| 2025 United States military strikes on alleged drug traffickers | |
|---|---|
Unclassified footage of the first airstrike (1 September) | |
| Type | Airstrikes |
| Location | |
| Planned by |  United States |
| Target | Vessels allegedly manned bydrug traffickers from ColombianNational Liberation Army and VenezuelanTren de Aragua |
| Date | 1 September – present |
| Executed by |  United States Navy |
| Casualties | 43 deaths 2 captured |
The United States military began executingairstrikes on vessels in theCaribbean Sea in September 2025—positioned by theadministration of Donald Trump as a mission to fightdrug trafficking to the US—and in October, the strikes expanded to include the EasternPacific Ocean. The US alleged that the vessels were operated by groups it designated asnarcoterrorists, including the Venezuelan criminal organizationTren de Aragua and the Colombianguerilla groupNational Liberation Army, but has not publicized any evidence for the allegations.
The US begandeploying Navy warships and personnel to the Caribbean in mid-August.Donald Trump announced on 2 September 2025 that theUS Navy had carried out the first airstrike in the Caribbean on a boat from Venezuela, killing all eleven people on the vessel; he released a video of the incident, which Venezuelan sources said had occurred on 1 September. The next day,Pete Hegseth (US secretary of defense) said military operations against drug cartels in Venezuela would continue andMarco Rubio (US secretary of state) suggested that similar strikes could follow. As of 24 October 2025, at least forty-three people have been killed and two have been captured across ten strike incidents—eight in the Caribbean and two in the Pacific.
The strikes came amid heightened tensions between theUnited States and Venezuela. During Trump's second presidency, the US has calledNicolás Maduro (Venezuelan president) "one of the largest narco-traffickers in the world" and offered $50 million for information leading to his arrest. Venezuelan opposition figures and independent political analysts have suggested that the US's true motive isregime change. Experts questioned the legality of the killings under US andinternational law, and the Colombian and Venezuelan governments have accused the US ofextrajudicial murder.
During theTrump administration's second term, the US intensified its focus on drug cartels, characterizing the smugglers as terrorists.[1][2][3] In August 2025, the USdeployed warships and personnel to the Caribbean, citing the need to combat drug cartels.[4][5][6]PBS News reported that Trump was utilizing the military to counter cartels he blamed for traffickingfentanyl and other illicit drugs into the US and for fueling violence in American cities.[7]
The US announced on 2 September that a military vessel struck and sank a speedboat that it alleged was smuggling drugs from Venezuela to the southern Caribbean[8] during a high-seas interdiction mission.[2][9]El Pitazo[10] and Venezuela'sEl Nacional stated that the boat was destroyed on Monday, 1 September.[11] Trump announced the attack from theWhite House, describing the target as "loaded" with narcotics, a "lot of drugs" bound for the United States.[12] In a post onTruth Social, Trump stated that the operation killed 11 members ofTren de Aragua.[13] Secretary of StateMarco Rubio confirmed the sinking on social media, stating the vessel was operated by a "designated narco-terrorist organization".[14] On 6 September 2025, Rubio said: "Instead of interdicting it, on the president's orders, we blew it up. And it'll happen again."[15] According toThe Wall Street Journal, "The attack was the US military's first publicly acknowledged airstrike in Central or South America since theUS invasion of Panama in 1989."[16]
Venezuelan media reported[17] that the vessel came from the village of San Juan de Unare, located on theParia Peninsula inSucre (a coastal state in the northeastern part of Venezuela).[18][19] Inhabitants describing a town in mourning[20] published tributes containing photos of the deceased beginning early on 3 September.[21][18] The deceased included eight persons from San Juan de Unare and three from a nearby town, Güiria.[11]
El Pitazo reported that the boat was a flipper type with four 200-horsepower engines, about 12 metres (39 ft) long, and was headed for nearbyTrinidad and Tobago. Two other vessels which departed at about the same time escaped detection.[18][11][10][22] US military veteran Luis Quiñonez stated in a television interview that three warnings (in English, Spanish and Portuguese) to stop were issued,[23] and sources told journalistSebastiana Barráez [es] that the vessel carried a "considerable cargo" and that some had been thrown overboard before the US attack.[11][a]
Originally a fishing village, San Juan de Unare had been for two decades taken over as a transit point in the drug trade, according toRonna Rísquez.[35]France 24, quoting local media, reported that since 2018 the town has been a "strategic hub for drug trafficking, human trafficking, and irregular migration", and that Tren de Aragua ran drugs ultimately destined for the US from the Sucre coast via Caribbean islands.[20] According toEfecto Cocuyo, Sucre state's short distance from Trinidad "facilitates the proliferation of these illicit activities, a fact that has been widely documented by various organizations ... in multiple investigations".[19] An anonymous expert on organized crime toldEfecto Cocuyo that drugs trafficked through the region originate in Colombia, and that gangs such as Tren de Aragua are "attempting to control these territories to establish direct transportation routes to the islands of the Eastern Caribbean".[19] A 1 OctoberInsight Crime report stated that Tren de Aragua "maintains a stronghold" in Sucre state, but the Venezuelan state has "real control" of "criminal economies" there.[17]
Trump posted footage of the attack on Truth Social, showing a missile striking the boat and setting it on fire.[36] A US spokesperson later confirmed that either a military helicopter or anMQ-9 Reaper drone struck the boat. Rubio added that the boat appeared to be heading for Trinidad or another Caribbean country.[9]
TheNew York Times and Associated Press reported that national security sources acknowledged that the boat seemed to be turning back when it was hit.[37][38]
Two unidentified bodies suspected by locals to be casualties from the strike washed up on the shores of Trinidad and Tobago, showing signs of having been blown up.[39]
On 15 September, Trump announced in aTruth Social post that the US military launched a second strike into a boat transporting illicit drugs from Venezuela during the morning hours, killing three men aboard the vessel.[40] Following the second attack, Trump released a threat on social media towards drug traffickers, replying in all capital letters: "Be warned—If you are transporting drugs that can kill Americans, we are hunting you!"[26] Trump stated on 16 September that the US military had sunk a third alleged drug-running boat in the Caribbean, without providing any other detail.[41][b] Later, on 8 October, Colombian PresidentGustavo Petro stated that those killed in one of the strikes may have been Colombian.[46][47][c] The White House responded that these assertions were baseless.[48][50][51] Two US officials stated without approval to publicly discuss the matter that there were Colombians on at least one of the boats.[46] On 18 October, Petro stated that the 16 September strike announced by Trump had killed a Colombian fisherman.[52] Other sources said he was referring to the 15 September strike.[53][54]
On 3 October, Hegseth announced that a strike on a vessel near the coast of Venezuela killed four.[55][d] Hegseth wrote in an X post that the vessel was transporting substantial amounts of narcotics and at the time was heading towards the United States, adding that the vessel was operating on a known narco-trafficking transit route.[28]
On 14 October, Trump posted a statement on Truth Social that six more men were killed in a strike[29] on a vessel near the coast of Venezuela.[57] Trump stated that Hegseth ordered the strike that morning.[58] Trinidad and Tobago is investigating whether two of the killed were Trinidad citizens.[59]
On 24 October, Hegseth announced "the first strike at night" occurred, against an alleged drug vessel operated by Tren de Aragua in the Caribbean, killing six men on board.[32][60]
On 19 September, Trump announced that another vessel allegedly carrying drugs had been destroyed in the Caribbean and that three men had been killed; Trump stated that the vessel was "affiliated with a Designated Terrorist Organization conducting narcotrafficking in theUSSOUTHCOM area of responsibility", but did not specify where the strike occurred, the country of origin, or the alleged criminal affiliation.[27][61] TheDominican Republic later announced that, under its National Directorate for Drug Control and theDominican Navy, it had cooperated with the US Navy to locate the boat, which was about 80 nautical miles South of Dominican-controlledBeata Island. After the boat was destroyed the Dominican Navy salvaged 377 packages ofcocaine amounting to 1,000 kilograms (2,200 lb). The Directorate stated that "This is the first time in history that the United States and the Dominican Republic carry out a joint operation against narco terrorism in the Caribbean".[62]
Reuters reported that there was a previously unannounced strike on 16 October 2025, which for the first time included survivors.[63] The US alleged that the vessel struck was anarco-submarine.[64] Unlike previous strikes, the attack did not immediately result in fatalities.[63] The survivors were rescued and detained on a US Navy ship.[45] Reuters reported, and Trump later confirmed, two killed and two survivors.[65][30] By 19 October, both were repatriated to their respective countries of origin, Colombia and Ecuador.[66][67] The Ecuadorian had been convicted and deported from the US in 2020 for drug smuggling.[68] The Ecuadorian attorney general's office stated that no crime reports had been filed against him with their institution, so absent evidence for detaining him, the subject was released.[69][70]
On 17 October, a strike in international waters on an alleged ColombianNational Liberation Army (ELN) drug vessel killed an additional three men.[31] The ELN denied involvement with the alleged drug boat or any other drug boat trafficking.[71]
The US struck another alleged drug boat on 21 October, killing at least two individuals, marking the first strike to take place in the Pacific Ocean.[72][33] An unnamed US official said the strike occurred off the Colombian coast.[73] A second strike in the Pacific on 22 October killed three.[34]
Trump formally notified Congress on 1 October that the US was in a "non-international armed conflict" with "unlawful combatants" regarding drug cartels in the Caribbean, specifically referencing the 15 September strike.[74][75] TheMiami Herald wrote that: "In an armed conflict, a country can lawfully kill enemy fighters even when they pose no threat."[76]
Initially positioned as a mission to stop narcotics traffic to the US, by mid-October, Venezuelan opposition figures and independent analysts confirmed a shift in US objectives toward regime change.[77][78]
The Trump administration did not initially announce any specific legal authority for the strike.[79][80] Secretary of DefensePete Hegseth declared, "We have the absolute and complete authority", citing "... the defense of the American people alone. 100,000 Americans were killed each year under the previous administration because of an open border and open drug traffic flow. That is an assault on the American people."[81][82]Jake Tapper askedTom Homan how the President has authority to conduct such a strike; Homan deferred to the Department of Justice and the Department of Defense, saying the cartels had "... killed more Americans than any war."[83] The Trump administration did not provide evidence about the vessel's cargo, nor did it establish that the vessel's crew were threatening to attack.[84]
Experts have questioned the legality of the strike under US andinternational law.[85][86] Experts speaking to the BBC said that the 2 September strike was potentially illegal under internationalmaritime andhuman rights law. Though the US is not a signatory to theUnited Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, previous US policy had been to "act in a manner consistent with its provisions"; countries are not supposed to interfere with ships in international waters except in cases such ashot pursuit out of a country'sterritorial waters.[87][88] Law professorMary Ellen O'Connell said that the strike "violated fundamental principles of international law". Luke Moffett ofQueen's University Belfast, also a law professor, stated that striking the ship without grounds ofself-defense could beextrajudicial killing.BBC News argued that "Questions also remain as to whether Trump complied with theWar Powers Resolution, which demands that the president 'in every possible instance shall consult withCongress before introducingUnited States Armed Forces into hostilities'".[87] In October, the Associated Press stated that the Trump administration is "treating alleged drug traffickers as unlawful combatants who must be met with military force".[89]
The Atlantic and theCenter for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) suggested that Trump was relying on the authority given the president as commander in chief underArticle II of theUS Constitution.[90][86] According to CSIS, critics say the president must notify Congress within 48 hours to gain authorization.[86] An expert in US constitutional law fromKing's College London stated to theBBC that it is not clear if the strike would fall under the presidential powers granted by the anti-terroristAuthorization for Use of Military Force of 2001 (AUMF), but that the administration's use of the term "narco-terrorists" may hint at this being their legal justification.[91] According to CSIS, for several decades AUMF "has substituted for a formal declaration of war", and was used in 2001 to authorize war against "nations, organizations, or persons [the president] determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided” theattacks of 11 September or "harbored such organizations or persons".[86] CSIS states that this authorization has been "used as a controversial legal basis for US counterterrorism operations against the Taliban, al-Qaeda, and other organizations" andJoe Biden "did not seek congressional authorization for its frequent strikes against the Houthis in Yemen".[86] George W. Bush administration legal figureJohn Yoo has also questioned the legality of the strikes arguing that “There has to be a line between crime and war.” Obama era legal figureHarold Hongju Koh said that the strikes were “lawless, dangerous and reckless.”[92] Former chief White House ethics lawyerRichard Painter called the strikes a violation of international and federal law.[93]
Law professor Gabor Rona argued in a 2 October 2025Lawfare article that, while he agreed with other analysts that the strikes were unlawful, they reflected a predictable overreach that followed the precedents established during theGeorge W. Bush,Barack Obama andJoe Biden administrations following the 11 September attacks.[94]
A group of UN human rights experts stated on 21 October 2025 that the use of lethal force in international waters without a proper legal basis constitutes “extrajudicial executions", and that covert or direct military action against another sovereign state would represent "an even graver breach of the UN Charter".[95] Adam Isacson of theWashington Office on Latin America said the strike "[l]ooks like a massacre of civilians at sea".[85] In an interview withDemocracy Now!,Greg Grandin questioned whether the boat was actually being used to smuggle drugs, arguing that such a boat would not carry 11 passengers, but would devote the space to drug cargo. Grandin said that the strike was "bringing the logic of Gaza into the Caribbean, in terms of unaccountability, impunity and an expansive notion of national defense to justify what is, in effect, just extrajudicial killing."[96] David Smilde also said that the number of passengers would be unusual for a drug smuggling boat.[84]Amnesty International USA described the strike as murder.[93][97]
Repatriating the survivors of the 16 October strike on a semi-submersible to their home countries for prosecution avoids a civilian court challenge to continued detention without evidence, and a military court challenge to the legal justification for treating prisoners as unlawful combatants if they were not engaged in armed conflict.[30]
Early on 3 September, tributes containing photos, videos and names of the deceased began to appear on social media.[21] There was no response from the Maduro administration for four hours after the strike was announced;Freddy Ñáñez, the Venezuelan communications minister, was the first Venezuelan official to address the strike.[21] He stated that the footage of the attack was fake.[98] Inhabitants of San Juan de Unare disagree with this version.[18][20][11][10]
During his regular TV show on 3 September,Diosdado Cabello, Venezuela'sMinister of Interior, Justice and Peace, characterized the strike as "fake news" "invented" by the US as a cover for regime change.[21] In the TV segment, he called the killings extrajudicial murders.[36][99] Cabello later said that Venezuelan investigations determined none of the 11 people killed were members of Tren de Aragua.[100] A neighbor of one of the victims disagreed with this version.[101]
The next day, on 4 September,[21] Attorney GeneralTarek William Saab said the attack never occurred.[102]
Maduro accused the US of threatening regime change with the strike and build up of naval forces in the area. He said there were no criminal connections to drug traffickers.[36]Delcy Rodriguez, the vice president of Venezuela, asked on 8 September, "How can there be a drug cartel if there's no drugs here?"[103]
James G. Stavridis, a former US Navy admiral, characterized the strike and other US military activity around the same time asgunboat diplomacy intended to demonstrate the vulnerability of Venezuelan oil rigs andmateriel. He wrote that drug interdiction was likely not the sole reason for the increased US military activity.[104]
According toWalter Pincus, writing in the Cipher Brief, Trump was questioned on 5 September about the legality of the first strike, to which he responded: "We don't want drugs killing our people. I believe we lost 300,000 ... last year"—a number he repeated days later in an Oval Office meeting.[105][106] But when speaking impromptu to reporters prior to boardingAir Force One on 14 September, he inflated that number to 300 million—perhaps mistakenly according to Pincus.[105][107] Trump stated: "What’s illegal are the drugs that were on the boat, and the drugs that are being sent into our country, and the fact that 300 million people died last year from drugs."[107] Drug overdose deaths in the US in 2024 were about 80,000 according to factcheck.org.[106]
In an exchange onX, Vice PresidentJD Vance stated, "Killing cartel members who poison our fellow citizens is the highest and best use of our military," to which writerBrian Krassenstein responded, "killing the citizens of another nation who are civilians without any due process is called a war crime", Vance responded "I don't give a shit what you call it." SenatorRand Paul intervened in the argument, saying "What a despicable and thoughtless sentiment it is to glorify killing someone without a trial."[108] SenatorBernie Moreno responded to Paul saying, "what’s really despicable is defending foreign terrorist drug traffickers who are *directly* responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Americans in Kentucky and Ohio."[109]
The strike was welcomed by Republican senatorsLindsey Graham andBernie Moreno, with Moreno saying that "Sinking [the] boat saved American lives."[87] SenatorMark Warner said he was worried about putting American sailors "in harm's way by violating international law", and declared that neither he, a member of theGang of Eight, nor theSenate Intelligence Committee were briefed ahead of the operation.[110] A bipartisan briefing scheduled for 5 September was abruptly cancelled.[111]
Puerto Rico governorJennifer Gonzalez thanked the Trump administration on 9 September 2025 for the "fight against drug cartels in our hemisphere".[103]
California senatorAdam Schiff and Virginia senatorTim Kaine sponsored aWar Powers Resolution to prevent the administration from launching further strikes without congressional approval, which failed in the Senate 51-48 on 8 October 2025.[112]
AHarvard CAPS/Harris poll on 1–2 October showed 71% of respondents supported the US destroying boats trafficking drugs from South America.[113]
Prime Minister of Trinidad and TobagoKamla Persad-Bissessar praised the US attack and encouraged more operations against drug traffickers, saying: "The pain and suffering the cartels have inflicted on our nation is immense. I have no sympathy for traffickers; the US military should kill them all violently."[35][114] Raising concerns that the bodies washing ashore won't be investigated, and placing Trinidad and Tobago at odds with otherCARICOM members, she supports the strikes, saying: "I much prefer seeing drug and gun traffickers blown to pieces than seeing hundreds of our citizens murdered each year because of drug-fueled gang violence."[39] The family of one of the Trinidad victims said due process was not given and accused Trump of "killing poor people".[115]
Colombian presidentGustavo Petro said that attacking the boat occupants in drug interdictions rather than capturing them amounted to murder.[114] When asked whose side he was on, Brazilian presidentLuiz Inacio Lula da Silva said he was on the side of peace, favored negotiations, and that US forces in the Caribbean had become a source of tension.[116][117][118] Addressing theUnited Nations General Assembly, Lula compared "using lethal force in situations that do not constitute armed conflict" to "executing people without trial."[119]
The Iranian ambassador to the UN in Geneva condemned the attack as illegal under international law.[120]
Political scientistPeter Feaver noted that every presidential administration sinceRonald Reagan's considered deploying military force in thewar on drugs, but only the second Trump administration followed through.[90] JournalistKaty Balls wrote that the strikes were "a response to Beijing's fast-growing influence in Latin America."[121]
... 11 hombres que murieron cuando una lancha rápida fue destruida por la Armada de Estados Unidos en el Caribe el lunes primero de septiembre. La embarcación salió el domingo 31 de agosto en la noche y tenía como destino Trinidad y Tobago.[... 11 men died when a speedboat was destroyed by the U.S. Navy in the Caribbean on Monday, 1 September. The vessel departed on Sunday night, 31 August, bound for Trinidad and Tobago.]
Speaking to reporters Wednesday, Hegseth was asked what legal authority the Pentagon had invoked to carry out its deadly strike on a vessel officials claim was carrying drugs. (...) "I'd say we smoked the drug boat, and there's eleven narco terrorists at the bottom of the ocean. And when other people try to do that, they're gonna meet the same fate," Hegseth continued.
[01:45 min. total.]
The right of a coastal state to pursue a foreign ship within its territorial waters ... and there capture it if the state has good reason to believe that this vessel has violated its laws. The hot pursuit may – but only if it is uninterrupted – continue onto the high seas ...
"Applying this approach to the drug mission would have been considered and debated in every administration since Reagan." But none of Trump's predecessors ultimately decided to go through with it.
Trump officials on Friday abruptly cancelled a briefing with top Senate national security and leadership staff about the deadly U.S. strike on a drug vessel off the coast of Venezuela.
Why it matters: Top Democrats this week said they were left in the dark ahead of the operation, which the administration has suggested is the start of a broader military campaign.
Officials pulled the plug on the bipartisan briefing Friday after attendees had already arrived, we are told.
The session has been rescheduled for next week, according to a person familiar with the matter.
The AP was first to report that Friday's briefing was canceled.
Shipwrecks and maritime incidents in 2025 | |
|---|---|
| Shipwrecks |
|
| Other incidents |
|
