PNN – The current crisis between the United States and Venezuela can be seen as a reflection of a structural transformation in the geopolitical order of the Western Hemisphere; a crisis that goes beyond a temporary conflict over drug trafficking.
In recent weeks, the United States has witnessed a dramatic shift in its foreign policy, a development that many analysts see as a return to the era of Washington’s direct interventions in Latin America. The US armed forces have carried out a series of airstrikes against what the Donald Trump administration calls “drug boats” in the Caribbean and the Pacific Ocean.
The operation resulted in dozens of deaths and the start of a new political and legal crisis. The Trump administration described the attacks as part of a “preemptive war against the merchants of death,” groups that the president claims kill more than 25,000 Americans each year. But American media outlets, including Foreign Policy and the New York Times, have presented another narrative by publishing analyses from prominent experts: Trump’s war on drugs is perhaps more of a political tool to consolidate power at home and expand influence abroad than a security measure.
From Caracas to the Caribbean
John Hultfanger, a professor of economics at the University of Maryland, writes in an article in Foreign Policy that this military operation was carried out without congressional authorization and without informing allies, and is therefore a violation of Trump’s campaign promise to “not start new wars.” He believes that the real purpose of these attacks is not to combat drug trafficking, but rather a covert attempt to overthrow Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro.
From Washington’s perspective, the Caracas government is a source of instability in the region and a symbol of resistance to American influence in the Western Hemisphere. Hultfanger adds that the attacks come at a critical time, when the Trump administration is facing domestic pressures from an economic downturn and corruption cases. In such circumstances, a display of military power abroad can distract public opinion from domestic crises and present the president as a “decisive, anti-crime leader.”
However, the strategy immediately sparked political controversy in Washington. Senate Democrats tried to invoke the War Powers Act to vote to halt the operation, but they narrowly failed. At the same time, several human rights organizations and a group of UN experts considered the airstrikes to be examples of “extrajudicial executions.”
Read more:
Behind the mask of law and invoking presidential powers
The Trump administration has invoked Article II of the U.S. Constitution to defend its actions, which gives the president the power to protect national security. The White House has called Latin American drug cartels “terrorist organizations” that pose a direct threat to the United States. But critics say that interpretation of the law is baseless and dangerous. According to Hultfanger, Congress has never declared war on these groups, and under international law, the drug trade does not constitute an “armed attack” that can be responded to with deadly force.
He points out that Venezuela is not even the main source of fentanyl, the leading cause of drug-related deaths in the United States, and therefore bombing suspicious boats in the Caribbean has no real impact on the drug crisis. Furthermore, destroying the boats from the air, rather than having them seized by the Coast Guard, would eliminate all possible evidence, which reinforces suspicions of cover-up and geopolitical objectives.
According to Wanda Felbab-Brown, a researcher at the Brookings Institution, this “legal loophole” may pave the way for the broader use of military power under the guise of counter narcotics, even on American soil. In this regard, Kenneth Roberts, a professor of political science at Cornell University, warns that by merging the concepts of “terrorism” and “drugs,” Trump has effectively transferred the logic of the war on terror to the war on drugs and has granted himself extraordinary powers; powers that Congress and the judiciary have virtually no oversight over.
Return to widespread interventions
Continuing his analysis, Hultfanger raises a broader geopolitical dimension, noting that Latin American history is full of examples of Washington engaging in direct military intervention under pretexts such as fighting communism, terrorism, or drug trafficking. He believes that the tone of Trump and his advisers is reminiscent of the Monroe Doctrine, a 19th-century doctrine that considered the Western Hemisphere “the exclusive sphere of American influence.” Such thinking, rooted in the Cold War mentality, could pave the way for new tensions with countries in the region and open a new door for the influence of rivals such as China.
Hultfanger points to an incident in September 2025 when a Colombian fisherman was killed in one of these airstrikes. The incident drew a sharp reaction from the Colombian president, but Trump responded by calling him “the head of an illegal drug cartel.” According to a Foreign Policy analyst, this diplomatic crisis reflects a growing rift in America’s traditional relations with its allies in South America.
Legal Obscurity and the Danger of Concentration of Power
Jamil Jafar, a prominent lawyer and executive director of the Knight Institute at Columbia University, examined the legal dimension of the operation in an article in the New York Times. He wrote that the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel issued a confidential memo that considered the raids on drug boats “legal,” but the details were never made public. Jafar warns that this cover-up is reminiscent of the post-9/11 era, when the George W. Bush administration cited similar classified memos to justify torture, mass surveillance, and targeted assassinations. The same office that then authorized the president to use torture in CIA prisons has now issued the legitimacy of deadly naval strikes.
War without declaration, law without borders
Both authors, Haltfanger and Jafar, believe that what is happening in the Caribbean goes beyond anti-smuggling operations; it is a fundamental shift in the logic of American policy: A war without an official declaration, justice without a trial, and a law written not to limit power but to justify it. Wanda Felbab Brown of the Brookings Institution also emphasizes that such operations not only do not reduce the drug trade, but also change the definition of “war.” According to him, the Caribbean has now become a stage for political strife hidden under the moral cover of the war on drugs. Although Trump and his advisers cite the operation as a step in “defending the nation,” its consequences show that America is once again moving toward the same old pattern: military expansionism in the name of security and the expansion of influence under the guise of law.
Conclusion
The current crisis between the United States and Venezuela can be seen as a reflection of a structural transformation in the geopolitical order of the Western Hemisphere; a crisis that has evolved beyond a temporary conflict over drug trafficking into a fundamental competition for influence, energy, and political legitimacy. US naval attacks in the Caribbean are not simply an act of “preemptive defense,” but part of Washington’s larger strategy to regain control of its historic “backyard.”
Domestically, Trump is trying to use the drug crisis to rebuild an authoritarian image and legitimize his aggressive foreign policy, while from a legal perspective, this operation conflicts with the principles of the UN Charter and the law of war powers. The regional response to this crisis is also a sign of the gradual multipolarization of Latin America, where governments like Brazil and Mexico are no longer willing to unquestioningly obey Washington.