In September 2025, the address delivered by President Donald Trump of the United States of America before the United Nations General Assembly resonated not merely as a conventional statement of foreign policy but as a challenge to the prevailing conception of the international order itself. In his speech, President Trump criticized the UN as “ineffective” and portrayed his own leadership as “a power purifying the world from terror.” Within this framework, Venezuela occupied a central place in his address. Trump’s statement “We will eliminate Venezuelan terrorists” signaled a dangerous political shift, one that entailed not merely the stigmatization of a state, but the criminalization of an entire society.[i]
The Trump administration, particularly in recent months, legitimized naval operations in the Caribbean under the banner of “counter-narcoterrorism.” However, it has been underlined that these operations fall into a considerable gray area within international law. For this reason, Trump’s address at the UN General Assembly should be interpreted not only as a message directed at the domestic audience, but also as a political declaration aimed at Latin America.
The most striking aspect of Trump’s speech was his systematic repetition of the phrase “Venezuelan terrorists.” With statements such as “by employing the superior force of the U.S. armed forces, we will dismantle these networks,” the President directly targeted Venezuela-based criminal organizations. This language reflects an identity-based construction of the enemy, rather than the classical “war on” discourse focused on hostile actions.[ii]
Within this context, Trump included the Venezuelan group “Tren de Aragua” among the Foreign Terrorist Organizations (FTOs), alongside six armed groups based in Mexico and Central America.
Nevertheless, reports issued by agencies such as the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA)—operating under the U.S. Department of Justice—and the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) have explicitly stated that the Tren de Aragua organization plays no significant role in large-scale narcotics trafficking. Despite this, the group was designated as a terrorist organization, a decision that reflects President Trump’s strategic intent to position Venezuela within the category of global security threats. This move has been widely interpreted as a revised version of the early 2000s “Axis of Evil” concept.
President Trump’s remarks were significant not only in the realm of foreign policy but also with regard to domestic political objectives. He sought to justify the mass deportation policy by associating Tren de Aragua with the Maduro government.
The reactivation of the 1798 Alien Enemies Act by the United States, which led to the transfer of 250 Venezuelan nationals to the CECOT prison in El Salvador, has served as a tangible manifestation of this discourse. Furthermore, the revocation of “humanitarian protection” statuses indicated a shift in U.S. immigration policy—from a human security approach to a national security paradigm.
At this point, expressions such as “we will erase these organizations from existence” evolved into a rhetoric grounded in eliminatory notions, resembling a “final solution” framework. Politically, this rhetoric has reinforced the electorate’s expectation of a “strong leader.” From a legal perspective, however, it has normalized an understanding that promotes the disproportionate use of force in international relations.
Trump’s claim that “we have stopped the narcotics arriving by sea” does not correspond precisely with existing data. According to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), 80,391 people lost their lives in 2024 due to illegal substance use, a figure that sharply contrasts with the “300,000 deaths” cited by the President in his speech.[iii]
Moreover, it has been revealed that most fentanyl consumed in the United States is produced domestically or brought overland via the Mexican border. According to existing international organization reports, no verified evidence has been identified regarding the production or transportation of fentanyl in Venezuela. In this context, it has been determined that maritime operations have had only a limited impact on the flow of illicit drug trafficking.
President Trump’s expansion of the “counterterrorism” narrative to justify attacks near the Venezuelan coast has raised significant concerns under international law. Primarily, the term “terrorist organization” is used internationally to describe non-state violent groups driven by political or ideological goals. The inclusion of criminal organizations such as Tren de Aragua within this definition represents a broadening of the concept of terrorism.
While this situation provided the United States with certain domestic advantages in terms of military power, it failed to justify the actions undertaken at the international level. Indeed, Article 2(4) of the UN Charter establishes a clear prohibition on the use or threat of force by states in their international relations. Consequently, the operations near the Venezuelan coast have been interpreted by the international community as a violation of this principle.
While this situation provided the United States with certain domestic advantages in terms of military power, it failed to justify the actions undertaken at the international level. Indeed, Article 2(4) of the UN Charter establishes a clear prohibition on the use or threat of force by states in their international relations. Consequently, the operations near the Venezuelan coast have been interpreted by the international community as a violation of this principle.
The United States’ dismissive attitude toward the effectiveness of the United Nations has posed a challenge to the legitimacy of the international system. This strategy has represented not only opposition to Venezuela but also a broader decline in global multilateralism.
The criticism voiced by the leaders of Colombia and Brazil toward this U.S. strategy demonstrated Latin America’s growing tendency to construct its own security discourse. The countries of the region have embarked on a search to move beyond the U.S.-centered security paradigm.
In particular, the reactivation of organizations such as CELAC and UNASUR has been viewed as a precursor to this new period.
President Trump’s speech reinvigorated the discourse of independence and sovereignty in Latin America. For smaller states, this development created a twofold strategic roadmap: to align their policies with Washington’s agenda or to strengthen regional solidarity. In both cases, the U.S. rhetoric of “Venezuelan terrorists” has generated deep diplomatic fault lines across the continent.
This speech coincided with a period in which the concept of “counterterrorism” was being redefined within Latin America’s evolving geopolitical landscape. Phenomena such as drug trafficking, irregular migration, and regional security have come to be understood not solely through the lens of crime prevention, but also as strategic instruments within foreign policy and communication. As a result, this redefinition has significantly influenced regional cooperation dynamics and the direction of national security policies.
In conclusion, President Trump’s reference to “Venezuelan terrorists” reflected the United States’ tendency to expand the scope of its regional security approach. In the short term, this framework defined priority areas within Washington’s security strategy. In the long term, however, it sparked new debates on strengthening Latin American countries’ diplomatic identities and regional cooperation mechanisms.
[i] Ferrer, Elias. “Fact Check: Venezuela in Trump’s UN Speech”, Guacamaya, guacamayave.com/en/fact-check-venezuela-in-trumps-un-speech-2/, (Date Accessed: 05.10.2025).
[ii] Ibid.
[iii] Ibid.
