Caribbean Crucible

Introduction

The tranquil waters of the southern Caribbean became the theatre of a sudden and violent escalation of United States foreign policy in September and October of 2025. A succession of deadly aerial strikes, executed by the U.S. military against several small boats originating from or near Venezuela, thrust the already tense U.S.-Venezuela relationship into a new and perilous phase. These operations, ordered by the administration of President Donald Trump, were publicly framed as decisive blows against transnational drug trafficking organisations, which the White House had labelled "narco-terrorists." The strikes, which resulted in the deaths of at least twenty-one individuals, were unprecedented in their methodology, eschewing traditional maritime law enforcement tactics of interdiction and arrest in favour of lethal force.

This aggressive new posture was underpinned by a significant U.S. naval buildup in the region and a novel legal justification: a formal declaration to the U.S. Congress that the nation was engaged in a "non-international armed conflict" with designated drug cartels. This declaration, and the strikes it sought to legitimise, immediately provoked intense debate and condemnation. Legal experts, human rights organisations, and a number of U.S. lawmakers challenged the legality of the actions under both domestic and international law, characterising them as extrajudicial executions that bypassed due process and violated foundational legal principles.

For the Venezuelan government under President Nicolás Maduro, the strikes were unambiguous acts of aggression and a flagrant violation of its national sovereignty. Caracas vehemently denied the U.S. allegations, particularly the assertion that the targeted vessels were crewed by members of the Tren de Aragua gang, and accused Washington of fabricating a pretext for military intervention aimed at regime change. The international community watched with alarm, with nations such as Russia condemning the U.S. actions and warning of regional destabilisation. The events unfolded as a complex interplay of military strategy, legal interpretation, and geopolitical manoeuvring, raising fundamental questions about the use of force in the modern era.

A Precedent of Animosity: The Road to Confrontation

The dramatic military actions of autumn 2025 did not arise from a vacuum. They were the culmination of years of escalating hostility between the United States and Venezuela, a relationship that had steadily deteriorated since the rise of Hugo Chávez's Bolivarian Revolution in 1999. Under President Trump, this antagonism intensified into a "maximum pressure" campaign designed to unseat the government of his successor, Nicolás Maduro. Washington had long ceased to recognise Maduro as the legitimate president following the disputed 2018 presidential election, instead throwing its support behind opposition leader Juan Guaidó ³³.

The Trump administration employed a raft of diplomatic and economic sanctions to isolate and cripple the Maduro government. In March 2020, this pressure took on a more direct and personal dimension when the U.S. Department of Justice indicted Maduro and other high-ranking Venezuelan officials on charges of "narco-terrorism," alleging their involvement in a drug-trafficking organisation known as the "Cartel of the Suns" ¹⁵. A bounty of $15 million was offered for information leading to Maduro's capture ²⁹. This legal manoeuvre was crucial, as it laid the groundwork for framing the Venezuelan state itself as a criminal enterprise. In July 2025, the U.S. Treasury Department further solidified this narrative by designating the Cartel de los Soles as a Specially Designated Global Terrorist organisation ¹⁵.

Parallel to these legal and economic measures, a more hawkish faction within the Trump administration, reportedly including Secretary of State Marco Rubio, advocated for a more direct military approach to oust Maduro ^{23, 31}. This context is essential for understanding the subsequent events. The narrative of Venezuela as a "narco-state" was not merely a justification for counter-narcotics operations; it was central to the broader U.S. policy objective of regime change ³. Critics of U.S. policy pointed out that while Venezuela is a transit country for cocaine originating in Colombia, its role in the global drug trade is often overstated. The 2025 UN World Drug Report, for instance, did not identify Venezuela as a major drug producer or a primary international trafficking corridor ¹⁹. Furthermore, both the Mexican and Colombian governments have stated there is no proof of Venezuelan government complicity in drug trafficking activities ¹⁹.

The specific targeting of the Tren de Aragua gang was another critical element of the U.S. narrative. In February 2025, the U.S. State Department designated Tren de Aragua as a Foreign Terrorist Organization ^{3, 5}. The administration repeatedly claimed, without presenting public evidence, that the gang was operating under the direction of the Maduro government ³². However, this assertion was contradicted by a declassified U.S. intelligence assessment and by independent analyses. InSight Crime, a think tank specialising in organised crime in Latin America, found no evidence of Tren de Aragua's direct participation in transnational drug trafficking, characterising its activities more in terms of human smuggling, extortion, and other violent crimes ¹². Venezuelan authorities, for their part, stated that the gang had been effectively dismantled in a prison raid in 2023 ³. This discrepancy between the U.S. administration's claims and available evidence fuelled accusations that the designation was a politically motivated pretext for military action.

The Department of War and a New Doctrine's Architect

The ideological shift underpinning the Caribbean strikes was further underscored by a significant symbolic change within the U.S. government. In September 2025, the Trump administration renamed the Department of Defense to the Department of War, reverting to its original name from the period between 1789 and 1947 ²⁹. This move was presented as part of a doctrine of "peace through strength," intended to project a more assertive and martial image of American power on the global stage ²⁹.

Central to the implementation of this new, more aggressive posture was the figure of Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth. Appointed in January 2025, Hegseth was not a traditional choice for the Pentagon's top civilian post ⁹. A former Army National Guard officer with tours in Iraq and Afghanistan, he was primarily known as a conservative television personality on Fox News and a staunch supporter of President Trump ^{7, 9}. His background lacked the senior military or national security establishment experience typical of his predecessors ²⁸.

Hegseth's worldview, articulated in his writings and television appearances, was one of stark ideological conflict. He has been described as a Christian nationalist who views American politics as an irreconcilable struggle against progressive and leftist forces ^{2, 7}. In his 2020 book, "American Crusade: Our Fight to Stay Free," he called for a "holy war for the righteous cause of human freedom" ². His tenure as Defense Secretary was marked by a focus on eradicating what he termed "woke" culture from the military and reorienting it towards a singular focus on "lethality" ^{16, 36}.

Hegseth's policy positions indicated a broad interpretation of presidential authority to use lethal force and a disdain for the legal and moral constraints of warfare ^{28, 30}. He had previously advocated for the U.S. military to be used against drug cartels in Mexico and to suppress domestic protests ³⁰. He was also a vocal proponent of pardoning U.S. service members accused or convicted of war crimes, an action President Trump had taken in 2019 following Hegseth's lobbying ^{18, 28}. This background suggests a predisposition towards direct military solutions and a willingness to challenge established legal and ethical norms, a mindset that found its ultimate expression in the Caribbean strikes of 2025.

A Gathering Storm: The U.S. Naval Buildup

The lethal strikes were preceded and accompanied by a formidable concentration of U.S. naval power in the southern Caribbean, a deployment of a scale not seen in the region for decades ^{3, 6, 27}. Beginning in late August 2025, the U.S. Southern Command (SOUTHCOM) began what it publicly termed "enhanced counternarcotics operations" ³⁹. However, the composition and capabilities of the deployed forces suggested a mission far exceeding traditional drug interdiction ^{10, 19}.

The flotilla included multiple Arleigh Burke-class guided-missile destroyers, such as the USS Gravely, USS Jason Dunham, and USS Sampson, later joined by the USS Stockdale, a vessel noted for its recent combat experience in the Red Sea ^{10, 27}. These warships were equipped with advanced Aegis combat systems and vertical launch systems capable of firing a variety of missiles, including Tomahawk land-attack cruise missiles ¹⁰. The force was augmented by the Ticonderoga-class cruiser USS Lake Erie, providing additional firepower, and a Los Angeles-class nuclear-powered attack submarine, the USS Newport News, which offered a covert deep-strike and surveillance capability ¹⁰.

An amphibious component, centred around the Wasp-class amphibious assault ship USS Iwo Jima, carried thousands of U.S. Marines, along with their associated aircraft and landing craft ²³. The air contingent was particularly notable, featuring the deployment of at least ten F-35 Lightning II stealth fighter jets to Puerto Rico, alongside P-8A Poseidon maritime patrol aircraft and MQ-9 Reaper surveillance drones ^{10, 19, 29}. This powerful combination of surface, subsurface, amphibious, and air assets provided the U.S. with a wide spectrum of military options, from a maritime blockade to precision strikes against strategic targets within Venezuela ¹⁰.

The Venezuelan government viewed this military buildup as a direct and imminent threat. President Maduro placed the nation's armed forces on high alert and initiated military exercises to demonstrate a readiness to defend Venezuelan sovereignty ^{29, 35}. On October 2, 2025, Caracas denounced the "illegal incursion" of U.S. fighter jets near its airspace, filing a complaint with the UN Security Council ¹⁹. The massive U.S. military presence created a highly volatile environment, where any miscalculation could potentially trigger a wider conflict ²⁷.

The Strikes: A Campaign of Lethal Force

The first strike in this new campaign occurred on September 1, 2025, and was announced by President Trump the following day ⁵. He released a 25-second video on his social media platform, Truth Social, showing a small boat being struck by a missile and erupting in flames ^{3, 5}. The administration claimed the strike killed eleven members of the Tren de Aragua gang who were transporting a significant quantity of narcotics ⁵. No evidence was publicly provided to substantiate these claims regarding the vessel's cargo or the affiliation of its occupants ⁵. The Venezuelan government initially denied the strike had even occurred, before later stating that the eleven individuals killed were civilians, not gang members ^{29, 3}. Unverified local reports suggested the victims were from the fishing village of San Juan de Unare in Sucre state ^{3, 5}.

This initial attack set the pattern for the ensuing operations. On September 15, President Trump announced a second strike on a boat allegedly carrying illicit drugs from Venezuela, which killed three men ⁵. Following this attack, Trump issued a stark warning on social media: "Be warned—If you are transporting drugs that can kill Americans, we are hunting you!" ⁵. A third strike was announced by Trump on September 19, which also resulted in three fatalities. The vessel was described as being "affiliated with a Designated Terrorist Organization," though no specific details were provided ⁵.

The fourth and most prominently publicised strike took place on October 3, 2025. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth announced on the social media platform X that he had, on President Trump's orders, directed a "lethal, kinetic strike" on a vessel in international waters off the Venezuelan coast ^{3, 8}. He stated that four "male narco-terrorists" were killed and that intelligence "without a doubt, confirmed that this vessel was trafficking narcotics" ^{3, 6}. Hegseth's post included a video of the strike, showing a small boat moving at speed before being violently destroyed in an explosion ³. Again, no further details or evidence were offered to support the claims ⁶.

On October 5, during a speech at a U.S. Navy anniversary ceremony, President Trump announced that another strike had occurred the previous evening, on October 4 ^{10, 26}. He boasted of the campaign's effectiveness, claiming, "There are no boats in the water anymore. You can't find them" ^{10, 13}. He also signalled a potential expansion of this strategy to land-based trafficking routes ^{10, 13}. This series of strikes, totalling at least five separate incidents, resulted in a cumulative death toll of over two dozen people, all killed without any attempt at arrest or judicial process ¹³.

A War on Cartels: The Contentious Legal Justification

Faced with mounting questions about the legality of the strikes, the Trump administration unveiled its core legal rationale on October 1, 2025. In a formal notification to Congress, the President declared that he had "determined that the United States is in a non-international armed conflict" with designated drug cartels ^{5, 22, 33}. The memo described these cartels as "non-state armed groups" and "unlawful combatants" whose actions, specifically the trafficking of illicit drugs into the U.S., constituted an "armed attack against the United States" ^{6, 9, 33}.

This declaration was a radical legal manoeuvre. By reframing counter-narcotics efforts as an armed conflict, the administration sought to move its actions from the realm of law enforcement, governed by international human rights law (IHRL), to the realm of armed conflict, governed by international humanitarian law (IHL), also known as the laws of war ^{14, 24}. Under a law enforcement paradigm, lethal force is strictly limited and can only be used when "strictly unavoidable to protect against an imminent threat of death or serious injury" ²¹. In contrast, during an armed conflict, it is permissible to target enemy combatants directly, even when they do not pose an immediate threat ^{5, 23}.

The administration's legal justification was met with widespread and severe criticism from legal scholars and human rights organisations. Experts argued that the premise of the declaration was fundamentally flawed. The distribution of narcotics, however harmful, does not constitute an "armed attack" in the sense understood by international law, which is a prerequisite for a state to lawfully engage in armed conflict ^{22, 24}. Geoffrey Corn, an expert on the law of armed conflict, described the justification as a "pretext to open the door to extraordinary use of force authority" ²². John B. Bellinger III, a former legal adviser to the U.S. State Department, stated that the claim "makes a mockery of accepted international law terms" ²².

Critics also pointed out that even if an armed conflict existed, the individuals targeted would likely be considered civilians under IHL, unless there was evidence they were directly participating in hostilities. Targeting and killing them would therefore constitute a war crime ^{4, 14}. Human Rights Watch unequivocally labelled the strikes "unlawful extrajudicial killings" ²¹. The administration's justification was seen as a dangerous attempt to blur the lines between law enforcement and military action, creating a precedent that could be used to justify summary executions of criminal suspects globally ⁴.

The strikes also raised serious questions under international maritime law. The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), which the U.S. follows as a matter of policy despite not being a signatory, reserves the high seas for peaceful purposes ^{4, 11}. While maritime law allows for enforcement operations, the use of force is considered a last resort ^{4, 8}. Standard procedure for interdicting a suspicious vessel involves a graduated response, starting with signals to stop, followed by warning shots, and only using disabling fire on the vessel itself if all other means have failed and life is not endangered ¹⁷. The U.S. strikes, which involved the immediate use of overwhelming lethal force, were a clear departure from these established norms ⁴.

Reactions and Recriminations: A Chorus of Condemnation

The response from the Venezuelan government was swift and furious. President Maduro accused the U.S. of threatening regime change and committing "extrajudicial murder" ⁵. His government denied any link between the individuals killed and criminal organisations, portraying them as civilian victims of American aggression ³. Caracas launched diplomatic protests and prepared its military for a potential escalation, with Maduro stating he was ready to declare a state of emergency ³⁵.

Within the United States, the strikes and the "armed conflict" declaration generated significant political opposition. Democratic lawmakers in Congress raised alarms about the President's use of military force without congressional authorisation. Congressman Jason Crow and Senators Tim Kaine and Adam Schiff introduced a War Powers Resolution aimed at blocking future unauthorised strikes ^{13, 22, 32}. The War Powers Resolution of 1973 requires the President to notify Congress within 48 hours of committing armed forces to military action and forbids armed forces from remaining for more than 60 days without a congressional authorisation for use of military force or a declaration of war. Critics argued that the President's actions were a clear usurpation of Congress's constitutional authority to declare war ^{13, 30}.

International reaction was largely negative. The United Nations had previously condemned the strikes as extrajudicial executions, stating that "International law does not allow governments to simply murder alleged drug traffickers" ¹⁰. Russia, a key ally of the Maduro government, condemned the U.S. actions and expressed its full support for Venezuela, warning of "far-reaching consequences for the region" ^{11, 41}. The strikes also drew criticism from other Latin American leaders. Colombian President Gustavo Petro, for instance, called for a criminal investigation into the U.S. officials who ordered the strikes, including President Trump ²³.

The lack of transparency from the Trump administration further fuelled the controversy. Despite repeated claims that the targeted boats were carrying substantial quantities of narcotics and were crewed by "narco-terrorists," the administration failed to provide any concrete evidence to the public or, reportedly, to Congress in a satisfactory manner ^{5, 32}. This absence of proof, combined with the extreme nature of the military response, led many to conclude that the counter-narcotics justification was a thin veil for a more aggressive geopolitical agenda aimed at the Venezuelan state.

Conclusion

The U.S. military strikes off the coast of Venezuela in the autumn of 2025 represented a significant and alarming departure from established norms of international law and military conduct. By employing lethal force as a first resort against suspected criminals in international waters and subsequently declaring a "non-international armed conflict" with drug cartels, the Trump administration advanced a radical and widely contested interpretation of executive power and the laws of war. This new doctrine, executed by a Defense Secretary ideologically aligned with a more militaristic and unilateralist foreign policy, bypassed traditional law enforcement protocols and the legal requirement for due process.

The events unfolded against a deeply politicised backdrop of long-standing U.S.-Venezuela hostility and an explicit U.S. policy of seeking regime change in Caracas. The administration's narrative, which cast the Venezuelan state and associated criminal gangs as an existential "narco-terrorist" threat, was used to justify a massive naval deployment and a series of actions that were condemned by legal experts and human rights organisations as extrajudicial killings. The failure to provide credible evidence to support its claims only served to reinforce suspicions that the counter-narcotics mission was a pretext for a campaign of intimidation and destabilisation.

The Caribbean crisis of 2025 left a legacy of profound legal and geopolitical questions. It challenged the foundational principles of the UN Charter, the Law of the Sea, and international human rights law, creating a dangerous precedent for the use of military force against non-state actors. The episode highlighted the fragility of the international legal order in the face of assertive unilateralism and underscored the critical role of congressional oversight in restraining executive war-making powers. The smoking hulls of the small boats destroyed in the Caribbean served as a stark illustration of a new and turbulent chapter in U.S. foreign policy, one where the lines between law enforcement and warfare were deliberately and dangerously blurred.