture in the region, though he provided no specifics on what that might entail.
Questions Over Legality and Oversight
Despite the confident tone from the administration, legal experts and critics have raised serious concerns about the legitimacy of these military actions. According to Reuters, President Trump recently informed Congress that he had determined the United States was engaged in a “non-international armed conflict” with drug cartels. However, he offered no new legal justification for this position, nor did he cite any congressional authorisation specific to these Caribbean operations.
Traditionally, maritime law enforcement against drug trafficking falls under the jurisdiction of the US Coast Guard, which operates under a legal framework defined by both domestic and international law. The use of the US military—an institution typically restricted from law enforcement activities under the Posse Comitatus Act—raises questions about the administration’s interpretation of its powers. Critics argue that deploying military force in this context could represent an overreach, effectively bypassing the legal boundaries that separate military operations from civilian policing.
Testing Presidential Power
For many observers, these Caribbean strikes are about more than drug trafficking—they are a test of presidential authority. The Trump administration has repeatedly pushed the limits of executive power in areas ranging from immigration policy to national security. Now, with the justification of combating narcotics trafficking, the administration appears to be expanding the scope of what it considers legitimate military engagement.
Some legal analysts have compared this situation to earlier instances where presidents have relied on broad or vague authorisations for the use of force. In this case, however, there is no clear congressional approval or internationally recognised framework that classifies drug cartels as entities at war with the United States. By designating them as “foreign terrorist organisations,” Hegseth and Trump may be attempting to fit a complex law enforcement issue into a counterterrorism paradigm, giving the military broader latitude to act.
International and Regional Implications
The renewed US activity near Venezuela also carries geopolitical implications. The Caribbean, long a focal point for US counter-narcotics operations, has become a tense theatre of competing interests. Venezuela, under the leadership of Nicolás Maduro, has frequently accused Washington of using anti-drug operations as a pretext for military aggression and political interference. The latest strikes risk heightening those tensions, particularly if they occur close to Venezuelan territorial waters.
Regional governments are also watching closely. Latin American countries have historically had mixed reactions to US anti-drug initiatives, often supporting the goal of reducing trafficking while criticising Washington’s heavy-handed tactics. If Comet’s strikes lead to civilian casualties or encroach on sovereign territories, the diplomatic fallout could be significant. The balance between cooperation and resistance in the region may hinge on how transparent and legally grounded these operations appear to the international community.
The Broader War on Drugs
Beyond the immediate headlines, the Caribbean strikes fit into a much longer story about America’s decades-long “war on drugs.” Since the 1980s, US administrations have justified extensive military and intelligence operations across Latin America in the name of combating narcotics. While these initiatives have disrupted some trafficking routes, they have also drawn criticism for militarising the problem without addressing the economic and social roots of drug production and demand.
Trump’s framing of the issue as a form of armed conflict represents a continuation—and perhaps an escalation—of that pattern. By treating drug cartels as quasi-military enemies rather than criminal organisations, the administration risks blurring the line between law enforcement and warfare. This approach may produce short-term tactical victories, but it also invites long-term legal and ethical complications.
Political and Legal Fallout
Domestically, the strikes could intensify political divisions over presidential authority and the use of force. Supporters of the administration argue that decisive action is necessary to protect American borders and deter criminal networks. Critics counter that the president is once again bypassing Congress and stretching legal interpretations beyond their intended scope.
Legal experts have called for clearer explanations from the administration regarding what specific authorisations underpin these strikes. The War Powers Resolution requires presidents to inform Congress when engaging in hostilities abroad, yet Trump’s communications have so far been vague. Without greater transparency, the administration may face challenges from lawmakers and human rights organisations seeking to rein in what they view as unchecked executive power.
A Test for Future Policy
As the situation evolves, the United States faces a crossroads in how it defines and conducts its anti-drug operations. If the military continues to play a central role, it could set a precedent for similar actions elsewhere—potentially expanding the scope of the “armed conflict” framework to include non-state actors beyond traditional war zones.
For now, Hegseth’s declaration that the military has “every authorisation needed” encapsulates the administration’s assertive stance. Yet beneath that confidence lies a tangle of unresolved questions about legality, oversight, and accountability. The coming months will reveal whether these Caribbean strikes mark a temporary show of force or a lasting shift in US military and foreign policy.
Click Here to subscribe to our newsletters and get the latest updates directly to your inbox