The military's focus has begun shifting toward seizing oil tankers
In the open waters of the eastern Pacific, the United States military continues a campaign that blurs the boundary between warfare and law enforcement, striking vessels suspected of drug trafficking with lethal force and leaving behind questions that no rescue operation can fully answer. Since September 2025, at least 36 such strikes have killed more than 117 people, each operation authorized under legal frameworks that remain contested and opaque. The campaign unfolds against a rapidly shifting regional backdrop — the capture of Venezuela's president, pressure on its oil sector, and a White House eager to demonstrate dominance over both the drug trade and the hemisphere's political order. What is being called counternarcotics work, others are beginning to call something else entirely.
- A boat erupts in flames on the open Pacific — the latest in a relentless series of U.S. military strikes that have now killed over 117 people across more than 36 operations since September 2025.
- The pace and scale of the campaign are accelerating: five vessels were struck in just two days in late December, with survivors jumping into the sea and the Coast Guard eventually abandoning its search for them.
- Critics are raising alarms over 'double-tap' strikes — a second attack launched immediately after the first to ensure a vessel is fully disabled — a tactic long condemned in other conflict zones as a potential war crime.
- President Trump claims the campaign has 'virtually stopped almost 100% of all drugs coming in by water,' but human rights advocates and lawmakers are demanding answers about legal authority, due process, and civilian casualties.
- The strikes are not happening in isolation: with Venezuelan President Maduro captured and U.S. pressure mounting on Caracas to open its oil reserves, the military campaign on the water is increasingly entangled with geopolitical ambitions on land.
On Thursday, the U.S. military released footage of a vessel bursting into flames on the eastern Pacific. Two people died in the strike; one survived and was retrieved by the Coast Guard. Southern Command described the operation as a precision strike against a boat tied to designated terrorist organizations and operating along known drug-trafficking corridors.
The strike is the latest in a campaign of remarkable intensity. Since early September 2025, U.S. forces have conducted at least 36 lethal strikes against suspected drug-smuggling vessels in Caribbean and Pacific waters, killing more than 117 people. In late December alone, five boats were struck over two days, killing eight while others leapt into the sea — a search the Coast Guard eventually suspended. President Trump, speaking at Davos this week, declared the campaign had 'virtually stopped almost 100% of all drugs coming in by water.'
But the operations have opened a fierce debate about the boundaries of military power. Human rights advocates and some lawmakers question whether the strikes are legal, whether they respect due process, and whether they amount to extrajudicial killing. Concern deepened after reports of a 'double-tap' strike in September — a second attack launched immediately after the first to ensure a vessel was fully disabled — a tactic long condemned in other conflict zones. U.S. officials maintain the strikes are lawful disruptions of transnational criminal networks, with Coast Guard rescue coordination built into each operation. The legal basis for lethal force in international waters, however, remains deeply contested.
The campaign is also unfolding within a rapidly shifting regional order. Since U.S. forces captured Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro in early January, Washington has been pressing Caracas to open its vast oil reserves to American investment. On Thursday, Venezuela's legislature advanced a bill that would dismantle decades of state control over its energy sector — a reversal of policies dating to Hugo Chávez. The line between strikes at sea and political pressure on land is growing harder to draw.
On Thursday, the U.S. military released video of a boat erupting into flames on the open ocean. The vessel, operating along established drug-trafficking corridors in the eastern Pacific, had been targeted in what Southern Command described as a precision strike against a vessel tied to designated terrorist organizations. Two people died in the attack. One survived, and the Coast Guard was immediately dispatched to retrieve them.
The operation, authorized by Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, represents the latest chapter in an escalating campaign of lethal force against suspected smuggling operations in waters off South America. It is also the first such strike since early January, when U.S. forces captured Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro in a raid that reshaped the political landscape of the region. The timing is not incidental. The military's focus has begun shifting toward seizing oil tankers linked to Venezuela, part of a broader White House strategy to reshape the country's energy sector and pressure the new Venezuelan leadership to open its vast reserves to American investment.
The numbers tell a story of intensity. Since early September, the U.S. military has conducted at least 36 strikes against boats suspected of drug smuggling in Caribbean and Pacific waters. At least 117 people have been killed across these operations. In late December alone, five vessels were struck over two days, killing eight people while others jumped into the sea. The Coast Guard eventually suspended its search for those survivors. President Trump has repeatedly claimed the campaign is working, stating this week at the World Economic Forum in Davos that the U.S. has "virtually stopped almost 100% of all drugs coming in by water."
But the campaign has ignited a sharp debate about the limits of military power in law enforcement. Human rights advocates and some lawmakers have raised fundamental questions about whether the strikes are legal, whether they respect due process, and whether they constitute something closer to extrajudicial killing than counternarcotics work. The concern sharpened after reports emerged that in September 2025, a second strike was launched immediately after an initial attack—what critics call a "double-tap"—to ensure a vessel was fully disabled. Such follow-up strikes, human rights groups argue, risk killing people trying to escape or render aid, a tactic long condemned in other conflict zones.
U.S. officials defend the operations as necessary disruption of transnational criminal networks. They point to intelligence assessments showing the targeted vessels are actively engaged in narco-trafficking and connected to designated terrorist organizations. They note that search-and-rescue coordination with the Coast Guard is standard practice. The legal authority for these strikes in international waters, however, remains contested and unclear to many observers.
Meanwhile, the political landscape in Venezuela is shifting rapidly. Acting President Delcy Rodríguez and other officials face mounting pressure from Washington to liberalize the country's oil sector. On Thursday, Venezuela's legislature advanced a bill that would dismantle decades of state control over the industry—a reversal of policies put in place by Hugo Chávez in 2007. The measure would invite private investment, establish mechanisms for international arbitration, and fundamentally reshape how Venezuela's vast oil reserves are managed and exploited. The connection between military strikes on the water and political pressure on land is becoming harder to ignore.
Citações Notáveis
We've stopped—virtually stopped almost 100% of all drugs coming in by water— President Trump, remarks at World Economic Forum, January 22, 2026
The vessel was transiting along known narco-trafficking routes in the Eastern Pacific and was engaged in narco-trafficking operations— U.S. Southern Command, statement on January 23 strike
A Conversa do Hearth Outra perspectiva sobre a história
Why does the timing matter—that this strike comes right after Maduro's capture?
Because it signals a shift in what the U.S. is actually trying to accomplish in the region. The strikes on drug boats are one thing. But now the focus is moving toward oil tankers and pressuring Venezuela to open its energy sector to American companies. The military operations and the political leverage are working in tandem.
So the drug-trafficking campaign is real, but it's also cover for something larger?
Not cover exactly. The drugs are a genuine problem. But the scale and intensity of the strikes, and the timing of them, suggests the administration sees an opportunity to reshape Venezuela's entire economic structure while the country is in transition.
What troubles you most about these operations?
The lack of clarity about who's actually on these boats and whether anyone is checking. One survivor from this week's strike—we don't know their story. We know 117 people are dead since September. But we don't know how many were actually smugglers, how many were crew, how many were something else entirely.
The "double-tap" strikes—why is that practice so controversial?
Because it assumes the first strike didn't finish the job, so you hit again. But between those two strikes, people might be jumping overboard, trying to help others, abandoning ship. The second strike catches them in that chaos. It's the difference between targeting a vessel and targeting people.
Trump says they've stopped almost all water-borne drug trafficking. Do you believe that?
I think the strikes are disrupting routes. But "virtually stopped 100%" is not how drug trafficking works. These networks are adaptive. They shift routes, change tactics, use different boats. What we're seeing is enforcement intensity, not elimination.
What happens next in Venezuela?
If that oil bill passes, Venezuela's state control over its reserves essentially ends. American companies move in. The leverage the U.S. has right now—military presence, economic pressure, the capture of Maduro—gets converted into long-term economic control. That's the real prize.