At least 32 killed (as of 19 October)[2] 2 captured[3]
On 2 September 2025, United States president Donald Trump announced that the US Navy had carried out an airstrike in the southern Caribbean on a boat from Venezuela, killing all 11 people on the vessel. Trump released a video of the strike, which Venezuelan sources said had occurred on 1 September. The Trump administration alleged that the vessel was operated by members of the terrorist gang Tren de Aragua and transporting narcotics, but has not provided evidence of drugs or weapons on board.
The strike came amid heightened tensions between the United States and Venezuela following the deployment of US Navy warships and personnel to the region. The next day, US secretary of defense Pete Hegseth said military operations against drug cartels in Venezuela would continue, and Secretary of State Marco Rubio suggested that similar strikes could follow, without providing evidence to substantiate the allegations against those killed.[4][5] Between 15 September and 18 October, the United States struck at least six more vessels in the Caribbean, killing at least 32 people.[2][6]
Initially positioned as a mission to stop narcotics traffic to the US, by mid-October, Venezuelan opposition figures and independent analysts observed a shift in US objectives toward regime change.[7][8] Experts questioned the legality of the strikes under US law and international law and said the US was threatening regime change with the strikes and the buildup of naval forces in the area. The Venezuelan government accused the US of committing extrajudicial murder.
An infographic which shows the approximate locations of American airstrikes
The US announced on 2 September that a military vessel struck and sank a speedboat that it alleged was smuggling drugs from Venezuela to the southern Caribbean[16] during a high-seas interdiction mission.[10][17]El Pitazo[18] and Venezuela's El Nacional stated that the boat was destroyed on Monday, 1 September.[1] Trump announced the attack from the White House, describing the target as "loaded" with narcotics, a "lot of drugs" bound for the United States.[19] In a post on Truth Social, Trump stated that the operation killed 11 members of Tren de Aragua.[20] Secretary of State Marco Rubio confirmed the sinking on social media, stating the vessel was operated by a "designated narco-terrorist organization".[21] On 6 September 2025, Rubio said: "Instead of interdicting it, on the president's orders, we blew it up. And it'll happen again."[22] According to The Wall Street Journal, "The attack was the US military's first publicly acknowledged airstrike in Central or South America since the US invasion of Panama in 1989."[23]
Venezuelan media reported[24] that the vessel came from the village of San Juan de Unare, located on the Paria Peninsula in Sucre (a coastal state in the northeastern part of Venezuela).[25][26] Inhabitants describing a town in mourning[27] published tributes containing photos of the deceased beginning early on 3 September.[28][25] The deceased included eight persons from San Juan de Unare and three from a nearby town, Güiria.[1]
El Pitazo reported that the boat was a flipper type with four 200-horsepower engines, about 12 metres (39ft) long, and was headed for nearby Trinidad and Tobago. Two other vessels which departed at about the same time escaped detection.[25][1][18][29] US military veteran Luis Quiñonez stated in a television interview that three warnings (in English, Spanish and Portuguese) to stop were issued,[30] and sources told journalist Sebastiana Barráez[es] that the vessel carried a "considerable cargo" and that some had been thrown overboard before the US attack.[1][a]
Approximate path and location of 1 September airstrike announced on 2 September, showing the vessel's start from San Juan de Unare, Sucre, Venezuela, and projected end at Chaguaramas, Trinidad and Tobago
As of 19 October 2025, at least 32 killed,[2] 2 captured[3]
Originally a fishing village, San Juan de Unare had been for two decades taken over as a transit point in the drug trade, according to Ronna Rísquez.[39]France 24, quoting local media, reported that since 2018 the town has been a "strategic hub for drug trafficking, human trafficking, and irregular migration", and that Tren de Aragua ran drugs ultimately destined for the US from the Sucre coast via Caribbean islands.[27] According to Efecto Cocuyo, Sucre state's short distance from Trinidad "facilitates the proliferation of these illicit activities, a fact that has been widely documented by various organizations ...in multiple investigations".[26] An anonymous expert on organized crime told Efecto Cocuyo that drugs trafficked through the region originate in Colombia, and that gangs such as Tren de Aragua are "attempting to control these territories to establish direct transportation routes to the islands of the Eastern Caribbean".[26] A 1 October Insight Crime report stated that Tren de Aragua "maintains a stronghold" in Sucre state, but the Venezuelan state has "real control" of "criminal economies" there.[24]
Trump posted footage of the attack on Truth Social, showing a missile striking the boat and setting it on fire.[40] A US spokesperson later confirmed that either a military helicopter or an MQ-9 Reaper drone struck the boat. Rubio added that the boat appeared to be heading for Trinidad or another Caribbean country.[17]
The New York Times and Associated Press reported that national security sources acknowledged that the boat seemed to be turning back when it was hit.[41][42]
Subsequent strikes
On 15 September, Trump announced in a Truth Social post that the US military launched a second strike into a boat transporting illicit drugs from Venezuela during the morning hours, killing three men aboard the vessel.[43] Following the second attack, Trump released a threat on social media towards drug traffickers, replying in all capital letters: "Be warned—If you are transporting drugs that can kill Americans, we are hunting you!"[33]
The Guardian reported in September that anonymous sources said that a "leading role" was taken in the decision to strike the boats by the newly empowered Homeland Security Council under its leader Stephen Miller, with many White House officials learning about the second strike just hours before it happened.[44]
On 3 October, Hegseth announced that a strike on a vessel near the coast of Venezuela killed four.[45][b] Hegseth wrote in an X post that the vessel was transporting substantial amounts of narcotics and at the time was heading towards the United States, adding that the vessel was operating on a known narco-trafficking transit route.[37]
After Trump returned to the United States from Egypt on 14 October, he posted a statement on Truth Social that six more men were killed in a strike[38] on a vessel near the coast of Venezuela.[49] Trump stated that Hegseth ordered the strike that morning.[50] Trinidad and Tobago is investigating whether two of the killed were Trinidad citizens.[51]
Other Caribbean strikes
Trump stated on 16 September that the US military had sunk a third alleged drug-running boat in the Caribbean, without providing any other detail.[52][c] Later, on 8 October, Colombian President Gustavo Petro stated that those killed in one of the strikes may have been Colombian.[34][55] Petro referred to la última lancha bombardeada (the last bombed boat),[55] which sources reported as the 3 October strike.[56][57] The White House responded that these assertions were baseless.[56][57][58][59] Two US officials stated without approval to publicly discuss the matter that there were Colombians on at least one of the boats.[34] On 18 October, Petro stated that the 16 September strike announced by Trump had killed a Colombian fisherman.[35] Other sources said he was referring to the 15 September strike.[60][61]
On 19 September, Trump announced that another vessel allegedly carrying drugs had been destroyed and that three men had been killed; Trump stated that the vessel was "affiliated with a Designated Terrorist Organization conducting narcotrafficking in the USSOUTHCOM area of responsibility", but did not specify where the strike occurred, the country of origin, or the alleged criminal affiliation.[36][62] The Dominican Republic later announced that it had cooperated with the US Navy to locate the boat and salvage 377 packages of cocaine amounting to 1,000 kilograms (2,200lb).[63]
Reuters reported that there was a previously unannounced strike on 16 October 2025, which for the first time included survivors.[64] The US alleged that the vessel struck was a narco-submarine.[65] Unlike previous strikes, the attack did not immediately result in fatalities.[64] The survivors were rescued and detained on a US Navy ship.[54] Reuters reported, and Trump later confirmed, two killed and two survivors.[66][3] By 19 October, both were repatriated to their respective countries of origin, Colombia and Ecuador.[67][68] The Ecuadorian attorney general's office stated that no crime reports had been filed against him with their institution, so absent evidence for detaining him, the subject was released.[69][70]
On 17 October, the Department of War carried out a strike in international waters on an alleged National Liberation Army drug vessel, killing three.[2]
Trump formally notified Congress on 1 October that the US was in a "non-international armed conflict" with "unlawful combatants" regarding drug cartels in the Caribbean, specifically referencing the 15 September strike.[71][72] The Miami Herald wrote that: "In an armed conflict, a country can lawfully kill enemy fighters even when they pose no threat."[73]
Initially positioned as a mission to stop narcotics traffic to the US, by mid-October, Venezuelan opposition figures and independent analysts confirmed a shift in US objectives toward regime change.[7][8]
The Trump administration did not initially announce any specific legal authority for the strike.[74][75] Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth declared, "We have the absolute and complete authority", citing "...the defense of the American people alone. 100,000 Americans were killed each year under the previous administration because of an open border and open drug traffic flow. That is an assault on the American people."[76][77]Jake Tapper asked Tom Homan how the President has authority to conduct such a strike; Homan deferred to the Department of Justice and the Department of Defense, saying the cartels had "...killed more Americans than any war."[78] The Trump administration did not provide evidence about the vessel's cargo, nor did it establish that the vessel's crew were threatening to attack.[79]
Experts have questioned the legality of the strike under US and international law.[80][81] Experts speaking to the BBC said that the 2 September strike was potentially illegal under international maritime and human rights law. Though the US is not a signatory to the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, previous US policy had been to "act in a manner consistent with its provisions"; countries are not supposed to interfere with ships in international waters except in cases such as hot pursuit out of a country's territorial waters.[82][83] Law professor Mary Ellen O'Connell said that the strike "violated fundamental principles of international law". Luke Moffett of Queen's University Belfast, also a law professor, stated that striking the ship without grounds of self-defense could be extrajudicial killing. BBC News argued that "Questions also remain as to whether Trump complied with the War Powers Resolution, which demands that the president 'in every possible instance shall consult with Congress before introducing United States Armed Forces into hostilities'".[82] In October, the Associated Press stated that the Trump administration is "treating alleged drug traffickers as unlawful combatants who must be met with military force".[84]
The Atlantic and the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) suggested that Trump was relying on the authority given the president as commander in chief under Article II of the US Constitution.[85][81] According to CSIS, critics say the president must notify Congress within 48 hours to gain authorization.[81] An expert in US constitutional law from King's College London stated to the BBC that it is not clear if the strike would fall under the presidential powers granted by the anti-terrorist Authorization for Use of Military Force of 2001 (AUMF), but that the administration's use of the term "narco-terrorists" may hint at this being their legal justification.[86] According to CSIS, for several decades AUMF "has substituted for a formal declaration of war", and was used in 2001 to authorize war against "nations, organizations, or persons [the president] determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided” the attacks of 11 September or "harbored such organizations or persons".[81] CSIS states that this authorization has been "used as a controversial legal basis for US counterterrorism operations against the Taliban, al-Qaeda, and other organizations" and Joe Biden "did not seek congressional authorization for its frequent strikes against the Houthis in Yemen".[81] George W. Bush administration legal figure John Yoo has also questioned the legality of the strikes arguing that “There has to be a line between crime and war.” Obama era legal figure Harold Hongju Koh said that the strikes were “lawless, dangerous and reckless.”[87] Former chief White House ethics lawyer Richard Painter called the strikes a violation of international and federal law.[88]
Law professor Gabor Rona argued in a 2 October 2025 Lawfare article that, while he agreed with other analysts that the strikes were unlawful, they reflected a predictable overreach that followed the precedents established during the George W. Bush, Barack Obama and Joe Biden administrations following the 11 September attacks.[89]
Adam Isacson of the Washington Office on Latin America said the strike "[l]ooks like a massacre of civilians at sea".[80] In an interview with Democracy Now!, Greg Grandin questioned whether the boat was actually being used to smuggle drugs, arguing that such a boat would not carry 11 passengers, but would devote the space to drug cargo. Grandin said that the strike was "bringing the logic of Gaza into the Caribbean, in terms of unaccountability, impunity and an expansive notion of national defense to justify what is, in effect, just extrajudicial killing."[90] David Smilde also said that the number of passengers would be unusual for a drug smuggling boat.[79]Amnesty International USA described the strike as murder.[88][91]
Repatriating the survivors of the 16 October strike on a semi-submersible to their home countries for prosecution avoids a civilian court challenge to continued detention without evidence, and a military court challenge to the legal justification for treating prisoners as unlawful combatants if they were not engaged in armed conflict.[3]
Reactions
Venezuela
Early on 3 September, tributes containing photos, videos and names of the deceased began to appear on social media.[28] There was no response from the Maduro administration for four hours after the strike was announced; Freddy Ñáñez, the Venezuelan communications minister, was the first Venezuelan official to address the strike.[28] He stated that the footage of the attack was fake.[92] Inhabitants of San Juan de Unare disagree with this version.[25][27][1][18]
During his regular TV show on 3 September, Diosdado Cabello, Venezuela's Minister of Interior, Justice and Peace, characterized the strike as "fake news" "invented" by the US as a cover for regime change.[28] In the TV segment, he called the killings extrajudicial murders.[40][93] Cabello later said that Venezuelan investigations determined none of the 11 people killed were members of Tren de Aragua.[94] A neighbor of one of the victims disagreed with this version.[95]
The next day, on 4 September,[28] Attorney General Tarek William Saab said the attack never occurred.[96]
Maduro accused the US of threatening regime change with the strike and build up of naval forces in the area. He said there were no criminal connections to drug traffickers.[40]Delcy Rodriguez, the vice president of Venezuela, asked on 8 September, "How can there be a drug cartel if there's no drugs here?"[97]
United States
James G. Stavridis, a former US Navy admiral, characterized the strike and other US military activity around the same time as gunboat diplomacy intended to demonstrate the vulnerability of Venezuelan oil rigs and materiel. He wrote that drug interdiction was likely not the sole reason for the increased US military activity.[98]
According to Walter Pincus, writing in the Cipher Brief, Trump was questioned on 5 September about the legality of the first strike, to which he responded: "We don't want drugs killing our people. I believe we lost 300,000 ...last year"—a number he repeated days later in an Oval Office meeting.[99][100] But when speaking impromptu to reporters prior to boarding Air Force One on 14 September, he inflated that number to 300million—perhaps mistakenly according to Pincus.[99][101] Trump stated: "What’s illegal are the drugs that were on the boat, and the drugs that are being sent into our country, and the fact that 300million people died last year from drugs."[101] Drug overdose deaths in the US in 2024 were about 80,000 according to factcheck.org.[100]
In an exchange on X, Vice President JD Vance stated, "Killing cartel members who poison our fellow citizens is the highest and best use of our military," to which writer Brian Krassenstein responded, "killing the citizens of another nation who are civilians without any due process is called a war crime", Vance responded "I don't give a shit what you call it." Senator Rand Paul intervened in the argument, saying "What a despicable and thoughtless sentiment it is to glorify killing someone without a trial."[102] Senator Bernie Moreno responded to Paul saying, "what’s really despicable is defending foreign terrorist drug traffickers who are *directly* responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Americans in Kentucky and Ohio."[103]
The strike was welcomed by Republican senators Lindsey Graham and Bernie Moreno, with Moreno saying that "Sinking [the] boat saved American lives."[82] Senator Mark Warner said he was worried about putting American sailors "in harm's way by violating international law", and declared that neither he, a member of the Gang of Eight, nor the Senate Intelligence Committee were briefed ahead of the operation.[104] A bipartisan briefing scheduled for 5 September was abruptly cancelled.[105]
Puerto Rico governor Jennifer Gonzalez thanked the Trump administration on 9 September 2025 for the "fight against drug cartels in our hemisphere".[97]
California senator Adam Schiff and Virginia senator Tim Kaine sponsored a War Powers Resolution to prevent the administration from launching further strikes without congressional approval, which failed in the Senate 51-48 on 8 October 2025.[106]
Other
Prime Minister of Trinidad and Tobago Kamla Persad-Bissessar praised the US attack and encouraged more operations against drug traffickers, saying: 'The pain and suffering the cartels have inflicted on our nation is immense. I have no sympathy for traffickers; the US military should kill them all violently."[39][107]
Colombian president Gustavo Petro said that attacking the boat occupants in drug interdictions rather than capturing them amounted to murder.[107] When asked whose side he was on, Brazilian president Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva said he was on the side of peace, favored negotiations, and that US forces in the Caribbean had become a source of tension.[108][109][110] Addressing the United Nations General Assembly, Lula compared "using lethal force in situations that do not constitute armed conflict" to "executing people without trial."[111]
The Iranian ambassador to the UN in Geneva condemned the attack as illegal under international law.[112]
Political scientist Peter Feaver noted that every presidential administration since Ronald Reagan's considered deploying military force in the war on drugs, but only the second Trump administration followed through.[85]
↑ See Carlos Salazar X post with video of journalist Sebastiana Barraez, who states at timestamp 1:50 that the boat passengers communicated via satellite telephones.[1]
↑ The strike was described as the fourth[45][46] or fifth vessel struck, if counting the 16 September announcement by Trump.[47][48]
↑ Sources published on 3 October would refer to the 3 October strike as the fifth vessel sunk, accounting for a 16 September strike.[47][53][48] Later sources, for example 17 October Reuters, did not count the 16 September announcement.[54]
References
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 "¿Qué se sabe de la lancha destruida por EE UU en el Caribe que zarpó de San Juan de Unare?"[What is known about the boat destroyed by the US in the Caribbean that set sail from San Juan de Unare?]. El Nacional (in Spanish). Venezuela. 4 September 2025. Archived from the original on 4 September 2025. Retrieved 7 September 2025. ...11 hombres que murieron cuando una lancha rápida fue destruida por la Armada de Estados Unidos en el Caribe el lunes primero de septiembre. La embarcación salió el domingo 31 de agosto en la noche y tenía como destino Trinidad y Tobago.[...11 men died when a speedboat was destroyed by the U.S. Navy in the Caribbean on Monday, 1 September. The vessel departed on Sunday night, 31 August, bound for Trinidad and Tobago.]
↑ Olmsted, Edith (5 September 2025). "Pete Hegseth Claims 'Absolute Authority' After 'Drug Boat' Strike". The New Republic. The New Republic. Retrieved 8 September 2025. Speaking to reporters Wednesday, Hegseth was asked what legal authority the Pentagon had invoked to carry out its deadly strike on a vessel officials claim was carrying drugs. (...) "I'd say we smoked the drug boat, and there's eleven narco terrorists at the bottom of the ocean. And when other people try to do that, they're gonna meet the same fate," Hegseth continued.
↑ "right of hot pursuit". Oxford Reference. Archived from the original on 7 September 2025. Retrieved 5 September 2025. The right of a coastal state to pursue a foreign ship within its territorial waters ... and there capture it if the state has good reason to believe that this vessel has violated its laws. The hot pursuit may – but only if it is uninterrupted – continue onto the high seas ...
1 2 Youssef, Nancy A.; Ryan, Missy; Lemire, Jonathan; Harris, Shane (4 September 2025). "Trump Is Crossing a Line That Dates Back to the Revolution". The Atlantic. Retrieved 4 September 2025. "Applying this approach to the drug mission would have been considered and debated in every administration since Reagan." But none of Trump's predecessors ultimately decided to go through with it.
↑ Neukam, Stephen (5 September 2025). "Trump officials cancel bipartisan briefing on Venezuela strike". Axios. Retrieved 8 September 2025. Trump officials on Friday abruptly cancelled a briefing with top Senate national security and leadership staff about the deadly U.S. strike on a drug vessel off the coast of Venezuela. Why it matters: Top Democrats this week said they were left in the dark ahead of the operation, which the administration has suggested is the start of a broader military campaign. Officials pulled the plug on the bipartisan briefing Friday after attendees had already arrived, we are told. The session has been rescheduled for next week, according to a person familiar with the matter. The AP was first to report that Friday's briefing was canceled.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply. Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.
United States 
United States Navy 
