From the Southern Border to Open Waters: Trump’s Offensive on Narcoterrorism

Arleigh Burke-class destroyers patrolling the Caribbean under President Trump’s orders to locate boats carrying illegal drugs to the US southern border. Source: Miami Herald.

President Trump’s administration has long touted its efforts to secure the United States’ southern border from illegal immigration and “narco-terrorists,” garnering widespread support from Republican lawmakers. But the White House’s recent missile strikes on Venezuelan boats in international waters suspected of smuggling illegal drugs have led to bipartisan concerns over executive overreach. The two strikes were each announced by the President on his social media platform, Truth Social, on September 2 and 15, respectively.

Responding to questions regarding President Trump’s legal authority to launch said strikes, Secretary of State Marco Rubio has asserted that drug cartels, like the Venezuelan-based Tren de Aragua, “pose an immediate threat” to national security. Rubio’s claim is supported by an executive order issued earlier this year by the White House designating Central and South American drug cartels as “foreign terrorist organizations” and declaring a state of “national emergency” in response. According to the President’s Truth Social post, the first of the two targeted boats was operated by Tren de Aragua, and the 11 crewmembers killed as a result of the strike were members of the gang.

Nicolás Maduro, Venezuela’s president, has been repeatedly accused by the Trump administration of aiding and even directing drug trafficking networks throughout the region. This alleged corruption within the Venezuelan government likely fueled President Trump’s decision to take direct action against groups such as Tren de Aragua and other cartels. Yet questions linger about the necessity and intention of these missile strikes. While Trump claimed the targeted boats were loaded with narcotics, the administration has offered no direct evidence to support the allegations. Further complicating the matter, Venezuela’s government has denied that any of the crewmembers killed aboard the first targeted ship had ties to Tren de Aragua. With little corroborating proof and conflicting narratives, critics, including Maduro himself, argue that the strikes may be the first in a series of moves to weaken or even remove the Venezuelan president. A terrestrial invasion of Venezuela is not out of the question as additional troops and warships have been deployed to the Caribbean, not for training, but to fight on the “front lines” as Secretary of War Pete Hegseth described earlier this month.

What makes these strikes particularly significant is not just the question of evidence, but the precedent they set in redefining America’s enemies. By labeling cartels as terrorist organizations, the administration has allowed the possibility for future presidents to wield counterterrorism powers, originally created for extremist groups like al-Qaeda and ISIS, against criminal networks in foreign nations. Legal scholars warn that this shift could blur the lines between the military and law enforcement, giving the executive branch complete power to conduct military operations abroad under the guise of national security. If left unchecked, critics argue, this new policy could normalize a state of continual emergency in which the president alone decides who qualifies as a military target.

For now, the administration has made its position clear: drug cartels will be treated as terrorists, and America’s response will not be confined to law enforcement or diplomacy. This reassessment of foreign threats marks a watershed moment in U.S. foreign policy that will likely have consequences beyond Venezuela and Maduro. Whether that approach will discourage narco-terrorists or ignite a new round of international disputes remains to be seen.