The United States has carried out a series of deadly attacks on small boats in the Caribbean and the Pacific since September, killing 83 people, according to president Donald Trump’s administration.
The government claims the vessels were operated by “narcoterrorists” linked to drug trafficking networks, but has not presented evidence or identified the groups supposedly involved.
At the same time, the American military has deployed its largest force to the Caribbean in decades, raising fears of escalation and prompting accusations that Washington is using drug enforcement as a cover for political pressure on Venezuela.
Because Venezuela is now the central target of this campaign, these moves are increasingly seen as reshaping how governments across Latin America respond to U.S. power, forcing countries to reconsider alliances, diplomatic positions, and regional autonomy.
For many analysts, this military buildup signals a renewed American willingness to influence political outcomes in Latin America, reviving a pattern of intervention the region knows well.
The military offensive in the Caribbean and Pacific
The U.S. has gathered warships, fighter jets, bombers, Marines, drones, and surveillance aircraft in the Caribbean Sea. Eight warships and a nuclear submarine were sent to the region, marking an unusually large deployment.
The first attacks occurred in the Caribbean, a region that is not considered a major maritime drug route compared to the Pacific, where later strikes happened.
According to military officials, American forces have carried out at least ten confirmed attacks on boats since the campaign began. In the most recent strike, six people died near the Venezuelan coast. Earlier attacks in the same area killed 27 people.
Another operation left the first known survivors: one Ecuadorian and one Colombian crew member. This unusual survival raised new questions about who exactly is being targeted.
Because many of these strikes happened near Venezuelan waters, the operations have become a regional political issue. Governments across Latin America see the increasing militarization around Venezuela as a signal that the United States is once again ready to use force to influence governments it considers hostile. This perception is intensifying debates about regional sovereignty and the return of American-centered geopolitical divisions.
Trump’s justifications and lack of evidence
Donald Trump has repeatedly described the boats as part of “designated terrorist organizations”, but has not named any group or provided proof for his accusations. Officials have not explained why the U.S. chose to attack the boats instead of intercepting and arresting the people on board, which is the usual response in anti-drug missions.
On Truth Social (the president’s own social media platform), Trump said intelligence confirmed the vessels were carrying narcotics and were tied to illegal narcoterrorist networks. But the administration has released no details about the investigations, the identities of the victims, or the amount of drugs supposedly seized.
Washington argues that the United States is engaged in a war against Venezuelan narcoterrorist organizations, and that the attacks are therefore legitimate. Caracas rejects this, stating that the people on board were not connected to terrorism and that the U.S. actions represent aggression.
The lack of transparency increases suspicion across Latin America, where governments and scholars see echoes of past U.S. interventions justified by ambiguous or exaggerated security claims. This uncertainty fuels polarization in the region, with some governments accepting the American narrative and others accusing Trump of reviving interventionism. The dispute is deepening ideological divisions across Latin America, where leaders must decide whether to side with Washington’s framing or defend Venezuelan sovereignty.
CIA operations and rising tensions
Tensions grew when Trump revealed he had authorized the CIA to conduct secret operations inside Venezuela. Such operations normally occur when intelligence agencies act inside another country without direct military confrontation. Long-range B-52 bombers also flew near the Venezuelan coast in “attack demonstrations.”
Trump said the CIA authorization was partly related to “drugs coming from Venezuela” and partly to his claim that Venezuelan prisons were “emptied” and prisoners sent to the U.S.
He did not say whether the CIA was allowed to target president Nicolás Maduro directly, but the ambiguity increased speculation in Caracas about regime-change intentions.
The CIA has a long and controversial history in Latin America, including involvement in coups and support for military dictatorships. Because of that history, Trump’s new authorization is interpreted not only as a bilateral move against Venezuela, but as a sign that Washington is again inserting itself into domestic political disputes across the region..
Venezuela’s reaction and regional concern
Maduro accused the United States of “manufacturing a new war” after learning that the world’s largest warship had been sent to the Caribbean. He warned against regime-change attempts, comparing the situation to failed US interventions in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Libya.
Venezuelan officials strongly denounced the CIA operations and the military buildup near their waters, calling it a policy of aggression, intimidation, and harassment.
Regional experts questioned the legality of the attacks and argued that the U.S. is using anti-drug operations as a justification for political pressure aimed at removing Maduro. Analysts say the deployment is meant to “instill fear” among Venezuelan officers and encourage defections.
For Latin America, the episode revives long-standing concerns that American security operations can quickly become political tools that reshape national leaderships and destabilize neighboring countries. Because the escalation places Venezuela at the center of regional attention, the crisis has become a defining issue in hemispheric diplomacy and a test of how governments position themselves toward Washington and Caracas.
Drug trafficking reality and USA claims
Trump insists the country is fighting drug traffickers and said one of the attacked boats was “loaded mostly with fentanyl”. But fentanyl is produced mainly in Mexico, not South America, and usually enters the U.S. through the land border.
Venezuela plays a relatively small role in regional drug trafficking. It does not produce cocaine, as cultivation is concentrated in Colombia, Peru, and Bolivia. Some drug flows cross Venezuelan territory, but it is not the main route.
UNODC (United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime) and DEA (Drug Enforcenment Administration) reports do not place Venezuela as a major producer or exporter of cocaine. Even so, U.S. officials continue linking Maduro to drug trafficking, noting that he was indicted in the U.S. in 2020 on narcoterrorism charges.
The Trump administration increased the reward for information leading to Maduro’s arrest to $50 million, hoping to weaken his inner circle.
This gap between official American claims and international data raises doubts in Latin America about Washington’s real motivations and strengthens the belief that the campaign is politically driven. Because Venezuela is being framed as the source of multiple regional threats, governments across the region are forced to respond to a narrative they did not construct, making the crisis a political battleground far beyond Caracas.
Congress, legality, and war powers
The Constitution of the United States requires congressional approval before a president begins a prolonged military operation. However, after World War II, new legal frameworks expanded presidential power during emergencies, allowing presidents to initiate military actions without full authorization. Many analysts describe most modern U.S. wars as legally ambiguous.
Congress is now debating whether Trump’s attacks violate the War Powers Resolution of 1973, which requires approval if military actions in hostile areas continue for more than 60 days. The deadline has already passed, but the Justice Department argues the bombings do not count because they occurred in “non-hostile zones”.
The Senate recently rejected a resolution to limit Trump’s power to attack Venezuela without congressional approval. The vote was tight, 51 to 49, following party lines. Only two Republicans supported the measure.
Lawmakers from both parties have complained about the lack of information regarding the attacks: who died, what evidence exists of drug trafficking, the cost of the operations, and what Washington’s broader strategy is for Latin America.
Another resolution to suspend the boat attacks also failed. Republicans argued that Trump was simply fulfilling a campaign promise to confront drug cartels. Analysts warn that this result “opens space for a potential attack on Venezuela”.
For Latin American governments, this raises alarms about the precedent being set: if U.S. domestic institutions cannot check military action, future administrations may feel empowered to pursue unilateral interventions across the hemisphere.
Impact on Latin American politics
The escalation of Trump actions in the Caribbean has already begun shaking political dynamics across Latin America. Governments are facing pressure to take clearer positions as Washington increases military activity near Venezuela. For many countries, this moment feels like a test of how much autonomy they still have when the United States reasserts its power in the hemisphere.
Left-leaning governments in Brazil, Mexico, Colombia, and Chile expressed concern about the attacks and criticized the lack of evidence supporting the “narcoterrorism” narrative. They argue that the strikes risk destabilizing the region and repeat Cold War-era patterns, when Washington used security threats to influence political outcomes. This has strengthened discussions about the need for unified regional diplomacy that resists external pressure.
Meanwhile, conservative governments or opposition groups in other countries have supported Trump’s hard line, saying the region must confront drug trafficking and authoritarianism. This division has widened the political gap inside Latin America, turning the attacks on Venezuela into another source of internal polarization.
Regional organizations such as CELAC (Community of Latin American and Caribbean States) and UNASUR (Union of South American Nations) have called for diplomatic dialogue and criticized the unilateral use of force. OAS (Organization of American States) members remain divided, reflecting the broader ideological split across the continent. Analysts say the crisis is accelerating the fragmentation of regional institutions, weakening their ability to respond collectively to security or political challenges.
The growing North American presence has also increased fears of a new migration wave if conflict deepens in Venezuela, which could affect Colombia, Brazil, and the Caribbean islands. Such instability could impact domestic politics in those countries as they prepare for humanitarian or border pressures.
Overall, the escalation is pushing Latin America into a new phase in which Washington’s decisions directly influence internal political debates, coalition-building, foreign policy strategies, and regional unity.
Escalation risks and what comes next
Fears of a larger conflict grew when Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth ordered one of the Navy’s most advanced aircraft carrier strike groups to move toward the Caribbean, as the U.S. military presence expanded dramatically. American officials told CNN that Trump is considering strikes on drug facilities and trafficking routes inside Venezuela, though he has not made a final decision. Senator Marco Rubio suggested that “routes” could become targets, adding to the atmosphere of uncertainty.
At this stage, several key facts have become clear. The United States has killed more than 80 people in its attacks on small boats, while simultaneously deploying major military assets near Venezuela and authorizing CIA operations inside the country. These actions have also triggered legal debates in Washington, where lawmakers question whether the campaign complies with constitutional limits on presidential war powers.
These developments point to a conflict that is no longer only about drug trafficking, but about political pressure, regional power, and the possibility still unclear of a direct military confrontation.
For Latin America, the escalation represents a turning point: it signals a reassertion of U.S. hard-power strategies in the hemisphere, challenges regional institutions that promote diplomatic solutions, and forces governments to take clearer positions toward Washington and Caracas.
The central question now is how this shift will guide Latin American politics in the near future, whether it will deepen polarization, weaken regional autonomy, or trigger new alliances aimed at resisting U.S. influence.
What happens next will determine if this remains a contested anti-drug campaign or the beginning of a deeper and more dangerous conflict in the region. In either case, Venezuela now stands at the center of a hemispheric transformation driven by Trump’s political and military escalation.
Trump’s latest ultimatum sharpens the crisis
On November 25, aboard the Air Force One, U.S. President Donald Trump said the United States is prepared to act “the hard way” if necessary in its escalating confrontation with Venezuela. The remarks came after reporters questioned why Trump has expressed interest in speaking by phone with Venezuelan leader Nicolás Maduro, despite classifying him as the head of a terrorist organization.
“If we can save lives, if we can resolve things the easy way, that would be good. And if we have to do it the hard way, that’s fine too,” Trump said, while refusing to specify Washington’s strategic goals, arguing that “everyone knows what they are”.
The comments followed a report by Axios indicating that Trump had privately told close allies he wanted a direct call with Maduro — news that emerged on the same day the U.S. officially added the Venezuelan-linked Cartel de los Soles to its list of Foreign Terrorist Organizations. According to Washington, the group is tied to narcotrafficking operations and allegedly led by Maduro, accusations the Venezuelan government calls “ridiculous”.
As tensions intensified, U.S. military activity in the Caribbean expanded. The Navy increased its presence with additional vessels, part of operations that have included months of strikes on boats suspected of drug trafficking.
An Axios source said no operation is currently planned to “shoot or capture” Maduro, but did not rule out such possibilities in the future. Another U.S. official told the outlet that covert operations target narcotrafficking networks rather than Maduro himself, but added that “if Maduro goes, we won’t shed a tear”.
The terrorist designation, Trump argued, gives Washington broader authority to strike targets linked to Maduro inside Venezuela. Though the president has stated he does not intend to use lethal force, he also repeated that “all options” remain on the table.
Caracas denounced the move as an attempt by the U.S. to force regime change, insisting the alleged cartel does not exist and accusing Washington of using the classification as pretext for intervention. The U.S. further claims the group cooperates with the Tren de Aragua gang, also designated a terrorist organization.
Since September, Washington has bolstered regional deployments with eight warships, F-35 fighter jets and the arrival of the aircraft carrier USS Gerald R. Ford in Caribbean waters. U.S. forces have carried out at least 21 strikes against suspected narcotrafficking vessels in the Caribbean and eastern Pacific, killing 83 people.
Facing the mounting pressure, Maduro led a large civil-military march in Caracas on November 25, invoking national unity and promising to defend Venezuela against “imperialist threats”. Holding the sword of Simón Bolívar, he urged citizens and the armed forces to protect “every centimeter” of Venezuelan territory and accused the U.S. of seeking to topple his government.
In a televised broadcast a day earlier, Maduro declared the country “invincible”, rejecting Washington’s accusations and criticizing international airlines that suspended flights following FAA (Federal Aviation Administration) warnings about risks in Venezuelan airspace.
Analysts note that the term “Cartel de los Soles” refers to a diffuse network of corrupt military actors rather than a centralized cartel, a characterization the Venezuelan government denies entirely. The escalation comes as U.S. polling shows 70% of Americans oppose military intervention, while 76% say the administration has not clearly explained its position.
The White House maintains that its actions target narcotrafficking and illegal migration, although the unprecedented military buildup and expanding authorities point to broader strategic objectives. Senior officials told U.S. media that Trump hopes intensified pressure may force Maduro to step down without direct military action.
Still, last week’s large-scale flyover — involving F/A-18E fighters, a B-52 bomber and a reconnaissance aircraft — marked the most significant U.S. show of force near Venezuela to date, underscoring the uncertain trajectory of the crisis.
———————————
The article above was edited by Isadora Mangueira.
Liked this type of content? Check Her Campus Cásper Líbero home page for more!