The Trump administration’s latest military escalation in the Caribbean has left dozens dead, drawn condemnation from United Nations experts, and pushed Latin America to the brink of a regional crisis. U.S. forces have carried out repeated airstrikes on small boats since mid-August, allegedly targeting drug traffickers, though the administration has produced no public evidence to support its claims. Reports as of October 21 indicate that 32 people have been killed in the attacks, seven of which involved speedboats destroyed by U.S. missiles.
On October 3, one of those boats—reportedly carrying Colombian citizens—was destroyed in a strike that has since become a diplomatic flashpoint. Colombian President Gustavo Petro posted on X that a “war scenario” has emerged in the Caribbean, and his government recalled its ambassador to Washington. Officials in Bogotá accused the Trump administration of “murdering” the fishermen and labeled an earlier September strike a “direct threat to national security.” In response, Donald Trump called Petro an “illegal drug dealer” and claimed that Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro “doesn’t want to fuck around” with the United States, referencing a New York Times report alleging that Maduro sought a resource deal with Washington to avoid war.
Legal and foreign-policy experts have sharply questioned the legality of the operations. Dan Herman, senior director at the Center for American Progress, said Trump has “no legal authority to conduct these strikes” and noted that the administration has “presented no evidence for its claims.” Former army captain and army lawyer Margaret Donovan echoed that assessment in an MSNBC interview, stating that Trump has “no domestic or international legal authority to conduct these strikes.” Donovan, a visiting lecturer at Yale Law School, added, “When you don’t have domestic or international legal authority to conduct these types of strikes, what you are doing is murdering people.”
James Story, who served as U.S. ambassador to Venezuela from 2018 to 2023, warned that the campaign places the United States “in contravention with international law and it undermines our ability to work in the hemisphere.”
The U.S. buildup began on August 14, when the Trump administration announced an expanded naval presence to counter “threats from Latin American drug traffickers.” According to available media reports, roughly ten U.S. Navy ships are now operating in the Caribbean, three positioned directly off Venezuela’s coast, with an estimated 10,000 troops deployed for interdiction missions. The Pentagon maintains the force is aimed at “drug boats,” yet as of late October, no seized narcotics or verified interdiction data have been disclosed.
U.N. human-rights experts have denounced the strikes and rhetoric in unusually direct terms. In a joint statement, the special rapporteur on extrajudicial executions, the expert on the promotion of a democratic and equitable international order, and the special rapporteur on the promotion and protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms while countering terrorism said Trump’s actions amount to “extrajudicial executions.” They warned that his threats “violate the fundamental international obligations not to intervene in the domestic affairs or threaten to use armed force against another country,” calling the aggression “an extremely dangerous escalation with grave implications for peace and security in the Caribbean region.”
Their statement said that even if the drug-trafficking claims were true, “the use of lethal force in international waters without proper legal basis violates the international law of the sea.” They further emphasized that the U.N. Charter “prohibits the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state.”
Earlier this month, Trump authorized covert CIA operations in Venezuela and refused to clarify whether the move allowed the agency to assassinate President Maduro. The Washington Post reported that the administration has amassed an “unusually large force” in the Caribbean consisting of thousands of troops, at least eight warships, and a squadron of jets.
Critics argue the buildup marks a return to Washington’s long-standing policy of regime change toward Venezuela. Since the early 2000s, successive administrations have sought to weaken the country’s socialist government. In April 2002, the Bush administration quickly endorsed business leader Pedro Carmona after a faction of the Venezuelan military kidnapped President Hugo Chávez for 47 hours before loyal forces restored him to power.
U.S. sanctions intensified over the following decade. In 2015, President Barack Obama declared Venezuela a threat to U.S. national security, prompting regional condemnation from twelve South American foreign ministers. By 2017, sanctions had sharply restricted Venezuela’s ability to import food and medicine; a low-income family of five could consume only 6,132 calories per day—about 1,226 per person. The Lancet later estimated that U.S.-led sanctions contribute to 564,000 deaths globally each year, a significant share occurring in Venezuela.
After Chávez’s death from cancer in 2013, President Maduro inherited a severe economic crisis; between 2013 and 2019, imports dropped by 80 percent. The Trump administration then followed the established pattern of backing opposition figures, formally recognizing Juan Guaidó in 2019 as interim president after he contested Maduro’s 2018 reelection.
Former Defense Secretary Mark T. Esper revealed in A Sacred Oath: Memoirs of a Secretary of Defense During Extraordinary Times that regime change in Venezuela “seemed to be a bucket list item” for Trump, who insisted that the United States should “get the oil.” Venezuela holds about 303 billion barrels of proven reserves—roughly 17 percent of the global total—along with vast deposits of gold, coltan, and diamonds. Esper recounted that during his first term Trump repeatedly pressed the Pentagon for “more aggressive measures” to remove Maduro, including direct military action.
Trump ultimately deployed a naval fleet under the stated goal of counter-narcotics enforcement. In March 2020, the Southern District of New York indicted Maduro on narco-terrorism charges and offered a bounty of $15 million for information leading to his arrest. In July 2025, the Treasury Department’s Office of Foreign Assets Control designated the Cartel de los Soles as a terrorist organization, raising the bounty on Maduro to $50 million by August 7, 2025 — despite the 2025 United Nations World Drug Report finding Venezuela to be a minor participant in the narcotics trade.
Observers inside Venezuela say the situation is tense but not panicked. Ricardo Vaz, editor of Venezuelanalysis.com, said life continues as normal, though “there is tension and concern with this U.S. military buildup on Venezuela’s doorstep.” While Venezuelans are well aware of U.S. military power, Vaz said “there is also defiance,” especially among government supporters. He cautioned that although the current U.S. deployment is insufficient for a full-scale invasion, it has “a lot of potential for destruction, be that from cruise missiles or aircraft, aimed at triggering some internal collapse.”
Joel Linares Moreno, a Caracas-based fixer for international media, warned that if the United States used full military force, Venezuelan resistance could only last a few days given the imbalance of power. But he added that dismantling the government’s social base would be costly. “They know what awaits them is a Pinochet-style dictatorship, and that’s precisely why they would fight hard, even after the Venezuelan military is neutralized,” he said. “They know what awaits them is a Pinochet-style dictatorship, and that’s precisely why they would fight hard, even after the Venezuelan military is neutralized,” adding that the U.S. could “overplay its hand.”
Regional governments have begun organizing diplomatically to oppose the escalation. In September, ministers from the Community of Latin American and Caribbean States (CELAC) held a virtual meeting condemning the deployment of U.S. vessels near Venezuela, reaffirming that regional disputes should be handled without Washington’s oversight. Caracas expects strong diplomatic backing from Colombia, Brazil, and Mexico should the United States attack Venezuelan territory.
Meanwhile, Venezuela’s economy has logged 17 straight quarters of growth since 2021, bolstered by partial market liberalization and foreign partnerships. In early September, China Concord Resources Corp installed the first self-elevating offshore platform in Lake Maracaibo. The Alala jackup rig aims to lift production from 12,000 barrels per day to 60,000 by 2026 in the Lago Cinco and Lagunillas Lago fields in Zulia state. The project underscores China’s deepening stake in Venezuela’s recovery, complicating any U.S. calculus for military strikes.
Political observers note that María Corina Machado, a long-time right-wing opposition leader who recently received the Nobel Peace Prize, could be viewed in Washington as a potential transitional figure. Machado was an open supporter of the 2002 coup and a proponent of privatizing the state oil company PDVSA. In 2018 she wrote to former Argentine President Mauricio Macri and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu urging them to “use their strength and influence to advance the dismantling of the criminal Venezuelan regime,” which she claimed was tied to “drug trafficking and terrorism.”
For now, the Trump administration’s intentions remain uncertain, though its rhetoric and military posture suggest renewed pursuit of regime change. Experts warn that direct U.S. attacks would likely trigger widespread regional backlash and risk a return to the pattern of interventionism that defined much of the twentieth century in Latin America.
As the U.N. rapporteurs concluded, “The long history of external interventions in Latin America must not be repeated. The lessons from history must be learned and not repeated. The international community must stand firm in defending the rule of law, dialogue, and the peaceful settlement of disputes.”
COMMENTS