The military operations conducted by the Donald Trump administration throughout 2025 in the Caribbean appear to have generated a process that strains the boundaries of international law and triggers regional sensitivities. In particular, the closure of airspace, the conduct of 21 military operations in international waters, and the loss of more than 80 lives because of these actions stand out as critical elements reinforcing the gravity of the situation.[i] Within this framework, the developments need to be comprehensively assessed from both international law and domestic political perspectives.
Sensitivity toward external intervention in Latin America is historically high due to longstanding experiences. The 1986 Nicaragua case, in which the International Court of Justice (ICJ) found the military activities of the United States (US) in the region to be in violation of international law, remains a vivid example in collective memory. Current developments inevitably recall this past like a shadow. The military interventions in the Caribbean have reignited debates over their incompatibility with the fundamental principles of international human rights law.
When the ICJ’s past jurisprudence is considered together with reports of the United Nations (UN) Human Rights Council, it is well established that states conducting cross-border operations are obliged to respect principles such as proportionality, distinction, and due diligence. When these principles are violated, responsibility clearly arises. Indeed, the fact that 80 lives were lost following 21 operations gives rise to the perception of a serious disproportionality between the force used and the objectives sought. It is argued that the legal legitimacy of these operations has weakened, as the US has failed to present “clear and convincing evidence” in operations justified on the grounds of combating drug trafficking, rendering their rationale ambiguous.[ii]
This situation pushes Latin America’s already fragile security structure into an even more sensitive position. The region has long struggled with vulnerabilities stemming from its history of external intervention. The military operations in question are likely to drive Venezuela into a more defensive posture and to strain its relations with regional institutions.
The Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR), one of the most important institutional mechanisms for human rights on the continent, has adopted a similar stance. The Commission’s expressions of “deep concern” carry significant weight in terms of regional legal standards. In particular, the risk of arbitrary intervention may amount to a violation of the American Convention on Human Rights. The Commission has emphasized that states are not exempt from their obligation to protect fundamental rights, even during cross-border operations.[iii]
The petition submitted to the Commission regarding the death of Colombian fisherman Alejandro Carranza Medina has made it necessary to investigate the incident at the level of individual rights as well.[iv] This loss of life is being closely monitored by the international public. Under these circumstances, the focus of international attention appears to be directed not only toward Venezuela, but toward the entire Caribbean security architecture.
The Commission’s assessments have reiterated the principle that all states, including the US, cannot employ unlimited force under the justification of a “security threat.” This approach is grounded in the fundamental principles that the continent’s normative framework has been building for decades. Indeed, the delicate balance between security and human rights in Latin America has constituted a fragile domain since the Cold War.
The military escalation pursued by the Trump administration has sparked serious debate not only internationally but also within US domestic politics. Reactions from different wings of Congress indicate that the checks and balances mechanisms of the American democratic system are in operation. The expression of shared concerns by both Democratic and Republican figures suggests that the issue has acquired a bipartisan character.
The emergence of allegations of a “second strike” against military personnel has made the legal problems even more pronounced. If a renewed attack was carried out against individuals who survived an initial operation, this could constitute a violation of both international humanitarian law and US military ethical codes. In this context, Congress’s commitment to “strict oversight” has demonstrated the functioning of democratic accountability mechanisms.
Furthermore, the introduction of new bills in both the Senate and the House of Representatives based on the War Powers Resolution has signaled a tendency to limit the executive’s use of military force. These developments indicate the formation of a broad opposition within the US against military adventurism in Venezuela.
Accordingly, it appears that there is a lack of consensus within US domestic politics regarding the military approach toward Venezuela, and that the Trump administration has begun to face growing isolation on this issue. This situation seems to have constrained the executive’s room for maneuver in foreign policy.
The increased military pressure in the Caribbean has not only affected US–Venezuela relations but has also reshaped Latin America’s geopolitical balances. Many countries in the region have argued that diplomatic channels should be strengthened in the face of the US’s reliance on hard power. The military escalation has generated a sense of threat particularly among Cuba, Nicaragua, and other allies of Venezuela within the Bolivarian bloc. By contrast, Brazil, Colombia, and member states of the Caribbean Community (CARICOM) have expressed concern over potential instability.
Moreover, US actions may create a vacuum that could enhance the influence of global actors such as China and Russia in Latin America. This development has made regional competition dynamics more complex. Venezuela is likely to intensify its military and economic cooperation with Russia in this process. As a result, the Caribbean may become an arena where great-power rivalry is more visibly manifested.
Overall, the Trump administration’s strategy of military escalation toward Venezuela carries the potential to produce serious consequences in terms of international law, human rights, and domestic political balances. Warnings issued by the UN and IACHR have underscored the need for the US to exercise greater caution and to act in accordance with international standards in its use of force. Rising opposition within domestic politics suggests that the administration may be compelled to operate under tighter constraints in this area. From a regional perspective, it can be stated that the security architecture of the Caribbean has once again become more fragile. Taken together, these dynamics demonstrate that resolving the Venezuela crisis through military means represents a costly and destabilizing option.
[i] Bartholomew, Jem. “First Thing: Family of victim of Trump boat airstrikes files complaint against ‘extrajudicial killing’” The Guardian, www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/dec/03/first-thing-victim-family-trump-drug-boat-strikes-files-complaint-extrajudicial-killing, (Access Date: 07.12.2025).
[ii] Ibid.
[iii] Inter-American Commission on Human Rights. “IACHR urges the United States to ensure respect for human rights in extraterritorial security operation.” Press release no. 248/25, Organization of American States, www.oas.org/en/iachr/media_center/press_releases/2025/248.asp, (Access Date: 07.12.2025).
[iv] Alexander, Iñigo. “Colombian family asks human rights court to probe US over deadly airstrike”, Reuters, www.reuters.com/world/americas/colombian-family-asks-human-rights-court-probe-us-over-deadly-airstrike-2025-12-05/, (Access Date: 07.12.2025).
