ReportWire

Tag: drug boat

  • US military carries out second strike, killing survivors on suspected drug boat, sources say

    The U.S. military carried out a follow-up strike on a suspected drug vessel operating in the Caribbean on Sept. 2 after an initial attack did not kill everyone on board, sources familiar with the matter told CNN.That September strike was the first in what became a regular series of attacks on alleged drug boats.While the first strike appeared to disable the boat and cause deaths, the military assessed there were survivors, according to the sources. The second attack killed the remaining crew on board, bringing the total death toll to 11, and sunk the ship.Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth had ordered the military prior to the operation to ensure the strike killed everyone on board, but it’s not clear if he knew there were survivors prior to the second strike, one of the sources said.The strike and deaths were announced by President Donald Trump on the day of the attacks, but the administration has never publicly acknowledged killing survivors.Trump said on Thursday that action on land to stop suspected drug trafficking networks in Venezuela could “start very soon,” amid ongoing questions about the legality of the U.S. military’s campaign around Latin America. Officials have acknowledged not knowing the identities of everyone on board the boats before they are struck, CNN has reported.“I have been alarmed by the number of vessels that this administration has taken out without a single consultation of Congress,” Democratic Rep. Madeleine Dean told CNN this week. “Just last week, I took a look in a SCIF , because I’m a member of foreign affairs, at some documents around the sinking of these vessels and the murder of the people on those boats. Nowhere in there was there evidence of what was going on.”People briefed on the “double-tap” strike, said they were concerned that it could violate the law of armed conflict, which prohibits the execution of an enemy combatant who is “hors de combat,” or taken out of the fight due to injury or surrender.“They’re breaking the law either way,” said Sarah Harrison, a former associate general counsel at the Pentagon who now serves as a senior analyst at the Crisis Group think tank. “They’re killing civilians in the first place, and then if you assume they’re combatants, it’s also unlawful — under the law of armed conflict, if somebody is ‘hors de combat’ and no longer able to fight, then they have to be treated humanely.”Details of the strikes were first reported by The Intercept and the Washington Post.Hegseth in a social media post Friday continued to defend the strikes on alleged drug boats, writing, “Our current operations in the Caribbean are lawful under both U.S. and international law, with all actions in compliance with the law of armed conflict—and approved by the best military and civilian lawyers, up and down the chain of command.”“Every trafficker we kill is affiliated with a Designated Terrorist Organization,” Hegseth said.The U.S. military was aware that there were survivors in the water following the first strike on Sept. 2 and carried out another to both sink the vessel and kill the remaining crew, the sources said. Pentagon officials told lawmakers in briefings afterward that the second strike was done to sink the boat so it would not pose a threat to navigation, the sources said.The U.S. military has hit boats multiple times in several instances to sink them, the sources said, but the Sept. 2 strike is the only known instance where the military deliberately killed survivors.It is not clear why the survivors were not picked up, as they were following another strike in the Caribbean in October. In that instance, the Trump administration rescued two survivors and repatriated them to their home countries.In a post announcing the Sept. 2 strike on Truth Social, President Donald Trump said that the U.S. military had conducted “a kinetic strike against positively identified Tren de Aragua narcoterrorists in the SOUTHCOM area of responsibility.”The administration has tried to legally justify its strikes on the boats by claiming they are carrying individuals linked to roughly two dozen drug cartels engaged in an armed conflict with the U.S. The White House has said repeatedly that the administration’s actions “comply fully with the Law of Armed Conflict,” the area of international law that is designed to prevent attacks on civilians.Many legal experts, however, say the suspected drug traffickers are civilians, not combatants, and that the strikes therefore amount to extrajudicial killings.Before the U.S. military began blowing up boats in September, countering illicit drug trafficking was handled by law enforcement and the U.S. Coast Guard, and cartel members and drug smugglers were treated as criminals with due process rights.But in a classified legal opinion produced over the summer, the Justice Department argued that the president is legally allowed to authorize lethal strikes against 24 cartels and criminal organizations in self-defense, because the groups pose an imminent threat to Americans, CNN has reported.That argument has potentially been undercut by the behavior of the suspected traffickers who have been targeted: in at least one instance, a boat had turned around and was moving away from the U.S. before being struck. Survivors of the strike on Sept. 2 also posed no imminent threat, since they were effectively incapacitated, the sources briefed on the strikes and Harrison noted.Senior U.S. defense officials and U.S. allies have expressed skepticism of the legality of the military campaign. The commander of U.S. Southern Command, Adm. Alvin Holsey, offered to leave his post during a tense meeting last month with Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff after he raised questions about the legality of the strikes, CNN has reported. Holsey will leave his post in December, just one year into his tenure as the SOUTHCOM chief.Lawyers specializing in international law within DoD’s Office of General Counsel have also raised concerns about the legality of the strikes. Multiple current and former uniformed lawyers told CNN that the strikes do not appear lawful.The United Kingdom is also no longer sharing intelligence with the U.S. about suspected drug trafficking vessels in the Caribbean because it does not want to be complicit in U.S. military strikes and believes the attacks are illegal, CNN has reported.

    The U.S. military carried out a follow–up strike on a suspected drug vessel operating in the Caribbean on Sept. 2 after an initial attack did not kill everyone on board, sources familiar with the matter told CNN.

    That September strike was the first in what became a regular series of attacks on alleged drug boats.

    While the first strike appeared to disable the boat and cause deaths, the military assessed there were survivors, according to the sources. The second attack killed the remaining crew on board, bringing the total death toll to 11, and sunk the ship.

    Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth had ordered the military prior to the operation to ensure the strike killed everyone on board, but it’s not clear if he knew there were survivors prior to the second strike, one of the sources said.

    The strike and deaths were announced by President Donald Trump on the day of the attacks, but the administration has never publicly acknowledged killing survivors.

    Trump said on Thursday that action on land to stop suspected drug trafficking networks in Venezuela could “start very soon,” amid ongoing questions about the legality of the U.S. military’s campaign around Latin America. Officials have acknowledged not knowing the identities of everyone on board the boats before they are struck, CNN has reported.

    “I have been alarmed by the number of vessels that this administration has taken out without a single consultation of Congress,” Democratic Rep. Madeleine Dean told CNN this week. “Just last week, I took a look in a SCIF [sensitive compartmented information facility], because I’m a member of foreign affairs, at some documents around the sinking of these vessels and the murder of the people on those boats. Nowhere in there was there evidence of what was going on.”

    People briefed on the “double-tap” strike, said they were concerned that it could violate the law of armed conflict, which prohibits the execution of an enemy combatant who is “hors de combat,” or taken out of the fight due to injury or surrender.

    “They’re breaking the law either way,” said Sarah Harrison, a former associate general counsel at the Pentagon who now serves as a senior analyst at the Crisis Group think tank. “They’re killing civilians in the first place, and then if you assume they’re combatants, it’s also unlawful — under the law of armed conflict, if somebody is ‘hors de combat’ and no longer able to fight, then they have to be treated humanely.”

    Details of the strikes were first reported by The Intercept and the Washington Post.

    Hegseth in a social media post Friday continued to defend the strikes on alleged drug boats, writing, “Our current operations in the Caribbean are lawful under both U.S. and international law, with all actions in compliance with the law of armed conflict—and approved by the best military and civilian lawyers, up and down the chain of command.”

    “Every trafficker we kill is affiliated with a Designated Terrorist Organization,” Hegseth said.

    The U.S. military was aware that there were survivors in the water following the first strike on Sept. 2 and carried out another to both sink the vessel and kill the remaining crew, the sources said. Pentagon officials told lawmakers in briefings afterward that the second strike was done to sink the boat so it would not pose a threat to navigation, the sources said.

    The U.S. military has hit boats multiple times in several instances to sink them, the sources said, but the Sept. 2 strike is the only known instance where the military deliberately killed survivors.

    It is not clear why the survivors were not picked up, as they were following another strike in the Caribbean in October. In that instance, the Trump administration rescued two survivors and repatriated them to their home countries.

    In a post announcing the Sept. 2 strike on Truth Social, President Donald Trump said that the U.S. military had conducted “a kinetic strike against positively identified Tren de Aragua narcoterrorists in the SOUTHCOM area of responsibility.”

    The administration has tried to legally justify its strikes on the boats by claiming they are carrying individuals linked to roughly two dozen drug cartels engaged in an armed conflict with the U.S. The White House has said repeatedly that the administration’s actions “comply fully with the Law of Armed Conflict,” the area of international law that is designed to prevent attacks on civilians.

    Many legal experts, however, say the suspected drug traffickers are civilians, not combatants, and that the strikes therefore amount to extrajudicial killings.

    Before the U.S. military began blowing up boats in September, countering illicit drug trafficking was handled by law enforcement and the U.S. Coast Guard, and cartel members and drug smugglers were treated as criminals with due process rights.

    But in a classified legal opinion produced over the summer, the Justice Department argued that the president is legally allowed to authorize lethal strikes against 24 cartels and criminal organizations in self-defense, because the groups pose an imminent threat to Americans, CNN has reported.

    That argument has potentially been undercut by the behavior of the suspected traffickers who have been targeted: in at least one instance, a boat had turned around and was moving away from the U.S. before being struck. Survivors of the strike on Sept. 2 also posed no imminent threat, since they were effectively incapacitated, the sources briefed on the strikes and Harrison noted.

    Senior U.S. defense officials and U.S. allies have expressed skepticism of the legality of the military campaign. The commander of U.S. Southern Command, Adm. Alvin Holsey, offered to leave his post during a tense meeting last month with Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff after he raised questions about the legality of the strikes, CNN has reported. Holsey will leave his post in December, just one year into his tenure as the SOUTHCOM chief.

    Lawyers specializing in international law within DoD’s Office of General Counsel have also raised concerns about the legality of the strikes. Multiple current and former uniformed lawyers told CNN that the strikes do not appear lawful.

    The United Kingdom is also no longer sharing intelligence with the U.S. about suspected drug trafficking vessels in the Caribbean because it does not want to be complicit in U.S. military strikes and believes the attacks are illegal, CNN has reported.

    Source link

  • US military’s 20th strike on alleged drug-running boat kills 4 in the Caribbean

    The U.S. military’s 20th strike on a boat accused of transporting drugs has killed four people in the Caribbean Sea, the U.S. military said Friday, coming as the Trump administration escalates its campaign in South American waters.The latest strike happened Monday, according to a social media post on Friday by U.S. Southern Command, which oversees military operations in the Caribbean and Latin America. The latest strike brings the death toll from the attacks that began in September to 80, with the Mexican Navy suspending its search for a survivor of a strike in late October after four days.Southern Command’s post on X shows a boat speeding over water before it’s engulfed in flames. The command said intelligence confirmed the vessel “was involved in illicit narcotics smuggling, transiting along a known narco-trafficking route, and carrying narcotics.”Southern Command’s post marked a shift away from Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth’s practice of typically announcing the attacks on social media, although he quickly reposted Southern Command’s statement.Hegseth had announced the previous two strikes on Monday after they had been carried out on Sunday. Meanwhile, the Trump administration is expanding the U.S. military’s already large presence in the region by bringing in the USS Gerald R. Ford aircraft carrier. The nation’s most advanced warship is expected to arrive in the coming days after traveling from the Mediterranean Sea.Hegseth on Thursday formally named the mission “Operation Southern Spear,” emphasizing the growing significance and permanence of the military’s presence in the region. Once the Ford arrives, the mission will encompass nearly a dozen Navy ships as well about 12,000 sailors and Marines.The Trump administration has insisted that the buildup of warships is focused on stopping the flow of drugs into the U.S., but it has released no evidence to support its assertions that those killed in the boats were “narcoterrorists.” The strikes have targeted vessels largely in the Caribbean Sea but also have taken place in the eastern Pacific Ocean, where much of the cocaine from the world’s largest producers is smuggled.Some observers say the aircraft carrier is a big new tool of intimidation against Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro, who faces charges of narcoterrorism in the U.S. Experts disagree on whether American warplanes may bomb land targets to pressure Maduro to step down.Secretary of State Marco Rubio says the U.S. doesn’t recognize Maduro, who was widely accused of stealing last year’s election, as the leader of Venezuela and has called the government a “transshipment organization” that openly cooperates with those trafficking drugs toward the U.S.Maduro has said the U.S. government is “fabricating” a war against him. Venezuela’s government this week touted a “massive” mobilization of troops and civilians to defend against possible U.S. attacks.Trump has justified the attacks by saying the United States is in “armed conflict” with drug cartels and claiming the boats are operated by foreign terror organizations that are flooding America’s cities with drugs.Lawmakers, including Republicans, have pressed for more information on who is being targeted and the legal justification for the strikes.Rubio and Hegseth met with a bipartisan group of lawmakers who oversee national security issues last week, providing one of the first high-level glimpses into the legal rationale and strategy behind the strikes.Senate Republicans voted a day later to reject legislation that would have put a check on Trump’s ability to launch an attack against Venezuela without congressional authorization.

    WASHINGTON —

    The U.S. military’s 20th strike on a boat accused of transporting drugs has killed four people in the Caribbean Sea, the U.S. military said Friday, coming as the Trump administration escalates its campaign in South American waters.

    The latest strike happened Monday, according to a social media post on Friday by U.S. Southern Command, which oversees military operations in the Caribbean and Latin America. The latest strike brings the death toll from the attacks that began in September to 80, with the Mexican Navy suspending its search for a survivor of a strike in late October after four days.

    Southern Command’s post on X shows a boat speeding over water before it’s engulfed in flames. The command said intelligence confirmed the vessel “was involved in illicit narcotics smuggling, transiting along a known narco-trafficking route, and carrying narcotics.”

    Southern Command’s post marked a shift away from Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth’s practice of typically announcing the attacks on social media, although he quickly reposted Southern Command’s statement.

    Hegseth had announced the previous two strikes on Monday after they had been carried out on Sunday. Meanwhile, the Trump administration is expanding the U.S. military’s already large presence in the region by bringing in the USS Gerald R. Ford aircraft carrier. The nation’s most advanced warship is expected to arrive in the coming days after traveling from the Mediterranean Sea.

    Hegseth on Thursday formally named the mission “Operation Southern Spear,” emphasizing the growing significance and permanence of the military’s presence in the region. Once the Ford arrives, the mission will encompass nearly a dozen Navy ships as well about 12,000 sailors and Marines.

    The Trump administration has insisted that the buildup of warships is focused on stopping the flow of drugs into the U.S., but it has released no evidence to support its assertions that those killed in the boats were “narcoterrorists.” The strikes have targeted vessels largely in the Caribbean Sea but also have taken place in the eastern Pacific Ocean, where much of the cocaine from the world’s largest producers is smuggled.

    Some observers say the aircraft carrier is a big new tool of intimidation against Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro, who faces charges of narcoterrorism in the U.S. Experts disagree on whether American warplanes may bomb land targets to pressure Maduro to step down.

    Secretary of State Marco Rubio says the U.S. doesn’t recognize Maduro, who was widely accused of stealing last year’s election, as the leader of Venezuela and has called the government a “transshipment organization” that openly cooperates with those trafficking drugs toward the U.S.

    Maduro has said the U.S. government is “fabricating” a war against him. Venezuela’s government this week touted a “massive” mobilization of troops and civilians to defend against possible U.S. attacks.

    Trump has justified the attacks by saying the United States is in “armed conflict” with drug cartels and claiming the boats are operated by foreign terror organizations that are flooding America’s cities with drugs.

    Lawmakers, including Republicans, have pressed for more information on who is being targeted and the legal justification for the strikes.

    Rubio and Hegseth met with a bipartisan group of lawmakers who oversee national security issues last week, providing one of the first high-level glimpses into the legal rationale and strategy behind the strikes.

    Senate Republicans voted a day later to reject legislation that would have put a check on Trump’s ability to launch an attack against Venezuela without congressional authorization.

    Source link

  • U.S. widens war against suspected drug traffickers with strike off the Pacific coast of Colombia

    MEXICO CITY — The United States has widened its military campaign against alleged drug traffickers in Latin America, announcing on Wednesday that its forces had struck a boat purportedly smuggling narcotics off the Pacific coast of Colombia.

    It was the eighth alleged drug vessel bombed by the U.S. in recent weeks, and the first attacked in the Pacific Ocean.

    Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth said the airstrike killed two people, bringing the death toll in the attacks to 34. He said the vessel was “known by our intelligence” to be carrying narcotics, but did not provide evidence of those claims.

    In a short video clip posted on X by Hegseth, a small boat carrying some kind of cargo is seen speeding through waves before a massive explosion hits, leaving the vessel drifting on the water in flames.

    The attack drew swift rebuke from U.S. lawmakers who have criticized the Trump administration’s campaign of secretive strikes.

    “Another illegal military strike on a boat, this time in the Pacific, broadening the Administration’s deadly campaign to another ocean,” said Sen. Adam Schiff, a Democrat from California. “Once again, there is no detail on who was killed or why.”

    The latest attack comes amid escalating tensions between President Trump and Colombian President Gustavo Petro, and some observers speculated that it was designed in part to punish Petro for defying Trump.

    Petro, who has criticized Trump on issues ranging from migration to the war in Gaza, has in recent days accused the U.S. of killing innocent civilians and of using the strikes as pretext to try to push out Venezuela’s leftist authoritarian leader, Nicolás Maduro. He has slammed Trump for not doing more to reduce demand for narcotics in the U.S., which is the world’s top consumer of drugs.

    After Petro accused the U.S. of murder, saying that an earlier strike had killed a Colombian fisherman in the Caribbean, Trump retorted without evidence that Petro was a “drug dealer” and warned that the U.S. would take unilateral action to combat drug trafficking there. He also vowed to cut aid to Colombia, which has long been one of America’s closest allies in the region, and to impose punishing tariffs on Colombian imports.

    Since Trump took office in January, he has gone to lengths to paint Latin American drug traffickers as a threat to national security, officially declaring several cartels as terrorist groups and then ordering the Pentagon to use military force against them. Trump, who insists the U.S. is locked in an “armed conflict” with the cartels and has the right to defend itself against them, has deployed thousands of U.S. troops and a small armada of ships and warplanes to the Caribbean.

    In his social media post, Hegseth compared the alleged drug traffickers to Al Qaeda, the terror group that masterminded the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.

    “Just as Al Qaeda waged war on our homeland, these cartels are waging war on our border and our people,” Hegseth said. “There will be no refuge or forgiveness — only justice.”

    U.S. lawmakers, including members of Trump’s Republican Party, have questioned the legality — as well as the effectiveness — of the strikes.

    Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) said this week that he believes the strikes are illegal because only Congress has the authority to declare war. Boats traveling some 2,000 miles south of the U.S. border don’t pose an imminent threat to Americans, he told journalist Piers Morgan.

    “These are outboard boats that would have to refuel 20 times to reach Miami,” he said.

    Paul questioned why U.S. officials weren’t first attempting to detain the boats and arrest the suspected smugglers before carrying out lethal strikes. “We don’t just summarily execute people,” he said. “We present evidence and convict them.”

    Paul is part of a bipartisan group of senators that is planning to force a vote on legislation that would block the U.S. from engaging in hostilities within or against Venezuela without explicit approval from Congress. The measure’s passage is a long shot in the Republican-dominated Senate, but a vote would require senators to take a public stance on Trump’s escalating military campaign.

    Schiff, who co-introduced the resolution, said the Senate must assert its authority and “stop the United States from being dragged — intentionally or accidentally — into full-fledged war in South America.”

    Michael Shifter, past president of the Inter-American Dialogue, a Washington research group, said the broadening of the military’s theater to the Pacific may be an effort to address criticism that only a small amount of drugs that reach the U.S. are trafficked through the Caribbean.

    The Pacific is a major corridor for U.S.-bound illicit drugs, especially Colombia-produced cocaine. Chemical precursors for fentanyl and other synthetic drugs also cross the Pacific from Asia to Mexico.

    “It may be aimed at trying to strengthen their case, because they’re being questioned a lot on that,” Shifter said, referring to the Trump administration. “The Pacific is where most of the drugs come from.”

    He said the expanded strikes may increase fears in Mexico — the major conduit for drugs entering the United States. U.S. officials have warned that drone strikes on drug producers or traffickers in Mexico may be coming, even as Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum says her country would treat any unilateral military actions on her territory as “an invasion.”

    “I’m sure they’re asking themselves in Mexico: ‘Are we next?’” Shifter said.

    The White House has been more focused on Latin America than previous administrations, in part because its foreign policy is driven by Marco Rubio, Trump’s secretary of State and national security advisor. Rubio, the son of immigrants from Cuba, has a deep interest in the region and has long sought to counter leftists there, especially the authoritarian leaders of Venezuela, Nicaragua and Cuba.

    Many analysts believe the strikes, the military buildup and Trump’s authorization for the CIA to conduct covert action in Venezuela are signs that the White House hopes to topple Maduro, who leads one of the world’s most oil-rich nations.

    But that contrasts with Trump’s repeated vow not to interfere in the politics of other nations. “The interventionalists were intervening in complex societies that they did not even understand,” he told an audience in the Middle East earlier this year.

    Linthicum and McDonnell reported from Mexico City and Ceballos from Washington.

    Kate Linthicum, Ana Ceballos, Patrick J. McDonnell

    Source link

  • Was the US attack against a ‘drug-carrying boat’ legal?

    A U.S. military attack against what officials called a drug-carrying boat from Venezuela is raising questions about the strike’s legality.

    On Sept. 2, President Donald Trump announced that the U.S. military had struck the vessel in the southern Caribbean, killing 11 people on board. Moments later, Secretary of State Marco Rubio said on X that the boat had come from Venezuela and was being operated by a “designated narco-terrorist organization.”

    Trump later posted on Truth Social what he said was video footage of the strike, saying the boat had been heading to the U.S. and the people on board were members of Tren de Aragua, a Venezuelan gang that the Trump administration has designated a foreign terrorist organization. (Venezuela counter argued that the footage was made with artificial intelligence.) The Trump administration has also alleged that Tren de Aragua is under the control of Venezuela’s president, Nicolas Maduro. 

    Some legal experts said the attack was illegal under maritime law or human rights conventions; others said it contradicted longstanding U.S. military practices.

    When asked by a reporter Sept. 4 what legal authority the Pentagon had invoked to strike the boat, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth said, “We have the absolute and complete authority to conduct that.” He did not detail the legal authority used; he said it was done in defense of Americans at risk of being killed by drugs trafficked into the country. 

    Sign up for PolitiFact texts

    White House deputy press secretary Anna Kelly told PolitiFact on Sept. 5 that the strike was in defense of U.S. national interests “against the operations of a designated terrorist organization.” Kelly said it was taken “in the collective self-defense of other nations who have long suffered due to the narcotics trafficking and violent cartel activities of such organizations. The strike was fully consistent with the law of armed conflict,” meaning it complied with international law and U.S. policy.

    As of late afternoon on Sept. 8, the administration hadn’t released the identities of those on board; how the U.S. learned that they were Tren de Aragua members carrying drugs; what kind of drugs were on board; and how the strike was carried out.

    Sen. Mark Warner, D-Va., the vice chair of the committee that oversees U.S. intelligence agencies, said Sept. 7 on CBS’ “Face the Nation” that he expects to be briefed this week about what happened. 

    “My fear is there are still international laws of the sea about how the process of interdicting these kinds of boats — there’s supposed to be a firing of a warning shot,” Warner said. “You’re supposed to try to take it peacefully. “

    Here are some of the key questions about the incident.

    What is Tren de Aragua?

    Tren de Aragua is a criminal gang that operated with the government’s knowledge out of a prison run by Venezuela government officials, Ronna Risquez, a Venezuelan investigative journalist who published a book about Tren de Aragua, said in March. It has established a small foothold in some parts of the U.S.

    A March 15 White House proclamation said, according to evidence, Tren de Aragua has invaded the U.S. As a result, Trump said any person 14 years or older who is a Tren de Aragua member and who has neither U.S. citizenship nor permanent residency can be arrested, detained and deported using the Alien Enemies Act.

    The Alien Enemies Act of 1798 allows the president to detain and deport people from a “hostile nation or government” without a hearing when the U.S. is either at war with that country or the country has “perpetrated, attempted, or threatened” an invasion or raid legally called a “predatory incursion” against the U.S.

    He used the act to deport suspected members of Tren de Aragua or send them to a maximum-security prison in El Salvador, a controversial use of the law. Earlier this month, a federal appeals court ruled that the administration cannot quickly deport Tren de Aragua members using the Alien Enemies Act.

    A U.S. intelligence report cast doubt on the notion that the gang is run by Maduro. 

    In late August, Trump began sending warships to Venezuelan waters, including at least 4,500 military troops, in an effort to combat drug trafficking. In turn, Maduro has ratcheted up Venezuela’s military footing, including mobilizing 8 million citizens.

    Was the recent U.S. attack on the vessel unusual?

    It’s rare but not unprecedented for the U.S. to use lethal military force to target suspected drug traffickers, said Mike LaSusa, deputy director of content at InSight Crime, a think tank focused on crime and security in the Americas. He cited the 1989 U.S. invasion of Panama, in which the U.S. intervened to overthrow Panamanian dictator Manuel Noriega after he was indicted on drug charges in the U.S.

    “The U.S. has more commonly supported other countries with intelligence, equipment and training to carry out their own lethal operations against suspected drug traffickers,” LaSusa said.

    Anthony Clark Arend, a specialist in international law at Georgetown University, agreed. “While the U.S. has seized vessels on the high seas that were allegedly engaging in drug trafficking, to my knowledge the U.S. has not engaged in a direct attack against such a vessel previously,” Arend said.

    Was the attack legal?

    The U.S. has not signed the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, but U.S. military legal advisors have previously said that the U.S. should “act in a manner consistent with its provisions.”

    Separately, under Article 2(4) of the United Nations Charter, the U.S. “would only have the right to use military force against a foreign vessel on the high seas if it could be demonstrated that the vessel was engaging in an armed attack against the United States or that such an armed attack was imminent,” said Anthony Clark Arend, a Georgetown University specialist in international law. 

    That section of the charter prohibits the “threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state” unless it has been approved by the United Nations Security Council — which this attack was not — or if force is used in self-defense of an “armed attack” or an imminent armed attack. 

    “There has been no evidence presented that the vessel was engaging in an armed attack or was about to be engaging in an armed attack,” Arend said.

    Some experts said less lethal options were available.

    “I am not adamantly opposed to considering this a threat, but we had recourse short of armed attack, most notably disabling the ship and arresting the crew,” said Michael O’Hanlon, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution. “So in that sense, I believe we did not act consistently with the laws of war.”

    Even if the U.S. action was illegal, it’s unlikely administration officials would face consequences, experts said.

    “In the real world, it is probably a bit fuzzy,” said John Pike, director of globalsecurity.org, a think tank. Beyond the 2024 Supreme Court decision granting presidents broad leeway from prosecution for official duties, Pike said, “the Supreme Court has typically ruled such matters as nonjusticiable — political rather than legal.”

    Should the administration have informed Congress?

    Under the War Powers Resolution of 1973, the Trump administration was supposed to provide Congress with information on Sept. 4 about why the strike was carried out. The law requires congressional notification within 48 hours of sending U.S. armed forces into certain situations abroad.

    We asked Kelly Sept. 5 if the White House had submitted a response yet, but she did not answer the question. PolitiFact also checked the Reiss Center on Law and Security database, which keeps track of threat reports the president has submitted to Congress. The last one submitted was in June.

    “Congress and the courts have historically been very deferential to presidents when they assert the authority to use military force, especially when the president invokes ‘terrorism’ as the threat being addressed,” LaSusa said.

    Trucks transport tanks east from Valencia, Venezuela, on Aug. 27, 2025, after the government announced a military mobilization following the U.S. deployment of warships off Venezuela. (AP)

    It’s possible to envision further escalation, said Susan H. Allen, a George Mason University international affairs professor.

    “Blowing up a boat on international waters is an aggressive act — one that Venezuela may take as an act of war,” Allen said. “This is how wars start. If Venezuela responds with similar violence against a U.S. ship, what stops this from escalating into all-out war?”

    Source link

  • Trump says US strike on vessel in Caribbean targeted Venezuela’s Tren de Aragua gang, killed 11

    WASHINGTON — President Donald Trump said Tuesday the U.S. has carried out a strike in the southern Caribbean against a drug-carrying vessel that departed from Venezuela and was operated by the Tren de Aragua gang.

    The president said in a social media posting that 11 people were killed in the rare U.S. military operation in the Americas, a dramatic escalation in the Republican administration’s effort to stem the flow of narcotics from Latin America. Trump also posted a short video clip of a small vessel appearing to explode in flames.

    “The strike occurred while the terrorists were at sea in International waters transporting illegal narcotics, heading to the United States,” Trump said on Truth Social. “No U.S. Forces were harmed in this strike. Please let this serve as notice to anybody even thinking about bringing drugs into the United States of America.”

    The video appears to show a long, multi-engine speedboat traveling at sea when a bright flash of light bursts over the craft. The boat is then briefly seen covered in flames.

    The video, which is largely in black and white, is not clear enough to see if the craft is carrying as many as 11 people. The video also did not show any large or clear stashes of drugs inside the boat.

    Tren de Aragua originated more than a decade ago at an infamously lawless prison with hardened criminals in Venezuela’s central state of Aragua. The gang has expanded in recent years as more than 7.7 million Venezuelans fled economic turmoil and migrated to other Latin American countries or the U.S.

    Trump and administration officials have repeatedly blamed the gang for being at the root of the violence and illicit drug dealing that plague some cities. And the president on Tuesday repeated his claim – contradicted by a declassified U.S. intelligence assessment – that Tren de Aragua is operating under Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro’s control.

    The White House did not immediately explain how the military determined that those aboard the vessel were Tren de Aragua members. The size of the gang is unclear, as is the extent to which its actions are coordinated across state lines and national borders.

    What Maduro had to say

    After Trump announced the strike, Venezuelan state television showed Maduro and first lady Cilia Flores walking the streets of his childhood neighborhood. A television presenter said Maduro was “bathing in patriotic love” as he interacted with supporters.

    “In the face of imperialist threats, God (is) with us,” Maduro told supporters.

    Maduro did not address the strike directly, but charged that the U.S. is “coming for Venezuela’s riches,” including oil and gas. The South American country has the world’s largest proven oil reserves.

    “From the neighborhoods of Caracas … I tell you, there will be peace in Venezuela, with sovereignty,” he said.

    Communications Minister Freddy Ñáñez questioned the veracity of the video. “Based on the video provided, it is very likely that it was created using Artificial Intelligence,” he said on his Telegram account. He couldn’t say what tools would have been used to create the video, but said it showed an “almost cartoonish animation, rather than a realistic depiction of an explosion.”

    Trump and Secretary of State Marco Rubio first announced the strike earlier Tuesday, shortly before Rubio left on a trip to Mexico and Ecuador for talks on drug cartels, security, tariffs and more.

    In a brief exchange with reporters before departing Miami for Mexico City, Rubio deferred questions about the specifics of the strike to the Pentagon. He said the drugs on the vessel were likely headed to Trinidad or elsewhere in the Caribbean.

    For years, Rubio has spoken out against Maduro and other Latin American leftist governments and supported opposition leaders. In 2018, during Trump’s first term, Rubio told Univision there was a “strong argument” to be made for the use of the U.S. military in Venezuela. He’s also accused Venezuelan officials of aiding drug traffickers.

    Asked if Trump would carry out operations on Venezuelan soil, Rubio was opaque. “We’re going to take on drug cartels wherever they are and wherever they’re operating against the interests of the United States,” he said.

    US sent destroyers to waters off Venezuela

    The operation came after the U.S. announced plans last month to boost its maritime force in the waters off Venezuela to combat threats from Latin American drug cartels.

    Maduro’s government has responded by deploying troops along Venezuela’s coast and border with neighboring Colombia, as well as by urging Venezuelans to enlist in a civilian militia.

    Maduro has insisted that the U.S. is building a false drug-trafficking narrative to try to force him out of office. He and other government officials have repeatedly cited a United Nations report that they say shows traffickers attempt to move only 5% of the cocaine produced in Colombia through Venezuela. Landlocked Bolivia and Colombia, with access to the Pacific and Caribbean, are the world’s top cocaine producers.

    The latest U.N. World Drug Report shows that various countries in South America, including Colombia, Ecuador and Peru, reported larger cocaine seizures in 2022 than in 2021, but it does not assign Venezuela the outsize role that the White House has in recent months.

    “The impact of increased cocaine trafficking has been felt in Ecuador in particular, which has seen a wave of lethal violence in recent years linked to both local and transnational crime groups, most notably from Mexico and the Balkan countries,” according to the report.

    Maduro on Monday told reporters he “would constitutionally declare a republic in arms” if his country were attacked by U.S. forces deployed to the Caribbean.

    ___

    Garcia Cano reported from Mexico City. AP journalists Matthew Lee in Mexico City, Jorge Rueda in Caracas, Venezuela, Adriana Gomez Licon in Ft. Lauderdale, Florida, and Sagar Meghani in Washington contributed reporting.

    Copyright © 2025 by The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved.

    AP

    Source link