US Strikes Caribbean Again: 3 Dead in Controversial Drug War
The United States military executed another lethal operation against an alleged drug smuggling vessel in the Caribbean Sea on Saturday, November 2, 2025, killing three individuals aboard in what marks the fifteenth such strike since early September. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth announced the operation through social media, stating the targeted vessel was operated by a US-designated terrorist organization, though he declined to specify which group was involved.
“This vessel—like EVERY OTHER—was known by our intelligence to be involved in illicit narcotics smuggling, was transiting along a known narco-trafficking route, and carrying narcotics,” Hegseth wrote in a post on X. He described those killed as “narco-terrorists” and emphasized that the operation was carried out under direct orders from President Donald Trump.
The strike brings the total death toll from these controversial military operations to at least 64 people killed across 15 strikes targeting 16 vessels—nine in the Caribbean and seven in the eastern Pacific—since the campaign began in early September 2025.
A New War on Drugs: The “Armed Conflict” Declaration
President Trump has characterized these military strikes as part of what he calls an “armed conflict” with drug cartels, invoking the same legal authority used by the Bush administration when it declared a war on terrorism following the September 11, 2001 attacks. This represents a dramatic escalation in US counter-narcotics policy, transforming what was traditionally a law enforcement and interdiction mission into a military combat operation.
In early October 2025, the Trump administration formally notified Congress that the president had “determined” the United States is engaged in a “non-international armed conflict” with drug cartels. The memo obtained by The Associated Press and The New York Times stated that Trump has classified cartel members as “unlawful combatants” and designated the cartels themselves as “non-state armed groups”—the same legal framework applied to terrorist organizations like Al Qaeda and ISIS.
“The President has determined that these cartels are non-state armed groups, has designated them as terrorist organizations, and has determined that their conduct amounts to an armed attack against the United States,” the congressional notification read. According to the administration, the drugs smuggled by these cartels kill tens of thousands of Americans annually and therefore constitute an ongoing armed assault on US citizens.
“We Will Treat Them Exactly How We Treated Al-Qaeda”
Defense Secretary Hegseth has been explicit about the administration’s approach to these alleged drug smugglers, directly comparing them to the terrorist group responsible for the 9/11 attacks. “The Department will treat them EXACTLY how we treated Al-Qaeda,” Hegseth wrote following Saturday’s strike. “We will continue to track them, map them, hunt them, and kill them”.
Hegseth released video footage of the strike showing the moment the vessel was hit, though portions of the boat were obscured, making it impossible to verify how many people were aboard or what cargo the vessel was carrying. Similar to previous government-released footage, no independent verification of the vessels’ contents or the identities of those killed has been provided.
The rhetoric has raised alarm among international observers and legal experts. Hegseth’s statement that “these narco-terrorists are bringing drugs to our shores to poison Americans at home—and they will not succeed” frames the strikes as defensive actions against an existential threat.
The Legal Controversy: Are These Strikes Lawful?
The legality of these military operations remains deeply contested. Under the US Constitution, the authority to declare war resides with Congress, not the president. However, the Trump administration argues that President Trump is exercising his constitutional role as commander-in-chief and his powers over foreign relations to conduct these operations without congressional authorization.
Historically, presidents from both parties have justified the use of military force in limited foreign actions when deemed in the national interest, not requiring congressional approval, and not amounting to formal warfare, according to legal experts. However, the scale and frequency of the Caribbean strikes—15 operations killing 64 people in just two months—push the boundaries of such precedents.
International law permits the use of force in self-defense only in the event of an armed attack or an imminent threat of such an attack. The Trump administration has informed Congress that cartel activities constitute an armed assault on the United States, pointing to the influx of illegal drugs, the paramilitary capabilities of these groups, and significant casualties in nations fighting these organizations.
However, legal experts argue this justification does not meet standards accepted by previous US administrations or international law. Mary Ellen O’Connell, a professor of international law at Notre Dame, told reporters that targeting individuals who are not engaged in active hostilities against US forces—particularly in international waters where no combat zone exists—likely violates both US and international law.
On November 1, 2025, United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights Volker Türk issued a statement condemning the strikes as “unacceptable” and calling on the US to immediately halt the operations. “These attacks and their mounting human cost are unacceptable,” Türk stated. “The US must halt these attacks and take all measures to prevent the unlawful killing of people aboard these boats”.
Türk acknowledged the difficulties countries face in combating drug trafficking but emphasized that the deaths occurred “in circumstances that find no basis in international law”.
Congressional Pushback and Demands for Transparency
US lawmakers from both parties have repeatedly demanded that the White House provide more detailed information about the legal justification for the strikes, the specific cartels being targeted, and the identities of those killed. So far, these requests have been rebuffed.
Following a classified congressional briefing in early October, several senators expressed frustration that Pentagon officials could not provide a comprehensive list of terrorist organizations involved in the alleged conflict. Democratic lawmakers have urged Trump to seek explicit congressional authorization for war powers concerning these operations.
Senator Chris Murphy (D-CT) stated after one briefing that the administration appeared to be attempting to establish “a new legal framework” that bypasses Congress’s constitutional role in authorizing military action. The administration’s refusal to provide evidence supporting its claims about the vessels—including proof of narcotics aboard, connections to designated terrorist organizations, or identities of those killed—has intensified congressional concerns.
The Venezuela Dimension: Regime Change Allegations
The strikes have occurred against a backdrop of dramatically heightened tensions between the United States and Venezuela. President Trump has called Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro “one of the largest narco-traffickers in the world” and has offered a $50 million reward for information leading to his arrest.
The Trump administration has deployed an unusually large force of warships to the Caribbean region, including the US Special Forces mothership MV Ocean Trader. This military buildup, combined with the ongoing strikes, has led Venezuelan officials and independent political analysts to suggest that the US’s true motive is regime change, not counter-narcotics operations.
Maduro has repeatedly condemned the military operations as a “thinly veiled effort” by the US to oust him from power. Venezuela’s government has characterized the strikes as “extrajudicial murder” and violations of international law.
Russia has also weighed in, with the Russian Foreign Ministry issuing a statement strongly condemning what it called the United States’ “excessive” use of military force in the Caribbean, declaring these actions violate international law and reiterating Moscow’s support for Venezuela’s leadership.
Trinidad and Tobago’s Defence Force has reportedly been placed on high alert due to the increased US military presence in the region, fueling speculation about potential escalation.
Questions About Effectiveness and Transparency
Beyond the legal and diplomatic controversies, serious questions remain about the effectiveness of these strikes in actually reducing drug trafficking. Reports indicate that Trump’s efforts to target drug vessels have had no measurable impact on drug flow into the United States.
The administration has provided no evidence to substantiate its claims about the boats that have been attacked, their connections to drug cartels, or even basic information about the cargo seized or destroyed. Video footage released by the Pentagon deliberately obscures portions of the vessels, preventing independent verification of the government’s assertions.
Human rights organizations have condemned the strikes as extrajudicial killings that lack due process. The Colombian government, in addition to Venezuela, has accused the US of engaging in unlawful murders.
The fact that at least 64 people have been killed without any being captured, interrogated, or brought to trial raises fundamental questions about whether these are genuinely precision strikes against high-value cartel operatives or indiscriminate attacks on vessels in international waters.
The Broader Implications: Redefining Presidential War Powers
The Caribbean strikes represent a significant expansion of executive power and a potential redefinition of presidential authority to use lethal force without congressional authorization. By declaring drug cartels to be terrorist organizations engaged in “armed conflict” with the United States, the Trump administration has effectively created a new legal category that could be applied to non-state actors anywhere in the world.
This framework, if accepted, would dramatically expand the circumstances under which a president could order military strikes without seeking congressional approval or declaring war. Legal scholars warn that this sets a precedent that could be invoked by future administrations to justify military action against a wide range of threats, from human trafficking networks to cybercriminal organizations.
The invocation of post-9/11 war-on-terror legal authorities to justify strikes against drug traffickers also blurs the distinction between law enforcement, intelligence operations, and military combat—a distinction that has traditionally been carefully maintained in democratic societies.
An Escalating Campaign Without Clear End
As the Caribbean strike campaign enters its third month, the fundamental questions surrounding these operations remain unanswered. Are these strikes legal under US and international law? Are they effective in reducing drug trafficking? Who exactly is being killed, and on what evidence? What is the broader strategic objective—counter-narcotics or regime change in Venezuela?
The Trump administration’s comparison of alleged drug smugglers to Al Qaeda, its refusal to provide detailed evidence or congressional oversight, and its invocation of war powers traditionally reserved for conflicts against recognized terrorist organizations all point to a dramatic shift in how the United States approaches both drug policy and the use of military force.
With at least 64 people now dead, international condemnation mounting, and serious legal questions unresolved, the Caribbean strikes represent one of the most controversial aspects of Trump’s second-term foreign policy. Whether this campaign will expand further, face legal challenges, or prompt congressional action to reassert war powers authority remains to be seen.
Click Here to subscribe to our newsletters and get the latest updates directly to your inbox