U.S. Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth stated that he has full authority to organize military attacks against ships suspected of illegally transporting drugs off the coast of Venezuela. In a statement given to Fox News, this declaration demonstrates that the United States’ position in the Caribbean is becoming increasingly dominant and aggressive in nature. Hegseth’s rhetoric reflects a security paradigm justified within the frameworks of counterterrorism, self-defense, and war powers.[i] This statement parallels the series of recent naval operations carried out by the United States in the Caribbean and reveals that Washington is redefining its strategic priorities toward Latin America.
The legal and diplomatic basis of these operations is highly controversial. The Trump administration reclassified certain Latin America–based drug cartels as “foreign terrorist organizations” and argued that this designation allowed the use of lethal force under the law of armed conflict. Hegseth’s discourse of “full authority” is grounded in constitutional war powers, self-defense doctrines, and the concept of the “unlawful combatant.” Many legal experts and members of Congress argue that these operations lack a transparent legal foundation, bypass procedural safeguards, and stretch the boundaries of both U.S. domestic law and international norms.[ii]
The use of military force against drug trafficking signifies the securitization of an issue that traditionally falls within the domain of law enforcement. From the perspective of international relations theory, the United States’ approach reframes drug trafficking as a security threat equivalent to terrorism and assumes that this threat must be addressed through military means. This situation indicates a growing tendency toward coercive diplomacy. Washington thus positions its counternarcotics mission within a strategy of deterrent power projection rather than traditional models of cooperation.
It has been reported that since September 2025, the United States has conducted at least four lethal attacks in the Caribbean Sea. One of these attacks, which occurred on October 3, resulted in four deaths, while another earlier operation led to the deaths of eleven people.[iii] During this period, the United States deployed naval and air force assets to the region, including warships, F-35 fighter jets, reconnaissance drones, and maritime surveillance systems. Through the Southern Command, a system integrating intelligence, surveillance, and targeting efforts has been established in the Caribbean Basin. During his visit to Puerto Rico, Hegseth stated that the U.S. military presence in the area is “not just a practice, but a real frontline mission.”[iv]
From the perspective of Latin America, such U.S. military engagements raise serious concerns regarding sovereignty, regional order, and diplomatic autonomy. While the Venezuelan government has characterized these attacks as “extrajudicial executions” and “acts of war,” several other states in the region have likewise interpreted them as a hegemonic resurgence of U.S. power.[v] Colombian President Gustavo Petro described those killed in one of the attacks as “not terrorists, but poor Caribbean youth,” calling the action “murder.” At the same time, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov condemned the operations, accusing Washington of “undermining regional stability.”[vi] Nevertheless, some Caribbean countries, such as the Dominican Republic, cooperated with the United States in recovering narcotics from the targeted vessels.
The United States maintains a significantly stronger military capacity compared to the Venezuelan Armed Forces (FANB), which have lost much of their deterrent capability due to economic decline, lack of maintenance, and internal conflict—factors that have caused confusion and frustration. Asymmetric responses—such as the mobilization of coastal militias, irregular maritime tactics, or the organization of local resistance movements—are among the limited options available to the Caracas government. This situation indicates not the likelihood of a high-intensity conflict but rather an increasing risk of low-intensity frictions and miscalculations.
From the perspective of international humanitarian law, the justification of these actions remains a subject of intense debate. The laws of war may permit the use of force against military targets in certain circumstances, but their application to ships in international waters linked to illegal activities raises serious problems. These include whether the individuals on the ships are considered combatants, whether the force used is proportionate, whether the targets can be clearly distinguished from civilians, and who bears responsibility for the outcomes. Moreover, the U.S. administration has not disclosed to the public the evidence related to the attacks or the identities of those killed, and congressional oversight has remained limited. This situation has reignited constitutional debates concerning executive overreach and the transfer of the power to declare war away from the legislative branch.
From the standpoint of U.S.–Latin America relations, this situation represents a significant shift. For many years, the United States pursued its counternarcotics efforts through cooperation, capacity-building, and developmental support to partner countries. However, the current reliance on military force risks undermining regional security frameworks and provoking nationalist reactions among the states involved. Within multilateral mechanisms such as the Organization of American States, many countries have begun to question the legitimacy of the United States’ cross-border military operations. This development has also complicated Washington’s relations with regional actors such as Brazil, Mexico, and Argentina. Conversely, within U.S. domestic politics, the flow of narcotics and related deaths are increasingly perceived as security issues. In this context, the government is reframing drug trafficking as a direct threat to national security and seeking to justify the use of military measures. This approach raises a fundamental question in U.S. foreign policy: can a president unilaterally decide to treat criminal issues as matters of war?
In conclusion, although the United States holds military, intelligence, and technological superiority in the Caribbean, the primary risks lie at the diplomatic and normative levels. As Washington continues these operations, it faces the question of how far it will push the principles of regional sovereignty, the norms of multilateralism, and the boundaries of international law. Latin American states are closely observing whether this process represents a new phase of U.S. interventionism or a recalibration of the regional order.
[i] “Hegseth says he has every authorization needed for Caribbean strikes”, Reuters, https://www.reuters.com/world/us/hegseth-says-he-has-every-authorization-needed-caribbean-strikes-2025-10-05/, (Date Accessed: 05.10.2025).
[ii] “Hegseth announces latest strike on boat near Venezuela he says was trafficking drugs”, AP News, https://apnews.com/article/trump-hegseth-venezuela-drug-cartels-unlawful-combatants-1848b02febe08acacb82979d7da47dfb, (Date Accessed: 05.10.2025).
[iii] “US carries out new strike against alleged drug vessel near Venezuela”, Reuters, https://www.reuters.com/world/americas/us-carries-out-new-strike-against-alleged-drug-vessel-near-venezuela-2025-10-03/, (Date Accessed: 05.10.2025).
[iv] “Hegseth says US deployment in Caribbean “isn’t training” on Puerto Rico visit”, Reuters, https://www.reuters.com/world/americas/us-defense-secretary-tells-sailors-off-puerto-rico-this-isnt-training-2025-09-09/, (Date Accessed: 05.10.2025).
[v] Ibid.
[vi] Ibid.
