**U.S. Drug War Under Trump Echoes Post-9/11 War on Terror Legal Framework**
**WASHINGTON (AP)** — Under President Donald Trump, the U.S. drug war is increasingly mirroring the war on terror. To support military strikes against Latin American gangs and drug cartels, the Trump administration is relying on a legal argument that gained prominence after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. This framework allowed U.S. authorities to use lethal force against al-Qaida combatants responsible for the World Trade Center and Pentagon attacks.
However, the criminal groups currently targeted by U.S. strikes represent a very different adversary. These groups, such as Venezuela’s Tren de Aragua gang, were spawned in prisons and are fueled not by anti-Western ideology but by drug trafficking and other illicit enterprises. Legal scholars warn that Trump’s use of overwhelming military force and authorization of covert action inside Venezuela—possibly aimed at ousting President Nicolás Maduro—push the limits of international law.
This shift comes as Trump expands the military’s domestic role by deploying the National Guard to U.S. cities and expressing openness to invoking the nearly 150-year-old Insurrection Act, which permits military deployment in only exceptional civil unrest cases.
—
### Lethal Strikes Without Formal War Declaration
So far, U.S. military strikes have killed at least 27 people in five separate incidents targeting vessels alleged to be carrying drugs. The most recent strike occurred on Tuesday, killing six people. These actions have taken place without any legal investigation or a formal war declaration from Congress.
Such circumstances raise questions about the legal justification for these strikes and their potential impact on diplomatic relations, especially with Latin American countries that recall the U.S.’s contentious Cold War-era military interventions.
Meanwhile, the U.S. intelligence community disputes Trump’s central claim that Maduro’s government collaborates with the Tren de Aragua gang to orchestrate drug trafficking and illegal immigration into the United States.
—
### “You Can’t Just Call Something War”
Trump’s assertion that the United States is engaged in an “armed conflict” with drug cartels hinges on the same legal authority the Bush administration used to declare a war on terror after 9/11. This authority permits the capture and detention of combatants and the use of lethal force against their leaders.
However, the United Nations Charter expressly forbids the use of force except in self-defense. Claire Finkelstein, a professor of national security law at the University of Pennsylvania, commented, “You just can’t call something war to give yourself war powers. … It makes a mockery of international law to suggest we are in a noninternational armed conflict with cartels.”
Unlike al-Qaida, which was actively plotting attacks designed to kill civilians after 9/11, the cartels’ primary goal is drug trafficking. Geoffrey Corn, a Texas Tech law professor and former senior Army adviser on law-of-war issues, described the government’s position as politically motivated: “Even if we assume there’s an armed conflict with Tren de Aragua, how do we know everyone in that boat was an enemy fighter? I think Congress needs to know that.”
—
### Trump Defends Military Strikes and Signals Possible Escalation
When asked at the White House why the U.S. does not use the Coast Guard to intercept Venezuelan vessels and seize drugs, Trump responded, “We have been doing that for 30 years and it has been totally ineffective.”
He also suggested that the U.S. might strike targets inside Venezuela, a move that would markedly escalate tensions and legal concerns. So far, the strikes have occurred in international waters outside any single country’s jurisdiction.
Trump said, “We’ve almost totally stopped it by sea. Now we’ll stop it by land.”
Regarding a New York Times report that he authorized a covert CIA operation in Venezuela, Trump declined to confirm whether he had given the CIA authority to take out Maduro, calling it “ridiculous” to answer.
—
### Legal and Historical Context of Covert Operations
Numerous U.S. laws and executive orders since the 1970s prohibit the assassination of foreign officials. Yet, by declaring Venezuelan criminals “unlawful combatants,” Trump may be attempting to circumvent these restrictions, possibly reviving a historical pattern of covert regime-change operations akin to those in Guatemala, Chile, and Iran.
Finkelstein noted, “If you pose a threat, and are making war on the U.S., you’re not a protected person.”
During Trump’s first term, Maduro was indicted on federal drug-related charges, including narcoterrorism and conspiracy to import cocaine. This year, the Justice Department doubled the reward for information leading to Maduro’s arrest to $50 million, labeling him “one of the largest narco-traffickers in the world.”
—
### Drug Trade Realities and Geographic Focus
Despite the intense focus on Venezuela, the bulk of American overdose deaths stem from fentanyl, primarily transported by land from Mexico. While Venezuela is a significant drug transit zone, about 75% of the cocaine produced in Colombia—the world’s largest producer—is smuggled through the eastern Pacific Ocean, not the Caribbean.
—
### Congressional and International Oversight Lacking
Under the U.S. Constitution, only Congress can declare war. Yet no indications suggest congressional pushback against Trump’s broad interpretation of presidential authority to target drug cartels blamed for tens of thousands of American overdose deaths annually.
The GOP-controlled Senate recently voted down a war powers resolution sponsored by Democrats, which would have required the president to seek congressional authorization for further military strikes.
Even amid calls from some Republicans for more transparency, the Trump administration has yet to provide compelling evidence to lawmakers that the targeted vessels were carrying narcotics, according to two U.S. officials familiar with the matter.
Senator Angus King (I-Maine) revealed that members of the Senate Armed Services Committee were denied access in a classified briefing to the Pentagon’s legal opinion on whether the strikes complied with U.S. law.
—
### Legal Challenges and International Court Prospects
Legal opposition is unlikely to deter the White House. A 1973 Supreme Court ruling, stemming from a lawsuit aimed at halting the Vietnam War’s spread to Laos and Cambodia, set a high legal threshold for challenging military orders.
Families of those killed in the boat strikes also confront legal hurdles after several high court decisions have limited the ability of foreign citizens to sue in U.S. courts.
The strikes occurred in international waters, which could open the door for the International Criminal Court (ICC) to investigate, similar to its probes into alleged war crimes in Russia and Israel—both countries, like the U.S., do not recognize the ICC’s authority.
However, the ICC’s work is currently hampered by a sexual misconduct investigation that led to its chief prosecutor stepping aside. Additionally, U.S. sanctions related to the ICC’s indictment of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu have complicated the court’s operations.
—
### Conclusion
President Trump’s approach to the drug war, invoking a war-on-terror legal framework to justify lethal strikes on Latin American criminal groups, challenges established international and constitutional norms. As this policy unfolds, it raises critical questions about legality, transparency, and long-term geopolitical impacts in the region.
https://ktar.com/national-news/a-war-on-drugs-or-a-war-on-terror-trumps-military-pressure-on-venezuela-blurs-the-lines/5762491/
