U.S. Military Sinks Suspected Drug Ship in Deadly Caribbean Strike
“The strike resulted in 11 terrorists killed in action. No U.S. Forces were harmed in this strike.”
A few weeks ago, I reported that the U.S. was deploying three Aegis guided-missile destroyers (USS Gravely, USS Jason Dunham, and USS Sampson) to waters off the coast of Venezuela. They were sent as part of a major counter-narcotics operation targeting Latin American drug cartels, specifically those involved in transporting fentanyl and cocaine.
Venezuela then countered by sending drones and its warships to patrol along its Caribbean coast. At the same time, the U.S. sent the USS Lake Erie (a guided missile cruiser) and the USS Newport News (a nuclear submarine) into the region.
Now, President Donald Trump and Secretary of State Marco Rubio have announced that our military sank a Venezuelan drug boat in the southern Caribbean.
The U.S. military on Tuesday struck a drug-carrying boat hailing from Venezuela, Secretary of State Marco Rubio said, as tensions spike between the Trump administration and the Venezuelan government.
President Trump announced the strike in an unrelated Tuesday afternoon Oval Office event, saying the military had “shot out” the boat “moments ago.” He said his team had been briefed on the strike by Gen. Dan Caine, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
Minutes later, Rubio posted on X that the military carried out a “lethal strike” in the southern Caribbean Sea. He said the “drug vessel” had departed Venezuela and “was being operated by a designated narco-terrorist organization.” Rubio later told reporters he believed the drugs that were allegedly carried on the boat were probably headed toward Trinidad and Tobago or “some other country in the Caribbean.”
Details on the strike, including who operated the vessel, remain sparse. A senior defense official said the U.S. had conducted a “precision strike” against the vessel.
As @potus just announced moments ago, today the U.S. military conducted a lethal strike in the southern Carribean against a drug vessel which had departed from Venezuela and was being operated by a designated narco-terrorist organization.
— Marco Rubio (@marcorubio) September 2, 2025
According to social media reports from Trump’s Truth Social account, 11 narcoterrorists were killed during this action.
Earlier this morning, on my Orders, U.S. Military Forces conducted a kinetic strike against positively identified Tren de Aragua Narcoterrorists in the SOUTHCOM area of responsibility. TDA is a designated Foreign Terrorist Organization, operating under the control of Nicolas Maduro, responsible for mass murder, drug trafficking, sex trafficking, and acts of violence and terror across the United States and Western Hemisphere.
The strike occurred while the terrorists were at sea in International waters transporting illegal narcotics, heading to the United States. The strike resulted in 11 terrorists killed in action. No U.S. Forces were harmed in this strike. Please let this serve as notice to anybody even thinking about bringing drugs into the United States of America.
Earlier this morning, on my Orders, U.S. Military Forces conducted a kinetic strike against positively identified Tren de Aragua Narcoterrorists in the SOUTHCOM area of responsibility. TDA is a designated Foreign Terrorist Organization, operating under the control of Nicolas… pic.twitter.com/2bEDDiZsRl
— Trump Truth Social Posts On X (@TrumpTruthOnX) September 2, 2025
It appears that a war against the drug cartels has officially been launched.
The Trump administration has taken an aggressive approach to combating Latin American drug cartels, designating many of them as foreign terrorist organizations and specially designated global terrorists.
Rubio, who begins a trip to Mexico and Ecuador on Tuesday, had previously suggested that military action against the cartels was a possibility.
“There are designated narco-terrorist groups operating in the region. Some of them utilizing international airspace, international waters to transit poison into the United States. And those groups will be confronted. The president has made that clear from the time he has operated,” he said in mid-August. On Friday, Rubio visited the headquarters of US Southern Command, which has responsibility for the deployed assets.
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
On Wednesday, the Obama administration publicly acknowledged for the first time that four Americans were killed in drone strikes since 2009as part On Wednesday, the Obama administration publicly acknowledged for the first time that four Americans were killed in drone strikes since 2009as part of U.S. counterterrorism activities surrounding al Qaeda . Of the four, only one of them, Anwar al-Awlaki, was targeted, according to Attorney General Eric Holder in a letter to Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy. The following are descriptions of the four men killed in drone operations.
but lefty will attack for trump doing the right thing
The memo spends a lot of time arguing that the US didn’t commit murder
A good chunk of the memo is devoted to 18 U.S. Code § 1119. The statute says that if an American kills another American overseas, that’s considered murder under US law. Anyone who does it can be tried in the same way as an American who murders someone inside US borders. Some legal scholars, most prominently, the School of Oriental and African Studies at the University of London’s Kevin Jon Heller, argued before Awlaki’s killing that any such operation would legally be murder because of this provision.
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/who-were-the-4-us-citizens-killed-in-drone-strikes/
https://www.vox.com/2014/6/23/5835602/anwar-al-awlaki-memo
That is BS. Killing an enemy soldier in war is not murder, and it makes absolutely no difference what passport he holds. In almost every war the US has fought, for the past 250 years, there have been US citizens fighting for the enemy, and on none of those occasions has anyone suggested they must be treated differently from other enemy soldiers, and may not be targeted. No one has suggested checking the passports of enemy soldiers before targeting them. It’s ridiculous nonsense.
eric holder called it murder BUT said :
Attorney General Eric Holder, had earlier given a public explanation of the broad outlines of the memo’s legal arguments.
While a federal law makes it a crime to murder an American overseas, such a killing is not a crime “if done with the proper public authority,” the memo argued. It said similar logic allows a policeman to kill a suspect when deadly force is justified. And a soldier is not guilty of murder when killing an enemy in time of war.
“in time of war”
^^no war was declared^^
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/u-s-memo-justifies-drone-hit-american-citizen-al-awlaki-n138431
That’s an outright lie. In 2001 Congress declared war on all those involved in the Sep-11-2001 attacks, and those who harbored them. That declaration was still in effect in 2011, and is still in effect today. The strike on Alwaki, an al-Qaeda officer, was completely within the ambit of this war.
In fact it’s a double lie, because not only was there a declared war going on, but even if there had been no declaration it would have made no difference. There is absolutely no requirement whatsoever that a war must be declared in order to be real. What matters is whether there is an actual war, not whether anyone has declared it. The USA’s first war, against France, was never declared by either side, but the courts were clear that it was nonetheless a war for all legal purposes.
Not that I care what Holder said, on this or any other topic, but it’s a lie to claim he called it murder.
I don’t get the hang-ups over “Americans” who went to fight alongside our enemies getting killed in US strikes. Plenty of “Americans” went to fight for the Nazis, and no one gave a rip about them being under bombing runs, artillery, or our guns.
your defense of the fast and furious gun runner is appalling
WTAF?
Your DELIBERATE OUTRIGHT LIE about him is what’s disgusting.
(And by the way, he wasn’t the gun-runner.)
Its the double standards Justice Milhouse.
The left is adament that unless Trump has some kind of oversight he might walk out on to the street and kill an american citizen and not be held accountable for that American’s murder.
The left is also adament that its ok for Obama to order the killing of American citizens without due process.
Both are stupid arguments, hence why the left is making them.
No, it is not. The left says, correctly, that it’s OK for a president — or any military commander down to the lowliest corporal — to order the killing of enemy soldiers in wartime. For that matter, it’s OK for a soldier to kill enemy soldiers without any orders at all.
The idea that it matters what passports the enemy happens to hold is ridiculous beyond belief, and something that only a leftist would come up with. And yes, that’s where the double standard does come in, because had it been a Republican president giving that order the left would have howled about it. Since it was one of theirs, only the hard left howled, while the mainstream Dems felt compelled to take the correct position. But the fact is that they did take the correct position. So how does it make sense for anyone who claims to be on the right to adopt the ultra-left and anti-American position?!
Because your position is one of defending hypocrisy and deceit, as is the custom of the left.
The same actions defended by you and your leftist compatriots when done by a leftist are excoriated as the most heinous crimes when undertaken by someone on the right –worse, even standard actions of war are treated as if they are crimes against humanity and the slain terrorists and murderers are lauded and praised for their depravities.
Azathoth, as usual, is a FUCKING LIAR and a literal demon from Hell. Every word he writes pollutes this forum and makes it a poisonous place. Go back to Hell and burn there, you libelous piece of garbage.
Copied and pasted directly from this article without attribution:
https://www.vox.com/2014/6/23/5835602/anwar-al-awlaki-memo
I in fact noted 2 attributions ( as that post was from 2 different sources,I believe the other was cbs
this site deleted that post
and as I look at the comments section I see that the site has re-instated the post of
sept 2 7.06 pm
with BOTH attributions
Did someone on the drug boat fire on a US vessel? Were any drugs recovered or did we poison a lot of fish? Were the bodies recovered? What efforts were made to stop, not destroy the boat? I don’t have a problem with blowing the boat out of the water, but from a law enforcement point of view some questions need answering. And for the military operating in international waters, is there a justification for blowing up a boat just because it carried drugs?
Maybe give them a ticket first.
When the Trump administration designated TdA and other cartels as terrorist organizations it opened them up to more than law enforcement methods. This is the end results of treating these organizations like terrorists. You don’t bother with law enforcement procedures when fighting terrorists.
This is the way to do it, not arrest, trial, and decades as guests of the US taxpayer
trump is calling out china with this move
maybe. Hope
OT:
(criminals who attacked “big ballz”)
speaking of people that harm americans…..
The attackers have recently been moved into less restrictive detention on orders from Judge Briggs, despite a prosecutor’s objection.
On August 21, the attackers appeared before the judge at a hearing in D.C. Superior Court.
The girl has moved to a youth shelter house, and the boy will move to his mother’s home. Both of them will be subjected to electronic monitoring and a one-day curfew, in addition to other restrictions.
https://uinterview.com/news/teenagers-charged-for-attacking-ex-doge-staffer-edward-coristine-known-as-big-balls-released-to-parents/
With extreme regret, I must predict that this will lead to extra-legal violence. When we don’t have justice, we have vengeance. People will not tolerate having the stuffing beaten out of them, and then see the perps escape meaningful justice. At some point we’re going to start seeing retaliations, and it’s all going to go sideways quickly.
“Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable.” – JFK
(WTF is a “one-day curfew?”)
I’m sure the media and Democrats will rush to condemn the attack on mostly-peaceful pirates.
Check X. Crazy how many people are defending narcoterrorists.
What would porter do?
Some Massachusetts wacko judge will rule that the boat needs to be reassembled or replaced, then returned to its owners.
In the morning Judge Boasberg will issue an injunction against further interdictions and require the Trump administration to pay reparations.
I’d like to think that I’m kidding…
They’ll soon be known as “Maryland residents.”
los Hombres de Maria Land.
¿Los Hombres del Nación de la Maria?
Los Crangrejos
¡si sue pueda!
No, the judge will issue an injunction requiring the Trump administration to bring the terrorists back to life and restore the drugs and the boat so they can complete their journey.
F F J’s
“A judge in the city of Waterdeep issued a ruling stating that the Trump Administration must use a Cleric of at least 9th level to cast the ‘Raise Dead’ spell on anyone killed in the attack. Further, the ruling demands that any terrorists or drug dealers whose bodies are unrecoverable must be brought back via the ‘True Resurrection’ spell cast by a 17th level Cleric at a cost of 25,000 gold pieces worth of diamond dust.”
/D&D Nerd
The instant I read Waterdeep, I thought, “Oh, Lord, this is going to be good.”
It did not disappoint.
FAFO
What they found out:
1. Trump means business
2. The boat ride was shorter than usual
3. They found out how deep the water was off the coast of Venezuela
They found out that fish will recycle them.
I’m shocked that I haven’t yet seen any reports of some Democrat in Congress decrying the murders of these “peaceful fisherman” or whatever.
Soon, though. Very soon.
How long until indictments are filed? Will they only be against administration officials, or will they include the servicemen involved?
And how many JAGs had to be tied up and left in their bunks during this operation?
What proof did the military have before blowing up the boat? It was big and had 4 motors?
They wouldn’t have targeted it if they didn’t have reason to. They have no obligation to release their proof publicly.
I’m not saying they weren’t drug runners. I’m saying that if our military is going to go around blowing random boats out of the water a little proof they were running drugs would be nice.
We don’t know what proof they have. Not disclosing it is part of the message and probably partly to protect intelligence gatherers.
They have videos of the marine rave from later that night.
Orcas and dolphins and kraken — oh my!
Not to be rude, but you’re not cleared for that information.
I have NO love for drug smugglers. They are the scum of the earth.
SOUTHCOM has this drug interdiction mission and I’m sure after all the years they’ve been executing this mission, they have a pretty robust intel apparatus. But nobody is perfect and I’m sure we all remember the drone strike against the group suspected of planning the Kabul airport suicide bomber attack. The one which turned out to be the members of a family.
Until proven otherwise, I accept that this boat was known to be chockful of lethal substances. Still, it is quite an escalation. I wonder how much farther this hot war with the cartels will go?
Now that I think about it, I hope the drug smugglers do fire at us. Then the response will be clear to turn them into vaporware.
And the world is a better place.
What are the reasons that would prevent USA bombing drug dealers in Mexico and other countries?
Um, because they are sovereign countries, and bombing them would be an act of war?
This action took place in international waters.
Except it would not necessarily constitute an act of war, defined by U.S. law as “any act occurring in the course of— (A) declared war; (B) armed conflict, whether or not war has been declared, between two or more nations; or (C) armed conflict between military forces of any origin. 18 USC § 2331(4)
It is not armed conflict and drug dealers are not military forces.
US law does not get to define what an act of war is. Bombing another country is by definition an act of war.
Can you imagine someone bombing the USA and us not treating it that way?!
Except US law does exactly that, and PIL does too. When it comes to armed conflict, you don’t know what you’re talking about, but don’t let that stop you. Bombing, in and of itself, does not automatically mean act of war. Therefore it is not “by definition.” Again, you do not know what you are talking about.
Public interest law?!
It doesn’t matter what any country’s laws say; there is no way that someone would drop a bomb on the USA and we would not regard ourselves as being at war with the dropper. No matter what their law might say about it.
Divert away with silly hypotheticals about the USA being bombed. However, even if that happened and the USA responded, it does not mean there is armed conflict under PIL. Shows how much you actually know, despite acting like a law professor.
President Trump needs to issue an ultimatum to Mexico’s Sheinbaum. Clean up your country, shut down the cartels, end the corruption, and secure your border. The US will gladly help if she asks but if she does nothing then the US is going to come in and do things our way and she won’t like it. Of course she won’t accept any help because she’s a puppet of the cartels but someone needs to do something about Mexico.
It’s easy to talk tough with Mexico but Sheinbaum is in a bad position. She has to stand up for her country which is understandable but also can be murdered by the cartels at their whim. I’m pretty sure we are not hearing all of the conservations going on between the two countries concerning drugs and the cartels.
So you want Trump to deliberately initiate a war without Congress?!
I don’t personally want that, but you say it as if at least eight out of the previous ten presidents didn’t do exactly that.
I don’t recall W initiating any wars. On Sep-11-2001 he recognized the fact that we were at war; he didn’t initiate it. He also went to Congress to get an official declaration to match the reality. With Iraq he again went to Congress and got a declaration of war.
Did Bush Sr initiate any wars? The Gulf War was declared by Congress. Panama declared war on the USA; I thought at the time how stupid that was. Any others?
Reagan’s Granada invasion was not an act of war, because it was done at the head of state’s invitation and request. Any others?
Did Carter, Ford, or Nixon initiate any wars? (Bombing Cambodia and Laos was part of the war we were already in.)
Uh huh. Just “end the corruption”. Sure, it should take all of a week or so.
We haven’t ended the corruption in this nation despite decades of trying. Why do you think Mexico will be able to do it against multiple ultra-rich criminal organizations with a proven history of violence against gov’t officials?
That’s like asking Charlie McCarthy to shut down Edgar Bergen.
I’ll admit to curiosity about the ordnance used to blow up this tiny little boat. From the video it sure looked like an air-launched missile. The boat looked to be about 30 feet long with what appeared to be 3 or 4 large outboard motors. I did not see any weapons carried by the “suspects”, nor did I see any evidence of heavy weapons mounted to the boat itself.
How much does one of those missiles cost? A million dollars? Multiple millions of dollars? How much was that boat worth, $50,000 at most? There’s gotta be a much more cost-effective way to kill them and sink the boat…but all of them (like machine-gunning them with an M2 or chain-gun) would be extremely messy and leave evidence that things might not be as they’re claiming. Blowing them up and essentially vaporizing them is not only easier to look at than shooting people with a .50 caliber and blowing out chunks, but also gets rid of any potential exculpatory evidence.
Were they given a chance to surrender? We are not in a state of war, and “The War on (pick a noun)” is just a phrase, not a legal standing. What authority does the US military have in blowing the crap out of a boat, without warning, that they THINK might POSSIBLY be carrying drugs? Are they mind-readers in that they claimed to knew the suspects were heading directly to the US?
I’d say that any other country could use EXACTLY the same excuses to blow innocent US-flagged boats and ships out of the water. “Hey, we had good evidence (which we’re not going to share) that they were smuggling drugs into our country. The US set the precedent, we’re just following it.”
This is just wrong.
“How much does one of those missiles cost? A million dollars? Multiple millions of dollars? How much was that boat worth, $50,000 at most?”
Now do the drugs.
I’m much more interested in what weapon was used. It looks to me like it exploded in air just before contact and without penetrating the hull.
As for those wanting proof, 4 engines on an open boat full of boxes skipping across the open ocean is not a fishing excursion.
International waters or not, will never make a difference. Any U.S. combat vessel, including coast guard or squad of infantry soldiers on the ground, operating anywhere on water or earth in their official capacity, that performs combat killings on others, whether they be U.S. citizens or not, will never be convicted of murder in a U.S. court. As well it should be. Period.