The U.S. campaign against alleged Venezuelan drug traffickers is escalating dramatically, with President Donald Trump confirming he is now considering military strikes on land targets after a series of deadly boat attacks in the Caribbean. This shift, alongside reports of covert CIA operations, deepens the legal and diplomatic controversy surrounding Washington’s increasingly assertive stance against the Maduro regime and its perceived narco-terrorist networks.
In a significant escalation of U.S. efforts to combat drug trafficking, President Donald Trump announced on October 15, 2025, that his administration is now “looking at land” for potential military strikes in Venezuela. This declaration follows a series of at least five fatal maritime attacks in the Caribbean since September, targeting vessels accused of carrying narcotics. The shift in strategy marks a new phase in what the Trump administration has framed as a war against “narco-terrorist networks” operating in the region.
The announcement comes just a day after the latest U.S. strike off the coast of Venezuela on October 14, 2025, which killed six people aboard a boat accused of carrying drugs. This incident brought the total number of fatalities from these operations to at least 27 since early September, according to reports from agencies like The Associated Press. These strikes have been characterized by the administration as operations against “unlawful combatants” in a “non-international armed conflict” with designated drug cartels. However, these actions have stirred considerable debate on both legal and ethical grounds.
A Dramatic Shift: From Sea to Land
The decision to consider land-based operations represents a dramatic expansion of the U.S. military presence and engagement in Latin America. President Trump stated, “We are certainly looking at land now because we’ve got the sea very well under control.” This remark underscores a perceived success in maritime interdiction, despite mounting criticism over the methods employed. The move was further contextualized by a recent New York Times report, confirmed by Trump, detailing that the administration has secretly authorized the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) to conduct covert actions in Venezuela.
Trump explicitly linked these new considerations to the flow of narcotics and migrants into the United States. “A lot of the Venezuelan drugs come in through the sea, so you get to see that, but we’re going to stop them by land also,” he explained, without specifying any particular locations for these potential land strikes. When asked about the CIA’s authority to “take out” Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro, Trump offered a cryptic reply, suggesting that Venezuela was “feeling heat.”
The Legal and Ethical Quagmire
The administration’s approach has generated significant controversy. Critics argue that treating alleged drug traffickers as “unlawful combatants” subject to military force, rather than law enforcement apprehension, may violate international law. James Story, former U.S. ambassador for Venezuela affairs, warned that these strikes could undermine counternarcotics efforts by alienating regional allies like Colombia, hindering intelligence gathering, and putting the U.S. in “contravention with international law” as reported by The Associated Press. He noted that such actions could be described as “extrajudicial killings.”
On Capitol Hill, bipartisan frustration is evident. Some Republicans have demanded more information on the legal justification for the strikes, while Democrats contend they violate both U.S. and international law. A recent Senate vote on a war powers resolution, which would have required congressional authorization for such strikes, failed to pass. Senator Adam Schiff, a Democrat, voiced concerns that the continued strikes, which have resulted in 27 deaths, risk “getting the U.S. into a full fledged war,” vowing to push for another vote if the operations persist.
The administration’s legal memo to Congress claims the U.S. is in a “non-international armed conflict” with designated terrorist organizations and authorized operations under the “law of armed conflict.” However, U.S. officials have acknowledged that underlying evidence proving the targeted boats were carrying narcotics has yet to be provided to lawmakers. Former military lawyers have also questioned whether the administration’s legal explanations satisfy the requirements under the law of war for killing suspected traffickers rather than apprehending them.
Venezuelan Response and Regional Buildup
The U.S. escalation has prompted a strong reaction from Venezuela. President Nicolás Maduro has consistently accused the U.S. of using drug interdiction as a pretext for regime change. The U.S. Justice Department’s decision in August to double the bounty for information leading to Maduro’s arrest to $50 million, accusing him of links to drug trafficking, further fueled these tensions. Maduro denies these allegations.
In response to the U.S. actions, Maduro ordered military exercises in Venezuela’s largest shantytowns, mobilizing the military, police, and civilian militia to defend the country’s “mountains, coasts, schools, hospitals, factories and markets.” Jorge Rodríguez, president of Venezuela’s National Assembly, called on the international press to combat what he termed U.S. “lies,” asserting that the true objective was “an excuse for aggression” rather than fighting drug trafficking. Earlier in October, Venezuela’s Defense and Foreign Ministries denounced the “illegal incursion of U.S. combat aircraft” detected near their coast, deeming it a “provocation that threatens national sovereignty.”
The U.S. has significantly increased its military presence in the southern Caribbean, deploying an unprecedented force that includes F-35 aircraft in Puerto Rico, eight warships carrying thousands of sailors and marines, and a nuclear-powered submarine. This buildup, combined with the new threat of land strikes and covert CIA operations, signals a hardening stance by the Trump administration, with potentially far-reaching implications for regional stability and international law.
