U.S. President Donald Trump’s second term has been typified by unorthodox moves that have stretched the limits of presidential power. But the escalating war against alleged drug boats that his administration has launched in the Caribbean stands out as a particularly unusual development—and there are open questions about the legality, effectiveness, and broader aims of the operation.
Since early September, the United States has conducted seven strikes against alleged drug boats off the coast of Venezuela and two in the Pacific, killing at least 37 people. The Trump administration said that the strikes are targeting dangerous “narcoterrorists,” while accusing Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro of heading a drug cartel, but it has offered little to no solid evidence to back this up. The operation, which undermines Trump’s campaign pledge for “no new wars” in his second term, has raised alarm bells on Capitol Hill.
Amid widespread doubts over the administration’s rationale for the strikes, there’s growing concern that the operation is part of an effort to raise pressure on Maduro and catalyze regime change in the South American country.
With so many unknowns swirling around the complicated situation, Foreign Policy spoke to several experts to get their perspectives on some of the biggest questions about the recent strikes—including the legality, Trump’s endgame, and the potential consequences for the United States.
Are these strikes legal?
Many legal experts have said that the U.S. strikes violate both domestic and international law.
Under Article II of the U.S. Constitution, the president is generally considered to have broad authority to use military force to protect national security. Trump has designated a number of Latin American cartels as terrorist organizations and asserted that the United States is acting in “self-defense” against such groups.
However, experts and rights groups said this does not give him the legal authority to treat them as enemy combatants and use lethal force against them.
In September, a group of United Nations experts condemned Trump’s actions and underscored that international law doesn’t “allow governments to simply murder alleged drug traffickers,” adding that criminal activities “should be disrupted, investigated and prosecuted in accordance with the rule of law, including through international cooperation.”
Earlier this month, Trump told Congress that the United States is in an “armed conflict” with drug cartels. But the administration’s assertion that the alleged drug smuggling boats posed a national security threat serious enough to need a military response—the basis of its legal justification for the strikes—is undermined by several factors.
While there is no denying that illicit drugs are a problem in the United States, with substances like fentanyl killing tens of thousands of Americans per year, the trafficking of such narcotics does not constitute an armed attack on a country under international law. Moreover, Venezuela is not a major source of the illicit drugs that the administration claims to be concerned about (more on that below).
Congress has also not declared war on Venezuela nor approved an authorization for use of military force against drug cartels. Earlier this month, a war powers resolution—pushed by Democratic lawmakers—that aimed to block Trump from continuing to conduct strikes in the Caribbean failed in the Senate. Only two Republicans supported the measure. Sen. Adam Schiff (D-CA), one of the resolution’s sponsors, told FP last month that Trump’s actions in the Caribbean were “dangerous” and “lawless.”