In recent weeks, the Pentagon has made a significant change in its approach to combating drug trafficking, refocusing its military efforts from the Caribbean Sea to the eastern Pacific Ocean. This decision comes as administration officials have reportedly gathered stronger evidence indicating that cocaine is being transported to the United States predominantly through western routes, particularly from Colombia and Mexico, rather than from Venezuela.
Intelligence assessments suggest that the likelihood of cocaine trafficking from Colombia and Mexico is significantly higher than from Venezuela. This has raised important questions about the underlying motives behind the recent buildup of U.S. military forces in the Caribbean. Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth confirmed that the last four military strikes against suspected drug smugglers took place in the eastern Pacific, signaling a clear pivot in operational focus.
Sources indicate that future attacks will likely continue to concentrate in this area, where evidence suggests a stronger connection to U.S. markets. In stark contrast, there have been doubts regarding the legitimacy of previous strikes in the Caribbean, with claims that not every intercepted vessel was indeed transporting drugs to the U.S. For instance, after a strike in September, Secretary of State Marco Rubio stated that the targeted vessel was likely headed to Trinidad and Tobago.
Despite the focus on Venezuela, it is not considered a major source of cocaine for the U.S. market. However, the previous administration under Donald Trump aggressively sought to connect Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro to the drug trade, coinciding with a significant military presence established near Caracas. This has led to skepticism regarding the justification of military actions in the region.
As of now, the Pentagon has not provided Congress with concrete evidence to substantiate claims that the 15 vessels struck by the military since September were indeed ferrying drugs. Reports indicate that these operations have resulted in the deaths of at least 61 individuals, raising ethical and legal concerns about the military’s engagement in these strikes.
During a recent classified briefing on Capitol Hill, Pentagon officials admitted to lawmakers that they lack clear metrics to assess the success of the current military campaign against drug traffickers. According to a source familiar with the discussions, officials were unable to confirm whether the military strikes have effectively impeded the flow of drugs or influenced market prices. “There’s just no information,” the source noted.
Concerns were also raised about the military's ability to adapt if traffickers change their tactics. Democratic Rep. Sara Jacobs highlighted that officials acknowledged they do not always know the identities of individuals aboard targeted vessels prior to launching strikes. “They do not need to positively identify individuals on the vessel to do the strikes,” Jacobs reported, shedding light on the administration’s reluctance to detain or prosecute survivors due to evidentiary challenges.
Military officials clarified during the briefing that current strikes are primarily aimed at targeting cocaine, not fentanyl, despite President Trump's previous assertions that the operations were predominantly focused on fentanyl-laden vessels. In 2023, fentanyl accounted for more than double the number of American deaths compared to cocaine, according to U.S. government data.
Trump previously claimed that the military's campaign against drug trafficking could potentially prevent hundreds of thousands of deaths, but the briefing revealed a significant gap in the strategy concerning fentanyl. “None of them could say what they’re doing for fentanyl,” commented a source familiar with the briefing, emphasizing that fentanyl remains a critical issue not adequately addressed by current military operations.
Both Democratic and Republican representatives have expressed a need for clearer explanations regarding the legal justification for military strikes. However, military lawyers have been notably absent from recent congressional briefings. The legal counsel to the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff was expected to provide insights during a recent session but withdrew unexpectedly, leading to frustration among lawmakers.
In response, Senators Roger Wicker and Jack Reed released letters seeking clarity on military operations, which have gone unanswered. The lack of transparency regarding the legal framework for these strikes has raised concerns among members of both parties. Senator Mark Warner criticized the administration's approach as a “partisan stunt” that undermines Congress's authority and the accountability owed to military personnel.
As the Pentagon continues to navigate this complex issue, the ramifications of its strategy against drug trafficking in the eastern Pacific remain to be fully understood, both in terms of its effectiveness and its legality.
