President Donald Trump announced a strike that killed eleven people on a Venezuelan boat on Sept. 2, according to the Wall Street Journal. Secretary of State Marco Rubio said that the boat posed an “imminent threat” to the United States, though no combatants were aboard. Trump also said it carried drugs, but many criticized the decision to kill 11 people as a violation of international law.
The boat turned around after seeing military aircraft but was repeatedly hit before it sank, according to the New York Times. Trump said it carried members of a Venezuelan gang known as Tren de Aragua, which he said justified his actions. However, according to the New York Times article, legal specialists dub the killing of drug smugglers a war crime, saying that it does not count as “self-defense.”
Several points refute Trump’s notion. Among all, how could a boat turning around from the “threatened” target pose an imminent threat? Since President Trump began his second term, he has labeled several Latin American criminal gangs, such as the Tren de Aragua, as terrorist organizations, according to the New York Times article. Because of this, some remain in favor of the attack, saying that it was necessary to steer off drug traffickers. But whether Trump’s actions were constitutional depends on whom you ask.
Based on precedent, Trump’s choice to strike the boat is constitutional, but comes close to unconstitutional territory. Congress has never publicly authorized a missile strike against drug cartels, despite Trump now labeling them as terrorist organizations. In the past, when cartel boats were found at sea, the U.S. Coast Guard arrested members under the Maritime Drug Law Enforcement Act. The act allows the Coast Guard to act as law enforcement, according to the Ocean and Coastal Law Journal. In this instance, instead of the Coast Guard arresting members of the alleged cartel boat, Trump ordered a strike of the boat. He cited Article II of the Constitution, which allows him to utilize the military without Congressional approval, though with certain limitations. Such limitations include that the strikes are limited in scope and duration, are used to protect important national interests, and the strikes are disclosed soon after to Congress.
But whether you think Trump’s actions are constitutional or not does not matter. Even if the striking of the Venezuelan boat proved illegal, little action would follow. International law exists, but enforcement is limited. Similiarly, the International Criminal Court holds arrest warrants for Vladimir Putin and Benjamin Netanyahu, yet both remain free, according to the ICC.
Still, that does not mean that President Trump’s actions are acceptable and will not face global consequences. Concerningly, Trump has increasingly linked the issue of drug cartels to Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro. What is risky is whether such aggression towards drug cartels is just to display force, or if a confrontation with Venezuela could unfold. According to a video from the Wall Street Journal, “They’re making him [Nicolas Maduro] the face of the very drug cartels, they are now targeting as terrorist organizations…so anything that can be done to the cartels can be transferred on to the Venezuelan government.” Maduro, in response, accused the United States of preparing to invade and try to topple his government, even though that is not America’s goal, as stated by the Wall Street Journal.
While Trump likely only wants to target drug cartels and not impose a regime change on Venezuela, he must tread with caution. Maduro and Trump have been continuously escalating tensions between two nations in a tit-for-tat strategy to compete in terms of power. Both nations likely do not want to confront one another in an armed conflict, but the future remains uncertain as the United States implements more aggressive action against drug cartels.
