In October 2025, President Trump verified that the US launched a series of strikes on alleged drug-trafficking boats off Venezuela and approved CIA operations in the country. These strikes have led to the deaths of at least 27 people in five different strikes. This has set off intense debate over the use of executive power, legal approach, and how to tackle the war on drugs. Those who oppose, see the strikes as dangerous overreach; advocates see them as the most effective method to combat these threats.
A Matter of National Security
Trump’s team is defending the strikes on the following premises: first, to stop drug flows and their destruction in various US communities, and second, countering Venezuela’s supposed “weaponization” of migration. “They have emptied their prisons into the United States of America... And the other thing, the drugs,” Trump stated. The administration’s identification of Venezuelan cartels as terrorists changes the means by which we can go after the traffickers as enemy combatants, extending presidential power under Article II.
Officials argue that traditional methods proved to be ineffective. Secretary of State Marco Rubio said, “We are going to take on drug cartels wherever they are… against the interests of the US.” Trump was blunt: “We’ve been doing that for 30 years, and it has been totally ineffective. They have faster boats… but they’re not faster than missiles.”
Legal Framework
US presidents, both Democratic and Republican, have often exerted broad military power abroad without direct congressional approval —from Jefferson to Obama —this is nothing new. The Trump administration mentions the 2001 AUMF, self-defense under international law, and the Commander-in-Chief authority as legal grounds.
The 2024 Supreme Court ruling in Trump v. United States (6-3) grants stronger presidential powers, giving “absolute immunity” for core constitutional acts. The majority, led by Chief Justice Roberts, wrote: “Presidents may not be prosecuted for exercising [core constitutional powers]…” Justice Sotomayor’s dissent warned this could make “the President… a king above the law.” This ruling provides additional legal authority for swift executive action abroad.
Operational Results & Strategy
Trump argues that the strikes have disrupted trafficking routes, strengthened US security, and put significant pressure on the Maduro regime. “Earlier this morning, on my orders, U.S. Military Forces executed a kinetic strike against confirmed Tren de Aragua narcoterrorists,” he posted online. The Pentagon expresses a “non-international armed conflict” in the region, changing the rules of engagement.
The visible US naval presence in the Caribbean sends a message: if you traffic drugs or support hostile migration, there will be military consequences.
Legal and Moral Criticism
Opposition in Congress, like Sens. Kaine and Paul, argue the strikes violate the War Powers Act and lack congressional approval. International legal scholars, including Michael Becker (Trinity College Dublin), claim, “The characterization of those killed as narco-terrorists does not make them lawful military targets. The US is not at war with Venezuela…” Human rights lawyers like Mary Ellen O’Connell (Notre Dame) also caution, “Labeling everyone a terrorist does not make them a legitimate target and allows states to bypass international law.”
The White House has countered with the position that Venezuela’s Government surrendered sovereignty to cartels and that the right of self-defense under UN law is applicable. The administration claims that the details of the operations remain classified to protect intelligence sources. This is supported as it’s a longstanding practice in US military targeting.
Checks & Balances
Congress has funding power, but not without dealing with gridlock. Kaine’s effort to restrict presidential military power faces long odds in the Senate. The Courts, by and large, defer to the executive in matters relating to national security; Courts typically remain out of military decisions, and you can’t sue the Government just because you don’t like the policy-you’d have to prove the strikes personally harmed you.
Here’s the brass tacks: these strikes will either work and deter the cartels, or they won’t. If drug shipments decline and cartels shift their operations away from our shores, Trump will be vindicated. If trafficking continues unchecked, we’ll have learned an expensive lesson; however, you’d be hard-pressed to find a better deterrent than Trump’s approach. But after 30 years of failure, at least someone’s trying something new.
Wrong Speak is a free-expression platform that allows varying viewpoints. All views expressed in this article are the author’s own.
 | A guest post by
|
There is a better case to be made for capturing and not killing those aboard to verify and interrogate. It may lead up the chain of command as to who is behind the boats and why. For all you know, these could be decoy boats, to test the waters so to speak. You are right that our past policies are ineffective and that's on us to demand why the left hand of the richest country in the world can't seem to know what the right hand is doing.
No fentanyl comes from Venezuela. The CIA used to run a lot of cocaine through there--you know a lot of our cocaine is CIA owned, don't you? Probably not--but Hugo Chavez shut it down, you know, like Castro did with Cuba.
This post is full of lies. No, the President does NOT have the right to order the military to kill anyone he wants, which is what you are saying. At least Wrong Speak is the right name for you.