On November 6, the U.S. Navy carried out the latest in a series of strikes in international waters against small vessels allegedly trafficking drugs to the United States. These attacks in the Caribbean and eastern Pacific have resulted in at least 70 deaths — people killed without any chance to answer Washington’s allegations — and there is no sign they will stop anytime soon.

The administration of U.S. president Donald Trump has yet to provide a shred of evidence showing that these boats were loaded with narcotics or that the people on board were willing participants in drug trafficking.

The only “evidence” U.S. war secretary Pete Hegseth and U.S. secretary of state Marco Rubio offered has been to cite U.S. “intelligence” that these were “narco-terrorists.” Yet they cannot — or will not — even provide the identities of the deceased.

To justify its massive display of military power, the Trump administration has claimed “self-defense,” stating that this is an “armed conflict” against “unlawful combatants.” It claims these boats are linked to a devastating influx of fentanyl from Venezuela to the United States. But it is widely known that the components of this drug are made in China and the final product is typically manufactured in Mexico, by drug cartels with easy access to the U.S. border, not Venezuela.

Trump has made no bones about using manufactured “emergencies” to justify amassing forces in the Caribbean as part of his campaign to force “regime change” in Venezuela. On August 7, shortly before the first strike in September, Trump upped the U.S. government bounty for the arrest of Venezuelan president Nicolás Maduro to $50 million.

On October 15, the New York Times disclosed that Trump had ordered covert CIA operations in Venezuela. “We are certainly looking at land now, because we’ve got the sea very well under control,” Trump proclaimed. Then, on October 24, Hegseth announced that the aircraft carrier USS Gerald R Ford, along with an armada of warships, was on its way to waters off Latin America.

International outcry against this campaign has been building. Small protests have taken place in Trinidad and Tobago despite a state of emergency declared by the country’s prime minister who supports the U.S. military strikes. Two of the alleged traffickers killed were Trinidadian nationals, just fishermen according to their families and neighbors. Many who live on the shores of the Caribbean fear they cannot safely fish the nearby waters, and charter operators have seen a drop in business.

Condemnation of the U.S. actions has come from 14 of the CARICOM Caribbean governments, as well as from Venezuela and Colombia’s president Gustavo Petro, whose countrymen have been among the victims of the U.S. assaults.

The United Nations (UN) high commissioner for human rights, Volker Türk, denounced the airstrikes, warning they contravene international human rights law. Türk urged Washington to halt the “unacceptable” operations and prevent “extrajudicial killings.”

During a UN Security Council meeting last month, which focused on the U.S. actions, both China and Russia condemned the killings. Russia called them an example of the U.S. “cowboy principle of shoot first.”

Other governments urged de-escalation of a situation that threatens the security of the entire region.

Within the United States, calls to end the aggression against Venezuela and the military strikes in the region have been part of the increased resistance to the Trump administration’s domestic and international policies. Many liberal politicians are worried. There are also displays of concern among some military officials, as suggested by the unexplained resignation of Admiral Alvin Holsey, only months into his term as chief of the U.S. Southern Command, which oversees operations in the Caribbean.

Democrats and a handful of Republicans in Congress moved in early November to limit the president’s actions, citing the War Powers clause of the U.S. constitution. But despite cracks, even within the Republican party, that effort failed on November 6 when the U.S. Senate voted down a resolution “to direct the removal of United States Armed Forces from hostilities within or against Venezuela that have not been authorized by Congress.” With that, the GOP continued its unbroken streak of rubber stamping virtually all of the President’s moves — enabling once again Trump’s unmistakable march toward one-man rule.

Working people have no interest in furthering the imperialist adventures of the U.S. ruling class in Venezuela or anywhere else. Nor can we rely on liberals in Congress to represent our interests in the international arena or domestically. But we should take advantage of openings to sound the warning against military escalation in the region and join ranks in united front actions with those demanding an end to this aggression.

It’s in that spirit that we publish the two documents that follow as important contributions to this effort. The first is an October 29, 2025, statement by the human rights organization Amnesty International. The second is a November 3 London Review of Books blog, revealing why summary execution of alleged drug traffickers “has little to do with national security, and everything to do with the Trump administration’s dehumanising politics, at home and abroad.”

We publish these materials for the information of our readers. The headlines, text, and photo that follow are from the originals.

 — World-Outlook editors

*

Statement by Amnesty International

U.S. airstrikes in Latin America and the Caribbean are murder. Congress must stop them now 

October 29, 2025 — The U.S. air strikes in Latin America and the Caribbean which have killed at least 57 people since early September are illegal, and Congress must act now to stop the U.S. government from carrying out further bombings, Amnesty International said today. 

“In the last two months, the U.S. military’s Southern Command has gone on a murder spree by following the Trump administration’s illegal orders,” said Daphne Eviatar, Amnesty International USA’s Director for Human Rights and Security. “The administration has not even named its victims, nor provided evidence of their alleged crimes. But even if they did, intentionally killing people accused of committing crimes who pose no imminent threat to life is murder, full stop. 

“It is well past time for Congress to exercise its oversight role over the administration’s unlawful behavior, put an end to these illegal air strikes, and hold those responsible for these murders accountable.” 

No evidence or legal basis

U.S. officials have announced thirteen air strikes around Latin America so far, with eight in the Caribbean and five in the Pacific. The Trump administration has tried to justify its actions by claiming — without presenting any evidence — that the targets were drug-smuggling “narco-terrorists.” 

Stopping suspected drug boats is a law enforcement operation, subject to international human rights law, which holds that all people have the rights to life and a fair trial and only allows states to use lethal force when an imminent threat to life exists and less extreme means, like capture, are insufficient. 

A state intentionally killing someone outside those circumstances is committing an extrajudicial killing, a form of murder, no matter any alleged crime the victim might have committed. 

In the case of these bombings, the Trump administration has not provided any proof that its victims posed imminent threats to human life. Even if the boats or individuals were smuggling narcotics, carrying such drugs alone is not an imminent threat to life that could possibly justify using lethal force. 

Administration officials have also not shown that they could not have stopped and boarded the vessels, as the U.S. Coast Guard does regularly. In fact, Secretary of State Marco Rubio confirmed the U.S. could have intercepted the first boat they struck but chose to bomb it instead. 

“The U.S. SOUTHCOM air strikes are rogue actions by an administration acting lawlessly,” said Daphne Eviatar. “If Trump’s administration wants to address drug addiction, it should fully fund public health programs for treatment and prevention in the U.S. instead of illegally blowing up boats in Latin America and the Caribbean. Regardless of the crimes committed by drug cartels, it is a crime under both international and domestic law for U.S. officials to execute someone they claim is part of a drug cartel transporting drugs. They cannot do that on the streets of the U.S., and they cannot do that in international waters.” 

The Caribbean and Eastern Pacific are not war zones

Administration officials have claimed the U.S. is “at war” with drug cartels, suggesting the administration believes the laws of war, which permit killing enemy fighters on the battlefield, apply to the Caribbean and Pacific. That argument is wrong. 

The U.S. is not party to any armed conflict in the Caribbean or Latin America. No one, including drug traffickers, has attacked the U.S. in any way that would justify a military response.  

Further, Congress has not authorized using military force against cartels. However, even if Congress does so, these air strikes remain illegal under international human rights law. 

“The laws of war simply do not apply here. The Caribbean and eastern Pacific are not warzones where the U.S. military can bomb boats the White House claims carry enemies,” said Daniel Noroña, Amnesty International USA’s Advocacy Director for the Americas. “Deploying the army on alleged law enforcement grounds is an old and failed trick of the authoritarian playbook that has repeatedly led to serious human rights violations in Latin America. These air strikes also send a chilling message of tacit approval to other leaders seeking to extrajudicially execute people.” 

Congress must act

Congress must do everything in its power to stop these air strikes so the administration does not murder more people abroad or in the U.S. 

Congress must also demand that the people responsible for these killings are brought to justice, including both the direct perpetrators and the people who gave the orders. To that end, lawmakers must undertake thorough and independent investigations, reaching the highest levels of the U.S. government, to determine responsibility. 

Already, President Donald Trump has publicly claimed responsibility for ordering the killings. Both he and senior administration officials have also openly bragged about them while dismissing congressional oversight and concerns about international law. 

“Congress, the U.S. public, and the international community should be ringing every alarm bell to put an end to these dehumanizing, cynical air strikes, and demand accountability,” said Ana Piquer, Amnesty International’s Americas Director. “Human life cannot be left to the mercy of a ruler’s whim. No president has the right to kill arbitrarily and without accountability.” 

*

London Review of Books Blog

Murder at Sea

By A.S. Dillingham

A.S. Dillingham is the author of Oaxaca Resurgent: Indigeneity, Development and Inequality in 20th-Century Mexico. He teaches history at Arizona State University. The following articles was printed in the online edition of the London Review of Books.

November 3, 2025 — Since President Nixon declared war on drugs in 1971, US policies of mass incarceration at home and interdiction and enforcement abroad have failed to achieve their stated aims. Instead, they have accelerated violence across the hemisphere. As the historian Alexander Aviña has pointed out, the ‘war on drugs’ is best understood as a ‘war on poor people’. It has recently entered a deadly new phase.

Over the last month, the US government has launched at least eleven strikes on boats in the Caribbean and the eastern Pacific. The Trump administration has claimed, without providing evidence, that the boats were transporting illegal drugs. The strikes have killed at least 57 people. These are summary executions without trial. Amnesty International has called it a ‘murder spree.’

Five years ago, when I was the director of Latin American studies at a small Catholic college in Mobile, Alabama, a local lawyer approached me looking for help as an expert witness on a federal drug trafficking case (I also helped with translation). The US Coast Guard had detained a group of Colombian men off the coast of Panama with nearly a ton of cocaine on board. They were transported to Florida and eventually moved to a detention centre in Alabama for trial. Each was assigned an attorney.

When I met the client he was visibly afraid. He had been unable to reach his family since his arrest more than six months earlier. He had never intended to enter the United States but now found himself in a cell in Alabama unable to communicate in English.

Born in a small town in an isolated area of western Colombia, he had determinedly avoided involvement in the drug trade, finished high school and worked as a boat captain. He had been hired to transport petrol up the coast, an illicit but not unusual local trade. After the first leg of the trip, however, armed men forced him onto another vessel. They threatened him and his family to ensure he would complete the job. His story of being coerced into trafficking never changed, from the deck of the coast guard ship to his confinement in Alabama.

Many of the 57 people killed by the US military in recent weeks may have been in similar circumstances: poor men forced into drug trafficking either by their economic position or by direct threats of violence. Others may not have been involved in the drug trade at all. Trump and his officials have described the people they’ve killed as ‘narco-terrorists’, but any potential evidence has been destroyed in the attacks. If our client had found himself on a similar boat today, he might be dead.

We eventually reached his family through WhatsApp. We spoke with his sister who shared information on his parents, children and work history. She sent official paperwork, school transcripts and medical records to help the case. She shared videos of family members testifying to his character and images of his home.

Like more than 90 per cent of federal prosecutions, his case ended in a plea bargain. During the sentencing hearing we shared his story in court. It appeared to affect the judge. Yet federal sentencing guidelines meant that, even with a robust defence, there was little we could do. Our client was given more than ten years in federal prison, after which he would be deported.

During the hearing, I was cross-examined by the federal prosecutor. He invoked a scene from the Netflix series Narcos. It was a disturbing line of questioning: peoples’ lives were on the line, and the representative of the US government was drawing on a fictionalised TV series to make his case. It was perhaps a sign of things to come.

The US military is now carrying out extrajudicial executions on the high seas of people who in the past would have been put on trial and, if found guilty, given a federal prison sentence. Gone is any semblance of due process, presumption of innocence or assistance of counsel. Instead, the self-styled ‘secretary of war’ shares videos on social media of each ‘lethal kinetic strike’. The spectacle has little to do with national security, and everything to do with the Trump administration’s dehumanising politics, at home and abroad.

If you appreciate this article, subscribe to World-Outlook (for free) by clicking on the link below.

Type your email in the box below and click on “SUBSCRIBE.” You will receive a notification in your in-box on which you will have to click to confirm your subscription.