2025 United States strikes on Venezuelan boats | |
---|---|
Part of 2025 U.S. military campaign against cartels | |
Unclassified footage of the 2 September airstrike | |
Type | Airstrike |
Location | |
Planned by | ![]() |
Target | Alleged Venezuelan-linked drug vessel operated by Tren de Aragua |
Date | 2 September 2025 –present (VET) |
Executed by | ![]() Supported by: ![]() |
Outcome | 4 vessels sunk [1] |
Casualties | 11 killed (first boat) 3 killed (second boat) Unknown killed (third boat) 3 killed (fourth boat) [1] [2] |
On 2 September 2025, United States president Donald Trump announced that the U.S. Navy had carried out an airstrike the day before in the southern Caribbean on a boat from Venezuela, killing all 11 people on the vessel. Trump released a video of the strike. The Trump administration alleged that the vessel was operated by members of the gang Tren de Aragua and transporting narcotics, but has not provided evidence of the presence of drugs or weapons on board.
The strike came amid heightened tensions between the United States and Venezuela following the deployment of U.S. Navy warships and personnel to the region. The next day, U.S. 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. [3] [4]
Several experts questioned the legality of the strike under U.S. law and international law. The Venezuelan government accused the U.S. of committing extrajudicial murder and Maduro said the U.S. was threatening regime change with the strike and the buildup of U.S. naval forces in the area.
On 15–19 September, the United States struck three more vessels.
Part of a series on the |
Crisis in Venezuela |
---|
![]() |
![]() |
During the Trump administration's second term, the U.S. intensified its focus on drug cartels, characterizing the smugglers as terrorists. [5] [1] [6] On 18 August 2025, the U.S. deployed three warships and approximately 4,000 sailors and Marines to the coast of Venezuela, citing the need to combat drug cartels. [7] [8] [9] PBS News reported that Trump was utilising the military to counter cartels he blamed for trafficking fentanyl and other illicit drugs into the U.S. and for fuelling violence in American cities. [10]
On 2 September, the U.S. announced that a military vessel struck and sank a speedboat that it alleged was smuggling drugs from Venezuela to the southern Caribbean [11] during a high-seas interdiction mission. [1] [12] Trump announced the attack from the White House, describing the target as "loaded" with narcotics, a "lot of drugs" bound for the United States. [13] In a post on Truth Social, Trump stated that the operation killed 11 members of Tren de Aragua. [14] Secretary of State Marco Rubio confirmed the sinking on social media, stating the vessel was operated by a "designated narco-terrorist organization". [15] On 6 September 2025, Rubio said: "Instead of interdicting it, on the president's orders, we blew it up. And it'll happen again." [16] Venezuela's El Nacional stated that the boat was destroyed on 1 September. [17]
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). [2] [18] Inhabitants describing a town in mourning [19] published tributes containing photos of the deceased beginning early on 3 September. [20] [2] The deceased included eight persons from San Juan de Unare and three from a nearby town, Güiria. [17]
Venzuelan media reported extensively. El Pitazo reported that the boat was a flipper type with four 200-horsepower engines, about 12 metres (39 ft) long, and was headed for nearby Trinidad and Tobago. Two other vessels which departed at about the same time escaped detection. [2] [17] [21] [22] U.S. military veteran Luis Quiñonez stated in a television interview that three warnings (in English, Spanish and Portuguese) to stop were issued, [23] and sources told journalist Sebastiana Barráez that the vessel carried a "considerable cargo" and that some had been thrown overboard before the U.S. attack. [17]
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. [24] 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 U.S. from the Sucre coast via Caribbean islands. [19] 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". [18] 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". [18]
Trump posted footage of the attack on Truth Social, showing a missile striking the boat and setting it on fire. [25] A U.S. 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. [12]
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. [26] [27]
On 15 September, Trump announced in a Truth Social post that the U.S. military launched a second strike into a boat transporting illicit drugs from Venezuela during the morning hours, killing three men aboard the vessel. [28] 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!" [29]
On 16 September, Trump revealed that the U.S. military had sunk a third alleged Venezuelan drug-running boat. [30]
On 19 September, he announced that another vessel, allegedly carrying drugs had been destroyed and that three people had been killed. [31] The Dominican Republic, later claimed that under its National Directorate for Drug Control and the Dominican Navy it had cooperated with the U.S. Navy to locate the boat, which was about 80 nautical miles South of Dominican controlled Beata Island. After the boat was destroyed the Dominican Navy salvaged 377 packages of cocaine amounting to 1,000 kilograms. The Directorate stated that “This is the first time in history that the United States and the Dominican Republic carry out a joint operation against narco terrorism in the Caribbean,”. [32]
The Trump administration did not initially announce any specific legal authority for the strike. [33] [34] 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." [35] [36] 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." [37] 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. [38]
Trump was questioned 14 September on the legality of the first strike, to which he responded: "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 300 million people died last year from drugs. That’s what’s illegal." [39] Only 75,000 to 80,000 were drug overdoses in the United States, according to factcheck.org. [40]
Experts have questioned the legality of the strike under U.S. and international law. [41] [42] 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 U.S. Constitution. [43] [42] According to CSIS, critics say the president must notify Congress within 48 hours to gain authorization. [42]
An expert in U.S. 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. [44] 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 September 11 attacks or "harbored such organizations or persons". [42] CSIS states that this authorization has been "used as a controversial legal basis for U.S. 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". [42] 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.” [45]
Adam Isacson of the Washington Office on Latin America said the strike "[l]ooks like a massacre of civilians at sea". [41] 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." [46] David Smilde also said that the number of passengers would be unusual for a drug smuggling boat. [38]
Early on 3 September, tributes containing photos, videos and names of the deceased began to appear on social media. [20] 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. [20] He stated that the footage of the attack was fake. [47] Inhabitants of San Juan de Unare disagree with this version. [2] [19] [17] [21]
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 U.S. as a cover for regime change. [20] In the TV segment, he called the killings extrajudicial murders. [25] [48] Cabello later said that Venezuelan investigations determined none of the 11 people killed were members of Tren de Aragua. [49] A neighbor of one of the victims disagreed with this version. [50]
The next day, on 4 September, [20] Attorney General Tarek William Saab said the attack never occurred. [51]
Maduro accused the U.S. of threatening regime change with the strike and build up of U.S. naval forces in the area. He said there were no criminal connections to drug traffickers. [25] Delcy Rodriguez, the vice president of Venezuela, asked on 8 September, "How can there be a drug cartel if there's no drugs here?" [52] Cabello on 17 September accused the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) of conducting a false flag operation after seizing 3,692 kilos of cocaine being transported on a boat.[ undue weight? – discuss ] [53]
James Stavridis, a former U.S. Navy admiral, characterized the strike and other U.S. 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 U.S. military activity. [54]
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." [55] 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." [56]
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. [57] A bipartisan briefing scheduled for 5 September was abruptly cancelled. [58]
Puerto Rico governor Jennifer Gonzalez thanked the Trump administration on 9 September 2025 for the "fight against drug cartels in our hemisphere". [52]
Prime Minister of Trinidad and Tobago Kamla Persad-Bissessar praised the U.S. 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 U.S. military should kill them all violently." [24] [59]
Colombian president Gustavo Petro said that attacking the boat occupants in drug interdictions rather than capturing them amounted to murder. [59] 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 U.S. forces in the Caribbean had become a source of tension. [60] [61] [62]
The Iranian ambassador to the UN in Geneva condemned the attack as illegal under international law. [63]
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. [43]
{{cite news}}
: CS1 maint: url-status (link)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.
[01:45 min. total.]
"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.
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.