Trump’s War on Narcoterrorists Faces Skepticism as Third Venezuelan Drug-Boat Strike Unfolds
Analysts warn military strikes risk escalation and are unlikely to curb trafficking; Congress has not authorized such action.
President Donald Trump announced a third fatal U.S. strike on an alleged Venezuelan drug-smuggling boat on Friday, the latest in a string of operations the White House has framed as deterring trafficking from the Caribbean into the United States. Trump described the three men killed in the latest attack as “male narcoterrorists” and framed the operation as part of a broader effort to disrupt drug shipments from Venezuela.
The strike follows two similar operations earlier this month against boats suspected of carrying drugs as they traveled on the high seas. The administration has signaled a continued, muscular posture in the Caribbean, with eight U.S. warships based in the region and 10 F-35 fighter jets stationed in Puerto Rico. A draft legislation circulating in Washington would authorize Trump to wage war on anyone he designates a “narcoterrorist,” raising concerns among observers about a possible broader shift toward hemispheric militarization.
Experts note that Venezuela’s role in the region’s drug trade has long been overstated relative to other transit points. A 2024 Drug Enforcement Administration report said that roughly 90% of the cocaine reaching the United States originates from Mexico via Colombia, not Venezuela. By foregrounding Caracas, analysts warn, Washington risks souring bilateral relations even as it seeks cooperation on migration and sanctions enforcement. Maduro, who has long argued that U.S. policy seeks regime change for oil, has shown a willingness to engage at times, despite stiff U.S. rhetoric and sanctions. In Trump’s first term and into his second, the administration dispatched Richard Grenell, then its special envoy, to Caracas to discuss energy, deportations, and the status of Americans jailed there. Those talks produced occasional breakthroughs, including the release of detainees in January, a migrant-deportation agreement in March, and a later prisoner exchange for roughly 10 U.S. citizens in return for hundreds of Venezuelan migrants.
But Maduro has little incentive to cooperate if he believes Washington’s aim is to topple his government. The dynamic highlights a broader tension: no nation can kill its way out of a long-running drug problem, and the use of force in a democratically governed country’s neighborhood risks escalating violence without addressing demand or supply. Historical precedents offer sober ambivalence toward militarized anti-drug campaigns.
Mexico’s 2006 decision to wage a military-led drug war produced a dramatic rise in violence and has coincided with more than 460,000 homicides since then, with annual tolls exceeding 30,000 since 2017. The 2024 Mexican elections were among the most violent in the nation’s history, with numerous candidates killed or forced to withdraw under security threats. In Colombia, the picture is similarly mixed: heavy U.S. security support under Plan Colombia helped build capable security forces, yet coca cultivation has surged in recent years, and the State Department continues to identify Colombia as a major illicit drugs hub despite decades of U.S. funding.
These complexities extend to the Caribbean and Venezuela, where critics argue that escalating military pressure could provoke a crackdown by criminal groups, complicate humanitarian concerns, and complicate diplomacy at a moment when the United States pursues other regional priorities, including migration management and sanctions enforcement. Even if attacks on suspected drug boats intensify, observers say any gains are likely to be temporary. Demand in the United States and the profitability of trafficking mean these networks can adapt, and traffickers have shown a capacity to absorb repeated blows while preserving overall revenue streams.
As lawmakers weigh potential authorizations, the trajectory of U.S. policy in the region remains unsettled. The strikes illuminate a broader debate over whether military force can deter cross-border drug flows or whether a more integrated approach—combining law enforcement, international cooperation, and demand-reduction strategies—offers a sustainable path forward.