CNN: Was fatal US strike on Venezuelan ‘drug boat’ legal?

A strike carried out by US forces on a boat in the Caribbean Sea – which the White House says killed 11 drug traffickers – may have violated international human rights and maritime law, legal experts have told BBC Verify.

President Donald Trump announced on Tuesday that US forces destroyed a vessel which he said had departed from Venezuela. He said the boat was operated by the Tren de Aragua cartel and was carrying drugs bound for the US.

US defence officials have so far declined to offer details on the strike, footage of which Trump shared on Truth Social, including what legal authority they relied upon to justify it.

BBC Verify reached out to a range of experts in international and maritime law, with several saying that US may have acted illegally in attacking the vessel.

The US is not a signatory to United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, but the US military’s legal advisors have previously said that the US should “act in a manner consistent with its provisions”.

Under the convention, countries agree not to interfere with vessels operating in international waters. There are limited exceptions to this which allow a state to seize a ship, such as a “hot pursuit” where a vessel is chased from a country’s waters into the high seas.

“Force can be used to stop a boat but generally this should be non-lethal measures,” Prof Luke Moffett of Queens University Belfast said.

But he added that the use of aggressive tactics must be “reasonable and necessary in self-defence where there is immediate threat of serious injury or loss of life to enforcement officials”, noting that the US moves were likely “unlawful under the law of the sea”.

Are US strikes on alleged cartel members legal?

Experts have also questioned whether the killing of the alleged members of the Tren de Aragua cartel could contravene international law on the use of force.

Under Article 2(4) of the UN charter, countries can resort to force when under attack and deploying their military in self-defence. Trump has previously accused the Tren de Aragua cartel of conducting irregular warfare against the US, and the state department has designated the group as a Foreign Terrorist Organisation.

But Prof Michael Becker of Trinity College Dublin told BBC Verify that the US actions “stretches the meaning of the term beyond its breaking point”.

“The fact that US officials describe the individuals killed by the US strike as narco-terrorists does not transform them into lawful military targets,” he said. “The US is not engaged in an armed conflict with Venezuela or the Tren de Aragua criminal organization.”

“Not only does the strike appear to have violated the prohibition on the use of force, it also runs afoul of the right to life under international human rights law.”

Prof Moffett said that the use of force in this case could amount to an “extrajudicial arbitrary killing” and “a fundamental violation of human rights”.

“Labelling everyone a terrorist does not make them a lawful target and enables states to side-step international law,” he said.

Notre Dame Law School Professor Mary Ellen O’Connell told BBC Verify that the strike “violated fundamental principles of international law”, adding: “Intentional killing outside armed conflict hostilities is unlawful unless it is to save a life immediately.”

“Sometimes armed groups waging war against governments deal in drugs to pay for their participation in conflict. There is no evidence the gang President Trump targeted is such a group.”

But US officials have been quick to defend the strike. Republican Senator Lindsay Graham wrote on X that the strike was the “ultimate – and most welcome – sign that we have a new sheriff in town”.

His fellow Republican senator, Bernie Moreno from Ohio, wrote: “Sinking this boat saved American lives. To the narco traffickers and the narco dictators, you’ll eventually get the same treatment.”

A White House official told BBC Verify that Trump had authorised the strike on the boat, which they said was crewed by Tren de Aragua members, after it left Venezuela. The official added that the president was committed to using all means to prevent drugs reaching the US.

The Pentagon has declined to share the legal advice it obtained before carrying out the strike.

US Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth told Fox News: “we’ve got incredible assets and they are gathering in the region… those 11 drug traffickers are no longer with us, sending a very clear signal that this is an activity the United States is not going to tolerate in our hemisphere.”

Can Trump launch attacks without Congressional approval?

Questions have also been raised as to whether the White House complied with US law in authorising the strike. The US constitution says that only Congress has the power to declare war.

However, Article II – which lays out the president’s powers – says that “the president shall be Commander in Chief of the Army” and some constitutional experts have suggested that this grants the president the power to authorise strikes against military targets. Trump administration sources have previously cited this provision when defending US strikes on Iran.

But it is unclear whether that provision extends to the use of force against non-state actors such as drug cartels.

Rumen Cholakov, an expert in US constiutional law at King’s College London told BBC Verify that since 9/11, US presidents have relied on the 2001 Authorization of Use of Military Force Act (AUMF) when carrying out strikes against groups responsible for the attacks.

“Its scope has been expanded consistently in subsequent administrations,” he added. “It is not immediately obvious that drug cartels such as Tren de Aragua would be within the President’s AUMF powers, but that might be what “narco-terrorists” is hinting at.”

Questions also remain as to whether Trump complied with the War Powers Resolution, which demands that the president “in every possible instance shall consult with Congress before introducing United States Armed Forces into hostilities”.

How did the US conduct the strike?

It is unclear what method the US used to launch the attack. Trump did not offer details in his news conference in the Oval Office and the Department of Defense has failed to offer further information.

In Venezuela President Maduro has yet to respond to the US strikes, but his Communications Minister Freddy Ñáñez has suggested that the footage released by the White House may have been generated using AI. In a post to X, he suggested that water in the video “looks very stylized and unnatural”.

BBC Verify has run the clip through SynthID – Google’s AI detection software – and found no evidence that the footage is fake.

The strikes come amid reports that the US has deployed several naval warships to the region in support of anti-narcotics operations against Venezuela.

We’ve not been able to track all of these vessels. But using information from publicly-available onboard trackers, and videos on social media, we’ve potentially identified four of them in the region.

A ship identifying itself as the USS Lake Erie – a guided missile cruiser – last transmitted its location in the Caribbean Sea on 30 August, east of the Panama Canal on 30 August.

Two others identifying themselves as the USS Gravely and USS Jason Dunham last transmitted their locations in mid-August, at the American base in Guantanamo Bay. A fourth, the USS Fort Lauderdale, transmitted its location north of the Dominican Republic on 28 August.

Trump – who has long sought to oust Venezuela’s President Nicolás Maduro – has authorised a US$50m reward for any information leading to his arrest. The Venezuelan leader claimed victory in last year’s elections, widely viewed as rigged by international observers.

The consensus seems to be that it was illegal. Only Trump’s merry band of misfits, suck-ups, and sycophants seems to think otherwise.

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cdjzw3gplv7o

Newsweek: Will Venezuela be the first target of Trump’s new MAGA Monroe Doctrine?

President Donald Trump‘s deployment of warships off the coast of Venezuela and authorization for the use of force against drug trafficking organizations is fueling speculation of potential military action looming in South America.

However, the White House’s moves also speak to a broader shift in policy focus under Trump’s “America First” movement that envisions the Americas as a whole as part of the U.S. zone of interest, an outlook reminiscent of the 200-year-old Monroe Doctrine that served as the basis for U.S. intervention against European colonialism and communist expansion across the region.

With Venezuela and its leftist leader, President Nicolás Maduro, now in the crosshairs, experts and former officials see the dawn of a new era of U.S. power projection across the Western Hemisphere.

“This massive show of force is consistent with the administration’s efforts to assert dominance in the Western Hemisphere, reviving the Monroe Doctrine that declared the region to be uniquely a U.S. sphere of influence,” Cynthia Arnson, a leading Latin America expert serving as adjunct professor at Johns Hopkins School of Advanced and International Studies, told Newsweek.

‘Gunboat Diplomacy’

Arnson warned of the potential regional consequences of such an approach, noting how just because “many Latin American democracies would welcome the end of the Maduro regime, that doesn’t mean that they are lining up to applaud a 21st century version of gunboat diplomacy.”

Observers have debated whether or not the recent naval build-up in the waters of South and Central America would serve as a prelude to real action or constituted mere posturing, meant to deliver a message to Maduro who the U.S. has accused of being complicit in drug trafficking.

Arnson argued that “the utility of such a huge deployment in fighting drug trafficking is questionable, although there undoubtedly will be some seizures that the administration will tout to justify the exercise of military force.”

She added: “The number of troops deployed, although large, is not sufficient to invade Venezuela with the aim of toppling the government.”

José Cárdenas, a former National Security Council and U.S. State Department official who has dealt extensively with Latin America policy, said the latest moves would prove far more than showmanship.

“It would be a mistake to consider the U.S. naval deployment off the Venezuelan coast ‘business as usual’ or mere political theater,” Cárdenas, who today is a principal at the Cormac Group consulting firm, told Newsweek. “It is too big, powerful, and costly for that.”

“Rather,” he added, “it is a signal by the Trump administration that the status quo—Venezuela as a hub for transnational organized crime and a regional destabilizer through mass migration—is no longer tenable.”

Believe What He Says, or Else’

Cárdenas spoke of a “wide range of options” available to the Trump administration, short of a “full-scale invasion” that could effect change in Venezuela.

For one, he felt “it is likely the U.S. is in contact with Venezuelan military personnel not involved in narco-trafficking and others in charge of guns to state that if they don’t remove Maduro from power the U.S. is prepared to unleash an asymmetric offensive that could consume them as well.”

“The Trump administration has carefully constructed a policy rationale that this is not ‘regime change’ for the sake of exporting democracy to the world’s benighted peoples,” Cárdenas said. “It is a national security initiative meant to eliminate a source of tons of cocaine from entering the United States. Main Street, USA, can identify with that.”

He also said that plans were likely already set in place, and any upcoming action would serve to send a message to great power competitors such as China and Russia, which U.S. officials have long warned were gaining influence in the Western Hemisphere.

“Credibility, moreover, is the cornerstone of Donald Trump’s foreign policy. Believe what he says, or else. There is no climb-down from the current deployment,” Cárdenas said. “No doubt anti-American despots in Moscow, Beijing, and elsewhere are watching the unfolding action in the Southern Caribbean carefully.”

When reached for comment, the White House referred Newsweek to remarks made by press secretary Karoline Leavitt during a press conference last week.

“What I’ll say with respect to Venezuela, President Trump has been very clear and consistent,” Leavitt said at the time. “He’s prepared to use every element of American power to stop drugs from flooding into our country and to bring those responsible to justice.”

She continued: “The Maduro regime is not the legitimate government of Venezuela, it is a narco-terror cartel. And Maduro, it is the view of this administration, is not a legitimate president. He’s a fugitive head of this cartel who has been indicted in the United States for trafficking drugs into the country.”

The Pentagon, meanwhile, shared with Newsweek a statement attributed to chief spokesperson Sean Parnell.

“On day one of the Trump Administration, the President published an Executive Order designating drug cartels as Foreign Terrorist Organizations, clearly identifying them as a direct threat to the national security of the United States,” Parnell said. “These cartels have engaged in historic violence and terror throughout our Hemisphere—and around the globe—that has destabilized economies and internal security of countries but also flooded the United States with deadly drugs, violent criminals, and vicious gangs.”

He added: “This requires a whole-of-government effort and through coordination with regional partners, the Department of Defense will undoubtedly play an important role towards meeting the President’s objective to eliminate the ability of these cartels to threaten the territory, safety, and security of the United States and its people. As a matter of security and policy we do not speculate on future operations.”

‘Competing Factions’

The brewing crisis is not the first time Trump has sought to unseat Maduro from power, and instead marks the latest episode in a downturn in ties between Washington and Caracas that came about after the Venezuelan leader’s predecessor, Hugo Chávez, rose to power through elections in 1999.

Chávez, who would accuse the U.S. of supporting a brief coup against him in 2002, kickstarted what he and his supporters refer to as a Bolivarian Revolution of social and economic reforms that sought to channel 19th-century anti-Spanish colonial leader Simón Bolívar. Somewhat ironically, Bolívar during his time welcomed U.S. President James Monroe’s 1823 declaration of a new doctrine against European imperialism in the Americas.

Yet Washington’s strategy grew increasingly interventionist over the ages, with the U.S. aiding governments and rebels against communist movements across Latin America during the Cold War.

Chávez’s socialist movement emerged from the ashes of this era, painting the U.S. as a new imperialist hegemon seeking to assert its influence across the region. At home, his policies—bolstered by soaring oil prices—initially led to a massive boom in Venezuela’s economic outlook, yet by the time of his 2013 death from cancer, a mix of runaway public spending, economic mismanagement and sanctions had substantially undercut stability, and a subsequent fall in oil prices from 2014 deepened the crisis.

The political situation also escalated in January 2019, as Maduro’s reelection was challenged by critics and rejected by a number of foreign leaders, including Trump, who began a “maximum pressure” campaign against Venezuela during his first term. An opposition coup led by U.S.-backed National Assembly leader Juan Guaidó was attempted that April only to end in failure.

Like Chávez, Maduro would emerge victorious and went on to easily repel a plot hatched the following year involving dozens of dissidents, as well as at least two former U.S. Green Berets operating as private military contractors.

Tom Shannon, a career diplomat who served as undersecretary for political affairs during the Trump administration, noted how past errors have likely informed the president’s thinking as he grapples with conflicting movements in his second administration.

“When he decides to begin his maximum pressure campaign in Venezuela and recognizes Juan Guaidó as the interim president of Venezuela and slaps on secondary sanctions on oil and gas and even attempts to generate a military coup against Maduro, all of which fail, he does this on the advice of people who were advising him on Venezuela, including the current Secretary of State,” Shannon told Newsweek.

“And they were wrong, and he knows they were wrong,” Shannon, now senior international policy adviser at Arnold & Porter law firm, added.

Upon taking office in January, Trump took a different approach. He sent special envoy Richard Grenell to strike a deal in Caracas, specifically to negotiate the release of imprisoned U.S. citizens and secure a license for oil giant Chevron to resume operations in the country.

Trump went on to revoke this license, a move Shannon pointed out took place as the president sought to secure votes for his “Big, Beautiful Bill,” only to reinstate it once again last month.

“I think part of the confusion is that there are competing factions around the president,” Shannon said. “You have [Secretary of State Marco] Rubio, who would love to do the strike, but then there’s people like [Treasury Secretary] Scott Bessent, whose attitude is, ‘You’re out of your mind.'”

Noting how “Venezuela is sitting on the largest reserves of oil and gas in the world, and OFAC [Office of Foreign Assets Control], through its licensing process, gets to control who works in the oil and gas sector,” Shannon argued that if U.S. or European companies were licensed to work in the country, foreign competitors, including some of the nations viewed as hostile to U.S. interests, would be expelled.

“The Chinese are out. The Iranians are out. The Russians are out,” Shannon said of such a scenario. “We control the oil and gas. And guess what? We get to repatriate some of our earnings.”

‘You Should Use Your Power’

Yet the fight for resources does not entirely encapsulate the stakes over Venezuela, nor the administration’s interest in the country.

Trump’s Western Hemisphere doctrine includes pressure campaigns against a host of nations, including otherwise friendly U.S. neighbors Canada and Mexico, as well as territorial ambitions to seize control of foreign-owned territory like Greenland and the Panama Canal.

Drug cartels, from Mexico to Venezuela, are the latest target of Trump’s rhetoric as he portrays a battle against an “invasion” of narcotics, including fentanyl produced with precursors exported by China.

“He has said he is going to use American power to protect American interests, and he is not tied by diplomatic niceties, or by practice, or even by what we could consider to be the norms of international law,” Shannon said. “He believes that if you are powerful, you should use your power.”

He continued: “He’s focused on drug trafficking, cartels, gangs, whatever you want to call them, because first of all, for him, they’re a political winner. He knows that there is broad support in the United States for the use of the American military and intelligence capabilities against these entities that, in his mind, present a very real threat to the United States, to Americans.”

But Shannon also alluded to the costs of a more assertive position in a region that, despite its complex relationship with Washington, has largely courted U.S. influence and investment. In the globalized 21st century, unlike two centuries ago, he argued that the Trump administration may be better suited to bring China-style infrastructure deals than warships and tariffs to win over South America.

“If there is a new Monroe Doctrine, it’s kind of emasculated in the sense that the president is not bringing what you need to the game in order to win,” he said.

The ‘Ultimate Arbiter’

The dissonance in Trump’s “peace through strength” approach is not lost on his support base. A number of influential voices in the president’s populist “Make America Great Again” (MAGA) movement voiced displeasure toward his decision in June to conduct limited yet unprecedented strikes against Iranian nuclear facilities and some continue to criticize his continued support for Israel’s ongoing wars in the region.

Francisco Rodríguez, senior research fellow at the Center for Economic and Policy Research, said the Trump administration was looking only to mount a “credible threat of force” that “some hardline opposition figures and Washington hawks” believed “could be enough to push Venezuela’s military to abandon Maduro.”

Yet he said that a similar approach to Trump’s isolated strikes on Iran “cannot be ruled out,” citing former U.S. Defense Secretary Mark Esper‘s memoir in recounting how “targeted strikes on Venezuelan military installations were seriously discussed at the cabinet level” back in 2019.

Today, “some of the same hawkish voices who favored such strikes are again influential in Venezuela policy,” Rodríguez told Newsweek.

And Rodríguez saw neither contradiction nor incoherence in what he called the “broader Trumpian assertion of hemispheric dominance in line with a MAGA interpretation of the Monroe Doctrine,” despite “the coexistence of that vision with a pronounced aversion, in some MAGA circles, to costly military involvement abroad.”

“Rather, it reflects the dynamics of a personalistic regime in which competing factions with divergent preferences overlap, leaving the final decision to the chief executive,” Rodríguez said. “That enhances Trump’s authority as ultimate arbiter, but it also makes policy unpredictable and inconsistent.”

He added: “The Venezuela case illustrates this perfectly: announcing the deployment of warships while simultaneously authorizing Chevron to expand its oil dealings in the country. It is almost as if, after placing a bounty on bin Laden, Washington had turned around and licensed Halliburton to do infrastructure projects with his family business in Afghanistan.”

https://www.newsweek.com/will-venezuela-first-target-trumps-new-maga-monroe-doctrine-2121883

Talking Points Memo: The ‘Invasion’ Invention: The Far Right’s Long Legal Battle to Make Immigrants the Enemy

The Trump administration is using the claim that immigrants have “invaded” the country to justify possibly suspending habeas corpus, part of the constitutional right to due process. A faction of the far right has been building this case for years.

When top Trump adviser Stephen Miller threatened on May 9 that the administration is “actively looking at” suspending habeas corpus in response to an “invasion” from undocumented immigrants, he was operating on a fringe legal theory that a right-wing faction has been working to legitimize for more than a decade.

Hard-liners have referred to immigrants as “invaders” as long as the U.S. has had immigration. By 2022, invasion rhetoric, which had previously been relegated to white nationalist circles, had become such a staple of Republican campaign ads that most of the public agreed an invasion of the U.S. via the southern border was underway.

Now, however, the claim that the U.S. is under invasion has become the legal linchpin of President Donald Trump’s sweeping anti-immigrant campaign.

The claim is Trump’s central justification for invoking the Alien Enemies Act to deport roughly 140 Venezuelans to CECOT, the Salvadoran megaprison, without due process. (The administration cited different legal authority for the remaining deportees.) The Trump administration contends they are members of a gang, Tren de Aragua, that Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro is directing to infiltrate and operate in the United States. Lawyers and families of many of the deportees have presented evidence the prisoners are not even members of Tren de Aragua.

The contention is also the throughline of Trump’s day one executive order “Protecting the American People Against Invasion.” That document calls for the expansion of immigration removal proceedings without court hearings and for legal attacks against sanctuary jurisdictions, places that refuse to commit local resources to immigration enforcement.

So far, no court has bought the idea that the U.S. is truly under invasion….

And therein lies the problem: The Trump regime is off pursuing an unconstitutional tangent to solve a problem that is improperly framed as an “invasion”.

It’s a long well-researched article. Please click on the link below and read the entire article.

https://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/the-invasion-invention-the-far-rights-long-legal-battle-to-make-immigrants-the-enemy

Associated Press: 2-year-old girl reunites with her mother in Venezuela after US deportation

A 2-year-old girl arrived Wednesday in Caracas to reunite with her mother after she was separated from her parents when they were deported from the U.S. in what Venezuela denounced as a kidnapping.

Maikelys Espinoza arrived at an airport outside the capital, Caracas, along with more than 220 deported migrants. Footage aired by state television showed Venezuela’s first lady Cilia Flores carrying Maikelys at the airport. Later, Flores was shown handing the girl over to her mother, who had been waiting for her arrival at the presidential palace along with President Nicolás Maduro.

The U.S. government had claimed the family separation last month was justified because the girl’s parents allegedly have ties to the Venezuelan-based Tren de Aragua gang, which U.S. President Donald Trump designated a terrorist organization earlier this year.

The girl’s mother was deported to Venezuela on April 25. Meanwhile, U.S. authorities sent her father to a maximum-security prison in El Salvador in March under Trump’s invocation of an 18th-century wartime law to deport hundreds of immigrants.

https://apnews.com/article/venezuela-deportations-trump-maikelys-maduro-migrants-89caaeed43cfb92369626435bfa6483e

Venezuelans sent by Trump to El Salvador had signed paperwork to go home

Families and activists say deportees signed documents to return to Venezuela but were sent to Salvadoran jail instead

Venezuelans deported from the US to El Salvador in a case that has become a legal flashpoint for Donald Trump’s US administration had signed documents agreeing to be returned to their home country, according to families of some of the deportees and a campaign group.

Two families of men on the now notorious Saturday flights to El Salvador told the Financial Times their relatives had signed what appeared to be voluntary deportation orders in exchange for returning to Venezuela sooner.

But their families later spotted them in videos posted by El Salvador’s President Nayib Bukele that showed them in his country in chains, claiming they were violent gang members.

Kelvi Zambrano, co-ordinator for the US-based Venezuelan non-profit Coalition for Human Rights and Democracy, said his organisation represented three more Venezuelans who signed agreements to return home and were now missing. Their names all appear on a US government list of deportees sent to El Salvador that was published by CBS News.

It is not clear how many of the 238 Venezuelans flown to a maximum-security prison in El Salvador from Texas on Saturday had signed the papers to return to their home country.

So they think they’re going home to Venezuela? And instead they get de facto one-year prison sentences in a Salvadoran jail with no hearing, no due process whatsoever?

Venezuelans sent by Trump to El Salvador had signed paperwork to go home

Associated Press: US prepares to deport about 300 alleged gang members to El Salvador

Due process? Why bother? El Salvador’s government knows how to lock people up without fair trials. Just leave it to them!

President Donald Trump’s administration will pay El Salvador $6 million to imprison for one year about 300 alleged members of the Venezuelan Tren de Aragua gang, in one of the first instances of the Central American country taking migrants from the United States.

The agreement follows discussions between El Salvador’s President, Nayib Bukele, and Secretary of State Marco Rubio about housing migrants in El Salvador’s notorious prison. Bukele’s government has arrested more than 84,000 people, sometimes without due process, since 2022 as part of his crackdown on gang violence in the small country.

US prepares to send about 300 alleged gang members to El Salvador | AP News