The latest U.S. military strike off the Venezuelan coast, resulting in six deaths on a vessel accused of drug trafficking, marks the fifth such deadly incident in recent weeks. This escalation intensifies a global debate over the legality and strategic implications of Washington’s self-declared “non-international armed conflict” against alleged narco-terrorist networks, drawing sharp criticism from international bodies, human rights groups, and even members of Congress.
On October 14, 2025, the U.S. military conducted its latest lethal strike against a vessel in international waters off the coast of Venezuela. President Donald Trump announced the strike, stating that it targeted a boat accused of carrying drugs and associated with “narco terrorist networks,” resulting in the deaths of six individuals aboard. This incident marks the fifth such deadly operation since early September, bringing the total reported casualties from these strikes to 27 men, whom the administration has described as “unlawful combatants” and “male narco terrorists.”
Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, identified by President Trump as having ordered the strike, subsequently released video footage, which appeared to show a small vessel being hit and engulfed in flames. Trump confirmed that intelligence indicated the vessel was trafficking narcotics and operating along a known route used by a Designated Terrorist Organization (DTO). However, the Pentagon has yet to publicly provide concrete evidence supporting claims of the vessels carrying narcotics or belonging to specific terrorist organizations for any of the strikes.
A New Front in the War on Drugs: The \”Non-International Armed Conflict\” Declaration
The recent series of strikes represents a significant shift in U.S. policy regarding drug interdiction. The Trump administration has formally notified Congress that it considers the United States to be engaged in a “non-international armed conflict” with drug cartels. An internal memo, obtained by CNN, reportedly states that these cartels are now deemed “non-state armed groups” whose actions “constitute an armed attack against the United States.” This reclassification provides the administration with a legal framework to deploy military force, including lethal kinetic strikes, against suspected drug traffickers at sea, rather than focusing solely on apprehension.
This policy pivot allows the Department of War to target vessels and individuals designated as “unlawful combatants,” a status typically reserved for those involved in traditional armed conflicts. The White House has argued that military action is a necessary escalation to disrupt the flow of drugs into the U.S., specifically identifying groups like the Venezuelan cartel Tren de Aragua as targets, which Trump claims operates directly under Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro.
International Condemnation and Legal Scrutiny
Despite the administration’s legal justifications, these military actions have drawn widespread criticism and raised significant legal and ethical questions. Experts at the United Nations condemned earlier U.S. strikes on alleged drug trafficking boats as extrajudicial executions. They emphasized that “international law does not allow governments to simply murder alleged drug traffickers,” advocating for criminal activities to be disrupted, investigated, and prosecuted in accordance with the rule of law, including through international cooperation.
Lawmakers and human rights groups have also voiced concerns over the legality of the attacks. Some former military lawyers argue that the administration’s legal explanations for killing suspected drug traffickers at sea, instead of apprehending them, fail to satisfy requirements under the law of war, as detailed in reports by outlets like TIME. The lack of provided information, such as the identities of those killed or details about the cargo, has only intensified these criticisms.
Adding another layer to the controversy, Colombian President Gustavo Petro recently claimed there were “indications” that one of the recently targeted boats was Colombian and had Colombian citizens onboard. The White House swiftly dismissed these claims as “baseless and reprehensible,” demanding a retraction from Petro.
Geopolitical Tensions and Congressional Pushback
The strikes occur amidst heightened tensions between the U.S. and Venezuela. The Trump administration has significantly increased its military presence in the southern Caribbean, deploying F-35 aircraft in Puerto Rico, eight warships carrying thousands of sailors and marines, and a nuclear-powered submarine. This military buildup is ostensibly aimed at drug interdiction but is also viewed by Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro as an attempt to drive him from power. Washington has consistently accused Maduro of links to drug trafficking and criminal groups, even doubling its reward for information leading to his arrest to $50 million, as noted by the State Department.
Within the U.S. Congress, frustration is reportedly growing among both Republican and Democratic members over the administration’s strategy and lack of transparency regarding these strikes. According to NBC News, lawmakers are dissatisfied with briefings, unable to clarify the legal basis for the operations, and have been met with refusal by Pentagon officials to provide unedited video footage of the incidents. An attempt in the U.S. Senate to prevent further strikes without congressional approval recently failed, with nearly all Republicans and some Democrats voting against the measure.
As the U.S. continues its aggressive posture against alleged narco-terrorist networks, the implications for international law, regional stability, and the future of U.S.-Venezuela relations remain a significant point of contention and concern for the global community.
