U.S. Military’s Boat Strike Escalates Tensions With Venezuela
The Trump administration has ramped up pressure on Venezuela through an unprecedented military deployment and use of force in international waters off its coast. Concerns of further escalation have mounted as U.S. officials signal more strikes are likely to come.
Roxanna Vigil is an international affairs fellow in national security at the Council on Foreign Relations, sponsored by Janine and J. Tomilson Hill.
Since late August, the Donald Trump administration has deployed a significant military presence to the Caribbean Sea off the coast of Venezuela. This includes at least eight warships, a submarine, and other assets, along with approximately four thousand Marines and sailors. The mission is part of a new effort to use military force to combat drug cartels that have been designated as foreign terrorist organizations (FTOs), following a secret directive that Trump reportedly signed in July authorizing such action.
The second Trump administration’s policy towards Venezuela began on a conciliatory note with U.S. Special Envoy Richard Grenell’s trip to Caracas on January 31, but since then, it has become increasingly adversarial. The escalation raises questions about broader geopolitical implications, including the potential for further U.S. military actions in the region.
Why did the United States strike an alleged drug vessel off the coast of Venezuela, and will there be more strikes?
On September 2, Trump announced that “U.S. Military Forces conducted a kinetic strike against positively identified Tren de Aragua Narcoterrorists in the SOUTHCOM area of responsibility.” Trump indicated that the strike—which killed eleven people—took place in international waters and was targeting individuals who were transporting drugs to the United States.
In 2024, the U.S. government sanctioned the Venezuela-based Tren de Aragua gang as a transnational criminal organization, citing its involvement in a range of criminal activities, including illegal mining, kidnapping, human trafficking, extortion, and drug trafficking—particularly cocaine. Tren de Aragua was one of eight organizations that the Trump administration designated as FTOs; the others are from Colombia, El Salvador, and Mexico.
The deployment and strike represent a major escalation in the U.S. government’s fight against drug trafficking, which has traditionally relied on the interdiction of vessels suspected of transporting drugs. It also represents a sharp increase in tensions with Venezuela.
A day after the attack, U.S. Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth said that the United States plans to carry out more strikes against drug traffickers designated as terrorists. The Trump administration has also reportedly ordered ten F-35 fighter jets to Puerto Rico as part of its counter-drug and counterterrorism mission in the Caribbean. The jets are expected to arrive this week.
When asked whether regime change is the objective in Venezuela, Trump avoided a direct answer, instead saying that, “we’re not talking about that, but we are talking about the fact that you had an election, which was a very strange election, to put it mildly.” Trump’s comments contrast with the explicit regime change policy of his first term.
In 2019, after Venezuelan leader Nicolás Maduro claimed victory in disputed elections, the United States backed Juan Guaidó, then president of Venezuela’s legislature, as interim president. Soon after, the Trump administration launched a “maximum pressure” campaign that included broad economic sanctions on Venezuela. At the time, U.S. National Security Advisor John Bolton said, “President Trump has been very clear, he wants a peaceful transfer of power to Juan Guaidó.” Maduro was also indicted on narco-terrorism charges during the first Trump administration. To increase pressure, Secretary of State Marco Rubio announced a reward increase of up to $50 million for information that could lead to Maduro’s arrest.
How has Maduro reacted to the escalation?
The Venezuelan leader called the deployment of U.S. military assets to the region “the greatest threat that has been seen on our continent in the last one hundred years.” Days later, he remarked that “none of our differences justify a high-impact military conflict in South America.”
On September 4, the Pentagon issued a statement indicating that two Venezuelan military aircraft flew by a U.S. Navy ship and warning Maduro not to interfere with the U.S. military’s counter-narcotics and counterterrorism operations. Pentagon officials later confirmed a second incident of a Venezuelan aircraft flying by a U.S. Navy vessel. At a press conference the next day, Trump said “if they do put us in a dangerous position, they’ll be shot down.”
In what appears to be an attempt by Maduro to ease tensions, Venezuela’s defense minister announced on September 7 that twenty-five thousand troops have been deployed to Venezuela’s border and coastal regions to combat drug trafficking.
What are the ramifications of further escalation with Venezuela?
Venezuelan emigration. Further escalation, including the U.S. military directly attacking Venezuela, could lead to an increase in migration out of Venezuela. Almost eight million Venezuelans have fled the country since 2014 due to worsening economic, humanitarian, and political crises under Maduro’s rule. Venezuela’s neighbors are hosting most Venezuelan migrants and refugees and would likely bear the brunt of a new wave of migrants caused by further escalation.
U.S. deportations. In March, Washington and Caracas resumed cooperation on the deportation of Venezuelan nationals in the United States. The escalation calls into question whether this cooperation will continue.
In addition, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) announced on September 3 its decision to revoke Temporary Protected Status (TPS) for approximately 250,000 Venezuelans who had been living in the United States prior to 2021. (DHS had already announced the revocation of TPS protections for approximately 350,000 Venezuelans in the United States under a 2023 designation). DHS justified the revocation by stating that conditions in Venezuela have improved “in several areas such as the economy, public health, and crime that allow for these nationals to be safely returned to their home country.” An escalation could worsen conditions in Venezuela, contradicting the justification DHS has used to revoke TPS for Venezuelans.
Economic harm. Further escalation could also impact U.S. business interests in Venezuela, particularly for oil and gas company Chevron, which resumed producing oil in Venezuela and shipping it to the United States in August, according to Reuters. Depending on the scope and frequency of future strikes, a further escalation also carries the potential risk of disrupting legal boat traffic in the Caribbean Sea, to include commercial shipping and ships transiting the Panama Canal or misidentifying a legal boat as a drug boat.
How have other countries reacted?
Reactions from leaders in Latin America and the Caribbean have been mixed. Mexico’s foreign affairs secretary stressed the country’s preference for a “peaceful solution of conflicts” during a press conference with visiting Secretary of State Rubio. When Rubio visited Ecuador, President Daniel Noboa thanked him for the Trump administration’s efforts to “actually eliminate any terrorist threat.”
Beyond the region, Russia, a staunch ally of Venezuela, criticized what it said was the United States putting “blatant pressure” on Venezuela. China, too, publicly condemned the U.S. naval deployment as an “interference of external forces in Venezuela’s internal affairs under any pretext.”
While Trinidad and Tobago’s Prime Minister Kamla Persad-Bissessar praised the U.S. strike, other members of CARICOM—a trade bloc representing fifteen Caribbean countries—have expressed a desire for an open line of communication with the U.S. government to avoid future surprises. Meanwhile, Colombia’s President Gustavo Petro was more critical of the strike, saying that it “violates the universal principle of proportionality of force and results in murder.” Human rights groups have condemned the strike as an extrajudicial killing and called for the White House to provide legal justification.
