Trump escalates war on narcoterrorism with military actions in Caribbean

The United States government, under Donald Trump’s leadership, announced an aggressive offensive against narcoterrorism, with direct military measures to curb drug trafficking in Latin America. On September 3, 2025, during a visit to Mexico City, Secretary of State Marco Rubio stated that the country has the right to eliminate imminent threats, signaling the continuation of actions like the lethal attack on a boat allegedly linked to the Venezuelan criminal organization Tren de Aragua. The meeting with Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum resulted in agreements to form high-level groups to monitor joint actions against drug trafficking. The strategy marks a significant escalation in U.S. foreign policy, with implications for countries like Mexico and Venezuela, while sparking debates over sovereignty and legality.

The statement from Rubio followed a military strike in the southern Caribbean, where U.S. forces destroyed a vessel allegedly transporting drugs to the United States. The incident, which occurred in international waters, resulted in the deaths of 11 people, described by Trump as “narcoterrorists.” The action was justified as part of a new approach combining advanced intelligence and military force to dismantle criminal networks.

• Recent U.S. actions: Strike on a boat in the Caribbean, deployment of warships, and 4,500 troops in the region.
• Trump’s statement: Designation of Mexican cartels and gangs like Tren de Aragua as terrorist organizations.
• Mexico-U.S. meeting: Commitment to cooperation in combating drug and arms trafficking.

The belligerent U.S. stance reflects a shift in anti-drug strategy, now prioritizing lethal operations over mere interceptions.

New approach to combating drug trafficking

Trump’s policy against narcoterrorism represents a break from traditional tactics, which focused on seizures and police cooperation. According to Rubio, intercepting drug shipments is insufficient, as traffickers view such losses as part of their business. During the press conference in Mexico City, he stated that the only way to stop cartels is through drastic actions, such as the physical elimination of their members. The Caribbean strike was described by Rubio as a clear warning to criminal groups operating on maritime routes.

The Trump administration designated six Mexican cartels, along with gangs like Tren de Aragua and Mara Salvatrucha, as terrorist organizations. This classification allows for more aggressive military and financial measures, such as asset freezes and sanctions on individuals or institutions linked to these groups. The strategy also includes deploying seven warships, 4,500 troops, and a nuclear submarine to the southern Caribbean, as well as P-8 spy plane overflights in international waters.

• Targeted cartels: Jalisco New Generation Cartel, Sinaloa Cartel, Gulf Cartel, La Nueva Familia Michoacana, Northwest Cartel, and United Cartels.
• International gangs: Tren de Aragua (Venezuela) and Mara Salvatrucha (Central America).
• Financial measures: Asset freezes and blocking access to the international banking system.
• Military mobilization: Warships, submarines, and spy planes to monitor trafficking routes.

However, the approach raises concerns about the legality of military actions in foreign territories or waters, especially without prior consent.

Regional reactions to U.S. offensive

The U.S. offensive has sparked mixed reactions in Latin America. In Mexico, President Claudia Sheinbaum adopted a cooperative stance but firmly rejected any military intervention on Mexican soil. During the meeting with Rubio, she highlighted the extradition of 55 cartel leaders to the U.S. and increased fentanyl seizures as evidence of Mexico’s commitment. Nonetheless, Sheinbaum emphasized national sovereignty, stating that Mexico will not bow to external pressures.

In Venezuela, President Nicolás Maduro labeled U.S. actions as the greatest threat to Latin America in a century. He accused Washington of fabricating evidence, such as the video of the boat strike, and mobilized Bolivarian militias to defend the country. Maduro also questioned the U.S. focus on Venezuela, noting that countries like Colombia and Ecuador are more significant drug trafficking routes, according to UN reports.

• Mexico’s stance: Cooperation with the U.S. but rejection of military interventions.
• Venezuela’s response: Military mobilization and accusations of manipulated footage.
• Colombia’s criticism: President Gustavo Petro condemned the strike as a violation of proportionality.
• Ecuador as an ally: Discussions with Rubio to strengthen anti-drug trafficking efforts.

Tensions between the U.S. and Venezuela escalated with a $50 million reward for information leading to Maduro’s capture, accused of leading the alleged Cartel de los Soles. However, analysts dispute the existence of a centralized leadership in this group, describing it as a decentralized network of Venezuelan military and political figures.

Military strategy and legal implications

Trump’s decision to authorize military operations against cartels abroad, as reported by the New York Times in August 2025, sets a dangerous precedent. The executive order signed by the president gives the Pentagon legal grounds to conduct strikes in foreign territories under the guise of combating terrorist organizations. However, experts warn that such actions may violate international law, particularly if carried out without the consent of affected countries.

Retired Rear Admiral James E. McPherson noted that the use of military force without permission could be considered a serious violation. Additionally, the lack of transparency about the Caribbean strike, such as details on the type of projectile used or the nationality of the boat’s occupants, fuels criticism regarding the proportionality of the action. Colombian President Gustavo Petro called the bombing an “assassination,” arguing that drug interdiction should prioritize non-lethal captures.

• Questioned legal basis: Trump’s executive order for the use of force against cartels.
• Lack of transparency: No public evidence about the contents of the attacked boat.
• International criticism: Violation of the principle of proportionality in the use of force.
• Risks of escalation: Potential retaliation from cartels and gangs.

The strategy may also complicate bilateral relations with Latin American countries, particularly Mexico and Venezuela, which view the actions as a threat to sovereignty.

Mexico-U.S. cooperation and future challenges

Despite tensions, the Rubio-Sheinbaum meeting resulted in commitments to strengthen bilateral cooperation. The two countries established high-level groups to meet regularly to combat drug and arms trafficking, dismantle clandestine border tunnels, and disrupt illicit financial flows. Rubio praised the “historic cooperation” with Mexico, highlighting the extradition of criminals and increased inspections.

Sheinbaum faces the challenge of balancing U.S. pressure with defending Mexican sovereignty. The militarization of the border, with 1,500 U.S. troops, and Trump’s threats to impose tariffs on Mexico add complexity to negotiations. The Mexican president maintains a discourse of collaboration but categorically rejects any military intervention, a stance supported by opposition groups like the PAN party, which also condemned “foreign interventionism.”

• Bilateral commitments: High-level groups to monitor anti-drug actions.
• Border militarization: 1,500 U.S. troops and increased fentanyl seizures.
• Mexican sovereignty: Rejection of military interventions and focus on cooperation.
• Economic pressure: Threats of tariffs and mass deportations by Trump.

The U.S.’s new approach to narcoterrorism, while effective in demonstrating force, faces criticism for its aggressiveness and lack of coordination with regional allies.

Geopolitics and strategic interests

Trump’s offensive against narcoterrorism also reflects broader geopolitical interests. Designating cartels as terrorist organizations and focusing on Venezuela suggest a strategy to pressure Maduro’s government, accused by the U.S. of running a narco-state. However, UN reports indicate that Venezuela accounts for only 10% to 13% of global cocaine trafficking, while countries like Colombia and Ecuador play more significant roles.

Rubio’s upcoming visit to Ecuador, where he will meet President Daniel Noboa, signals an effort to build a regional coalition against drug trafficking. Ecuador, which has seen its homicide rate soar due to drug trafficking, has become a strategic U.S. ally. Maduro questioned this alliance, noting that the U.S. overlooks Pacific routes, more commonly used by traffickers, in favor of a narrative centered on Venezuela.

• Focus on Venezuela: Accusations against Maduro and a $50 million reward.
• Alliance with Ecuador: Meeting with Noboa to discuss security and drug trafficking.
• UN reports: Venezuela accounts for a smaller share of global cocaine trafficking.
• Geopolitical interests: Pressure on leftist governments in Latin America.

The U.S. strategy thus combines anti-drug efforts with political objectives, such as destabilizing adversarial regimes, which may heighten regional tensions.