NextFin news, the US military has intensified operations against vessels purportedly engaged in drug trafficking in the Caribbean Sea and the eastern Pacific Ocean, with the latest strike reported on November 6, 2025. According to Pentagon officials, including Secretary Pete Hegseth, the recent attack killed three individuals aboard what was described as a "narco-terrorist" vessel operating in international waters near the Caribbean. These strikes have led to at least 70 deaths since the campaign commenced in early September 2025. The US Department of Defense has released aerial footage depicting these attacks and emphasized the administration's commitment to eradicating drug trafficking perceived as a national security threat to the United States. This military effort includes the deployment of the USS Gerald R. Ford carrier strike group, F-35 fighter jets to Puerto Rico, and a significant buildup of naval assets throughout Latin America.
However, these actions have drawn widespread criticism. International law experts, such as Professor Said Mahmoudi, argue that the US strikes amount to violations of international law, particularly due to their execution in international waters without clear evidence publicly disclosed to justify lethal force. Furthermore, the United Nations Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights has labeled these operations as "extrajudicial killings," demanding investigations into their legality. Venezuela's government, under President Nicolás Maduro, who has been a prime target of the campaign's rhetoric and military pressure, has condemned these strikes as illegitimate assaults on its sovereignty, consistently denying involvement in drug trafficking and denouncing US actions as unlawful.
Investigations by independent journalists and the Associated Press have disclosed that many individuals killed in these strikes were low-level smugglers, fishermen, or local laborers coerced or economically compelled into participation in illicit trafficking activities. For instance, Robert Sánchez, a Venezuelan fisherman with limited means, was among those killed, highlighting the human cost and the ambiguity in labeling all targets as "narco-terrorists." Families report no due process or opportunity to contest accusations, raising ethical concerns about the extraterritorial application of lethal force by the US military.
The Trump administration has framed drug trafficking as an "armed conflict," justifying these operations under a national security doctrine that treats narcotics smuggling as tantamount to an armed attack on the United States. This legal stance aims to legitimize lethal strikes as acts of self-defense. Yet, international legal scholars contest the validity of this interpretation, arguing the causal chain between drug trafficking activities abroad and harm on US soil is too attenuated to legally warrant the use of armed force under Article 51 of the UN Charter. Moreover, lethal actions without consent of the territorial state or Security Council authorization contravene established international norms governing sovereignty and use of force.
Further complicating the situation is the extensive military buildup in the Caribbean region. The scale and composition of US forces, including aircraft carriers, attack submarines, fighter jets, and amphibious assault ships, appear disproportionate if solely aimed at interdicting small maritime smuggling operations. Analysts suggest this posture also serves as a coercive signal toward Venezuela, aiming to destabilize or influence the Maduro government. Congressional debates reflect this tension, with some lawmakers voicing concern over unauthorized military escalation in the region.
The consequences of these operations extend beyond immediate military and legal dimensions. The strikes risk inflaming regional tensions, destabilizing fragile governments, and complicating US relations with neighboring states and global powers such as Russia and China, which Venezuela has sought for diplomatic and military support. The campaign's effectiveness in curbing drug flows remains uncertain, especially given the complex economic and social factors driving smuggling and production in the region.
Looking forward, the United States faces significant challenges balancing its legitimate interest in combating drug trafficking with adherence to international law and respect for sovereignty. The illegal characterization of drug cartels as armed combatants and the use of lethal force extrajudicially set a precarious precedent. Persistent civilian casualties and collateral damage erode moral standing and risk international condemnation. The potential expansion of military operations onto Venezuelan territory, hinted by public statements from President Trump, further escalates the risk of broader conflict.
Strategically, Washington may need to reconsider its approach, emphasizing multilateral cooperation, intelligence-sharing, and traditional law enforcement measures, which include due process and respect for human rights. The sustainability of unilateral military interventions without international mandate is questionable both legally and diplomatically. Furthermore, clear transparency regarding intelligence justifications and targeted operations is crucial to maintaining global legitimacy and securing domestic support.
In conclusion, while the US military campaign against drug smuggling under President Donald Trump's administration aims to protect national security interests, it currently undermines international legal frameworks and regional stability. The 70-plus deaths resulting from these operations underscore the human cost and the need for rigorous legal scrutiny and policy reassessment to avoid exacerbating conflict and violating international norms.
According to CBS News, US Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth stated that the strikes targeted “vessels operated by Designated Terrorist Organizations” and are conducted in international waters. Yet, reporting by the Associated Press reveals the complexity of classifying the targeted individuals, many of whom lack ties to organized terrorist networks and are rather economically marginalized local participants. Such findings suggest the need for nuanced assessments and underscore the risks of overbroad counterdrug militarization that may inflict disproportionate harm.
