U.S. Naval Buildup Off Venezuela Triggers Questions About Goals and Legal Authority

A U.S.-led naval presence off the coast of Venezuela has intensified questions about President Donald Trump’s objectives, as Washington publicly touts self-defense claims while warning that Caracas must accept deportees and confront drug-trafficking networks. The flotilla’s size and near-term actions have stirred fear of an invasion in Venezuela and sparked debate in Congress over whether such measures exceed presidential authority or risk a broader conflict in a volatile region. Experts caution that the current force is unlikely to succeed in a land invasion, even as administrations in Washington repeatedly highlight the alleged threat from drug cartels and terrorism.

The U.S. Navy has eight warships operating in the Caribbean and South American region, including three destroyers, three amphibious assault ships, a cruiser and a smaller vessel designed for shallow-water operations, according to defense officials who spoke on condition of anonymity. The ships are accompanied by more than 5,000 sailors and Marines. The amphibious ships carry nearly 2,000 Marines and a mix of helicopters, Osprey tilt-rotor aircraft and Harrier jets. A submarine, the USS Newport News, has also been operating in the broader area and is capable of launching Tomahawk cruise missiles. In addition, the United States planned to send 10 advanced F-35 stealth fighters to Puerto Rico, with several arriving in recent days.

The deployments come as Washington has carried out three fatal strikes on vessels it says were smuggling drugs bound for the United States. The White House has framed the moves as part of a broader self-defense effort against drug cartels that U.S. officials have designated as foreign terrorist organizations in some cases. After posting video of a recent strike, Trump pressed Caracas to accept deportees from the United States, including prisoners and people deemed mentally unfit, a move Maduro has resisted in past years but has since softened on this year. Deportation flights to Venezuela have continued under pressure from the White House, even as the military exertion has escalated in the region.

Some observers question the legality and prudence of expanding lethal actions against drug networks in a foreign country, arguing that such steps would require broader congressional authorization. The administration has suggested that the cartels pose an immediate threat to the United States, but lawmakers have raised concerns about the scope and duration of any military action without explicit authorization. “We’ve recently begun using the supreme power of the United States military to destroy Venezuelan terrorists and trafficking networks led by Nicolás Maduro,” one official said in describing the administration’s position at the United Nations.

Analysts say the force dedicated to the Caribbean is sizable but does not equate to the kind of campaign needed to topple a government the size of Venezuela. “Although the armada in the Caribbean is significant, it’s not what you would need to actually invade,” said Brian Finucane, a senior adviser with the International Crisis Group and a former State Department lawyer. He noted the president “likes performative military action, particularly strikes on supposed terrorists,” but warned that a broader campaign would require a different level of commitment and legal justification.

Image

Legislative concern has grown on both sides of the aisle. Democrats and Republicans alike have introduced War Powers Resolutions that would curb military actions without additional authorization. Representative Greg Casar, a Texas Democrat, said Trump cannot be allowed to “drag the United States into another endless war with his reckless actions.” Others warned that even limited strikes could escalate quickly if they provoked a broader response in Caracas or among Venezuela’s regional allies.

The administration has leaned on the notion of self-defense, arguing that the cartels and their networks present an imminent danger to the United States. Secretary of State Marco Rubio has publicly asserted that the drug-trafficking threat warrants swift action, even as congressional review remains pending. Critics say a long-term campaign would require either clearer authorization under the Global War on Terror framework or new legislation, and they caution that dependence on past authorizations may not withstand a sustained campaign against a sovereign state.

Defense experts emphasize that any sustained attack would likely have limited strategic impact on Maduro’s government without broader political support within Venezuela and the region. Mark Cancian, a senior adviser at the Center for Strategic and International Studies and a retired Marine colonel, said a quick strike against Venezuelan ministries or security installations would be unlikely to topple the regime or energize the opposition, and it would “stir up the hornet's nest.” Bradley Martin, a RAND policy researcher and former Navy captain, warned that “start attacking camps, and pretty soon we’re at a level of force where there’s no legal underpinning for it,” adding that even with large-scale raids the United States could risk exceeding self-defense justifications.

In Caracas, Maduro and his government have framed the flotilla as an assault on sovereignty and a renewed attempt to topple his administration. Defense Minister Vladimir Padrino López said the country was training a civilian militia—an assertion Maduro has repeatedly cited as a bulwark against external threats, though independent verification of the militia’s size remains unavailable. Maduro’s opponents have cited credible evidence that his 2013–2018 mandate was not fully supported by the populace, with credible accounts of erosion in public support following disputed elections. The government has coordinated public demonstrations and military drills in plazas and along coastlines, signaling that it intends to defend national sovereignty even as the armed forces face internal and external pressures.

The U.S. effort has also drawn attention to the broader U.S. strategy in the hemisphere. Some analysts say Washington appears to be signaling support for Venezuela’s political opposition as a counterweight to Maduro’s leadership, while others warn that the use of deadly force could backfire and invite regional retaliation. Diaz-Balart, a Florida Republican, framed Maduro’s choices in stark terms, suggesting the Venezuelan leader face a range of fates if he refuses to step aside, echoing memories of past American interventions in the region. The evolving dynamic leaves policymakers, regional partners and international observers watching closely for signs of the next phase in what is likely to be a prolonged and contested confrontation over the country’s future.

The situation remains fluid, with the Trump administration insisting that the mission is narrowly tailored to address immediate threats while opponents warn of mission creep and legal overreach. As Caracas rallies civilians in support of sovereignty and the military, Washington continues to press for cooperation on deportations and drug interdiction, and lawmakers weigh the implications of any expansion of military operations in a country with a history of regional volatility.