Beyond the Media: What Is the Trump Administration Seeking with a Military Strike on Venezuela?
webangah news agency, International Desk: In recent weeks, the United States has witnessed a notable turnaround in its foreign policy-one that many analysts view as a return to Washington’s era of direct interventions in Latin America. The U.S. armed forces have carried out a series of air strikes against what the Trump administration labels ”drug-running boats” in the Caribbean Sea and Pacific Ocean.
The outcome of these operations has resulted in dozens of deaths and sparked a new political and legal crisis. The Trump administration described these attacks as part of a “preemptive war against death dealers,” groups that, according to President Trump, claim more than 25,000 American lives annually. However, major U.S.media outlets including Foreign Policy and The New York times have published analyses from leading experts presenting an alternative narrative: Trump’s drug war may be less about security measures and more about political maneuvering to consolidate domestic power and expand influence abroad.
From Caracas to the Caribbean
John Haltiwanger, an economics professor at the university of Maryland writing for Foreign Policy, notes that these military operations were conducted without congressional authorization or informing U.S. allies. This breaches Trump’s campaign promise not to initiate new wars. Haltiwanger argues that the true objective behind these strikes is not combating drug trafficking but covert efforts to overthrow Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro.
Washington views Maduro’s government as both a destabilizing force in the region and a symbol of resistance against American influence in the Western Hemisphere.Haltiwanger adds that these strikes occurred at a critical moment when Trump faced internal pressures due to economic recession and corruption scandals. In this context, projecting military strength abroad diverts public attention from domestic crises while portraying the president as a strong anti-crime leader.
Still, this approach immediately ignited political controversy within Washington.Senate Democrats invoked the War Powers Resolution attempting to halt these operations but narrowly failed to pass it. Simultaneously,several human rights organizations along with UN experts classified these air strikes as extrajudicial killings.
Behind Legal Facades: Presidential Authority Invoked
The Trump administration justifies its actions by citing Article II of the U.S. Constitution granting presidential authority over national security matters. From White House perspective, Latin american drug cartels are “terrorist organizations” posing direct threats to national security. Critics argue this legal interpretation is unfounded and dangerous; Haltiwanger emphasizes Congress never formally declared war on such groups nor does international law recognize drug trafficking as an ”armed attack” warranting lethal force.
He further points out Venezuela is not even considered one of main sources for fentanyl-the key driver behind overdose deaths in America-making aerial bombardment of suspected vessels ineffective against broader narcotics challenges in practice.
Additionally, destroying boats by air rather than intercepting them through Coast Guard seizures eliminates potential evidence, reinforcing suspicions about cover-ups linked with geopolitical agendas.
Brookings Institution researcher Wanda Felbab-Brown warns this “legal gray zone” could open paths toward increased military powers under anti-drug rhetoric-even domestically within U.S.-while Cornell University political scientist Kenneth Roberts cautions trump’s fusion between “terrorism” and “drugs” extends counterterrorism logic into narcotics enforcement unchecked by Congress or judiciary oversight.
A Return To Broad Interventions
Haltiwanger expands his analysis highlighting longstanding patterns across Latin American history where Washington justified direct military interventions with claims ranging from anti-communism through counter-terrorism or anti-narcotics campaigns.
He sees echoes today reminiscent of Monroe Doctrine-era thinking-from 19th century-that treated Western Hemisphere exclusively as america’s sphere of influence.
Such Cold War-rooted mindset risks fueling renewed tensions within regional states while providing openings for rivals like China seeking footholds amid growing multipolarity there.
The analyst cites an incident from September 2025 during one such air strike when Colombian fisherman was killed-a move triggering sharp condemnation by colombia’s president who was rebuffed by Trump branding him “head of an illegal drug cartel.” Foreign Policy interprets this diplomatic fallout as emblematic example highlighting widening rifts between conventional U.S.-South American alliances amid changing regional dynamics.
This stance undermines Washington’s international legitimacy while transforming America’s image away from defender-of-law toward perceived violator-of-law roles on global stage according to Haltiwanger’s assessment.
Legal Cover-Up And danger Of Concentrated Power
Jamil Jafar, prominent lawyer and executive director at Columbia University’s Knight Institute analyzed legal dimensions behind these operations in The New York Times article.
He revealed confidential Justice Department memos classify attacks on suspected illicit vessels as lawful yet remain undisclosed publicly.
Jafar warns parallels exist with post-9/11 clandestine authorizations used during George W Bush era enabling torture programs,
mass surveillance,and targeted killings-activities similarly shielded under secretive justifications approved then by DOJ counsel now empowering lethal naval assaults today.
In Obama years too similar approaches allowed extrajudicial killings targeting allegedly terrorist-linked Americans outside judicial checks.
Accordingly,“The main danger isn’t simply military actions themselves but accumulation of unchecked power within presidency cloaked under national security pretenses.”
When presidents can authorize killing without openness or oversight democracy loses meaning entirely. This calls urgent demands requiring federal courts force DOJ immediate publication preventing such historic abuses becoming normalized Jafar stresses:“Continuing along current trajectory erodes democratic institutions internally placing presidents above law.”.....
‘Declared War Without Declaration,’ Boundless Law’/P>
Both authors John Haltfenger & Jamil Jafar agree ongoing events unfolding throughout Caribbean symbolize fundamental conversion underway defining new contours US policy logic: undeclared war; justice bypassing trials; laws designed not restricting power but rationalizing it instead.’
‘Brookings’ Wanda Felbab-Brown similarly emphasizes said operations fail reduce narcotics trade effectively while reconfiguring ‘war’ concept itself amidst politicized battles masquerading beneath moralised anti-drugs ceiling.’
‘Although US administration portrays activities emphasizing ‘national defense’ advances message exposes deeper trend tending towards traditional militaristic expansion covered via guise of security concerns plus legal instruments rounding external influences.’
‘Conclusion’/P>
The ongoing US-Venezuela crisis epitomizes systemic realignment reshaping western hemisphere geopolitics transforming fleeting combat over drugs into profound competition involving influence zones energy resources alongside claims over political legitimacy alike.’
‘American sea raids across Caribbean represent not mere “preemptive self-defense” moves but integral strands woven inside larger strategy aiming reclaim exclusive control Judea established historical backyard.’
Domestically simultaneously occurring’, former President strives manipulating drug wars bolster authoritarian image buttressing assertive foreign policy agenda which legally conflicts principles charters governing international behavior plus congressional wartime mandates.’
‘Regionally repercussions reflect evolving multipolarity marking South America’s wider independence seen increasingly among states such Brazil Mexico rejecting unconditional subservience upon former hegemon Washington adopting autonomy marking shifting global alignments.’
