Airstrikes and Accountability

Photo via The Wall Street Journal

***

Since early September, the President Donald Trump’s administration has been conducting airstrikes in the Caribbean and eastern Pacific against alleged drug traffickers from Venezuela. Based on the most recent reports, the strikes have killed over 70 people without Due Process or clear evidence. In a post made after the second airstrike, U.S. President Donald Trump wrote that the boats were carrying drugs he characterized as “DEADLY WEAPON[S] POISONING AMERICANS.” He then warned other alleged narcoterrorists that the U.S. is “HUNTING YOU!” 

While these actions have been repeatedly condemned by Democratic lawmakers like Senator Mark Kelly and, most recently, the United Nations, the Trump administration appears to be undeterred. Given the nation’s history of CIA intervention in Latin America during the Cold War—actions that led to economic decline, human rights violations, and devastating loss of life—we should be paying close attention to these airstrikes and holding the administration accountable for the lack of transparency and insufficient democratic procedures. 

On September 2nd, Trump announced on Truth Social that the U.S. had killed 11 “identified Tren de Aragua Narcoterrorists” carrying “illegal narcotics, heading to the United States,” and released a video of the attack. In the post, he claimed the gang, which he described as a “Foreign Terrorist Organization,” is “operating under the control of Nicolas Maduro.”

The Venezuelan President responded to the airstrike shortly before Trump announced another attack, calling it a “heinous crime” and claiming it was “a military attack on civilians who were not at war and were not militarily threatening any country.” During his first term, Trump officials indicted Maduro and other current and former Venezuelan government officials for alleged corrupt involvement with gangs and drug traffickers. Statements made by both sides have remained tense as the airstrikes have continued.

When asked for proof that the boats were in fact carrying illegal drugs, Trump claimed that “[a]ll you have to do is look at the cargo that was spattered all over the ocean—big bags of cocaine and fentanyl all over the place.” The White House and the Pentagon have reportedly provided no evidence to support Trump’s claims. According to research conducted by Colombia, the United States, and the U.N., the majority of cocaine comes from Colombia, Peru, and Bolivia. While some is transported through the Caribbean, the majority enters the United States from the Pacific, which does not border Venezuela. From the way Trump has described this “evidence,” it sounds as though the airstrike occurred before they had proof of narcotics, which would be detrimental to the sanctity of our judicial system. 

However, this disregard for the legal process is not new for Trump. For instance, multiple U.S. citizens and individuals with legitimate legal status have been detained by Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers due to racial profiling. This administration has repeatedly assumed the guilt of individuals from demographic groups it demonized in its campaign and pieced together a case after the fact. 

Whether or not there is evidence of drugs aboard the boats, however, is beside the point. The U.N. Charter prohibits states from using force against other countries without the authorization of the Security Council or a clear and present danger to national security. The Trump administration has justified its attacks by saying the illicit narcotics found on these boats “could ultimately be used to kill Americans.” Amid criticism of the legality of these attacks, Vice President JD Vance made a statement on X, in which he asserted that “[k]illing cartel members who poison our fellow citizens is the highest and best use of our military.”

These airstrikes should alarm us. The administration is acting without congressional approval and with complete disregard for international law. The administration’s claim to Congress that the U.S. is officially engaged in an “armed conflict” is reminiscent of prevalent CIA intervention in Latin America during the Cold War—operations often conducted without Congressional approval and notoriously poorly received. In response to the Soviet connection to Cuba and nationwide communist paranoia, the United States conducted several covert operations to destabilize countries it feared would politically or economically align themselves with communism, Cuba, or the Soviet Union. These American-led regime changes seen in Ecuador, Brazil, Chile, Bolivia, and Panama often resulted in authoritarian dictatorships and “Banana Republics”—nations dominated by U.S. corporations where citizens are subject to labor exploitation, loss of freedom, and numerous human rights violations. 

The difference this time is the publicity. As of now, all of the airstrikes have been publicly shared, suggesting a desire to intimidate and assert American power and authority in the international sphere, which aligns with the new aggressive tariff policy. The administration has denied claims that the attacks are an attempt to overthrow Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro; however, they have simultaneously “deployed 10,000 U.S. troops to the region, amassed at least eight U.S. Navy surface vessels and a submarine around South America’s northern coast, directed B-52 and B-1 bombers to fly near the Venezuelan coastline, and ordered the Gerald R. Ford Carrier Strike Group… to U.S. Southern Command’s area of responsibility.” U.S. military interference with Latin American governments is no longer covert, but proudly advertised.

The crackdown on immigration and drug trafficking is undoubtedly popular with Trump’s MAGA base. Yet on a geopolitical front, Venezuela has the world’s largest oil reserves—oil that has been central in US negotiations since the start of Trump’s second term. According to the  State Department website, the “United States seeks a peaceful restoration of democracy in Venezuela,” and regime change would mean economic and political influence in the region. In addition, Nobel Peace Prize winner and Venezuelan resistance leader, María Corina Machado, has said these “deaths are the responsibility of Nicolás Maduro,” claiming the American airstrikes are justified, and it is up to the Venezuelan president “to prevent more deaths.”

Beyond the international relationship the U.S. is jeopardizing, these airstrikes present a moral dilemma that we, as Americans, must face. From what we know, these attacks were unprovoked and directed at defenseless individuals. Whether or not Maduro should be removed from power does not change the reality that the current administration is killing civilians in the name of saving American hypothetical lives. As the U.N. has said, this violence and the “mounting human cost [is] unacceptable,” and indicative of this administration’s callous disregard for domestic and international law. We have a responsibility to uphold the checks and balances demanded by the Constitution, even if Congress fails to act. 

The United States is not an empire, nor does it have the right to impose its will on other nations unless compelled to intervene in a genuine humanitarian crisis. Yet given the Trump administration’s indifference to the genocide happening in Gaza, it is clear that humanitarian concern is not a motive here, suggesting a deeper and likely more sinister reason for seeking regime change. We have the right to demand better leaders and transparent justification and approval for military action.

The United States government must be held accountable for violating international and ethical law. We cannot allow Donald Trump and his administration to act like a toddler with a hammer, smashing their way across the country and the globe. While the U.S. remains one of the most powerful countries in the world, we are not invincible, and we must remain aware of that fact. British historian Timothy Garton Ash put it this way: “The main problem with American power is the power itself. It would be dangerous even for an archangel to wield so much power.” 

The U.S. is not the poster child for success in education, income equality, healthcare, and other areas. We cannot consider ourselves protected within a fortress of strength when that strength is derived from relations with other nations. Allowing these airstrikes to continue while domestic issues go unaddressed is a betrayal of American interests and a denial of the promises made during Trump’s campaign. We deserve better, and we must fight back when our expectations are not being met and the Constitution is not being upheld.

***

This article was edited by Emma Saliasi and Karol Quinde.