Why the U.S. military is striking boats from Venezuela

0:02In early September, President Donald Trump posted a grainy black and white video to his social media. There's no audio. At the very top, in all caps, are the words UNCLASSIFIED. The video shows a small boat riding out in the open ocean. You can see people on board. The video then switches to a wide shot taken from above the boat. Suddenly, the boat goes up in flames. According to the Trump administration, this boat was on its way from Venezuela to the United States, allegedly transporting illegal drugs for a criminal gang called Tren de Aragua. The U.S. could have stopped the boat and taken the alleged smugglers into custody.

0:44Instead, it chose to blow up the boat, and the White House says all 11 people on board were killed. We just, over the last few minutes, literally shot out a boat, a drug-carrying boat, a lot of drugs in that boat. Here's President Trump speaking about the incident shortly after it happened. We have a lot of drugs pouring into our country, coming in for a long time. And we just, these came out of Venezuela and coming out very heavily from Venezuela. The president considers the people on that boat narco-terrorists and considers the organization delivering those drugs a terrorist organization. And he's kind of changing the paradigm on how the U.S.

1:25reacts to this drug trade. Tara Kopp covers the military and national security for The Post. She has been spending the last few weeks trying to understand what happened during this strike against a Venezuelan boat and why. So it's still really unclear exactly what authorities and powers he used. You know, what was the legal justification? What are the legal authorities under this? Despite the fact that so much remains unclear about this attack, and despite the fact that Congress is now asking questions about the legality of the strike, Secretary of State Marco Rubio has said that more attacks like this could be coming.

2:02It'll happen again. Maybe it's happening right now. I don't know. But the point is, the President of the United States is going to wage war on narco-terrorist organizations. Just minutes before we wrapped up this episode this afternoon, Trump posted another grainy video to his social media of a boat being blown up. In his post, Trump claimed that the boat was carrying, quote, narco-terrorists and illegal drugs from Venezuela, and that they had killed three people. From the newsroom of The Washington Post, this is Post Reports. I'm Kolbie Echowitz. It's Monday, September 15th. Today, have we entered a new era for the war on terror?

2:43I speak with Tara about the U.S. targeting Venezuela. Now, we spoke before news of the second attack, so our conversation only covers that first strike. We talk about whether it was even legal and how Donald Trump is making it a military priority to go after drug cartels. I mean, we've been calling it a war on drugs for decades, but he actually considers this a war.

3:14Hi, Tara. Thanks so much for coming on. Thanks for having me. So, Tara, how unprecedented was this? How has the administration justified, you know, unilaterally killing these 11 people? It's wholly unprecedented. We have seen Navy and Coast Guard ships seize drugs before and detain smugglers and destroy the boats. We have not seen to date a military strike against one of these boats. I mean, when I heard about it, I thought, like, can we do this? Like, can the United States do this? Are there powers that justify our military killing these people? That's a question Congress is still asking. It's a question that members of the press are still asking.

3:58And we haven't gotten a clear-cut answer from the administration. So what do they say? These cartels are now identified as terrorist organizations, foreign terrorist organizations. It's something the president did in his very first day in office in his second term. That opened the door to the possibility that they could be targeted like other terrorist groups have over the last two decades under the authorization for the use of military force. That is something that presidents have used to conduct drone strikes. Obama actually was one of the first presidents to really openly show that the U.S.

4:32was using this authorization to go after terrorist groups around the world, not just in Afghanistan, not just in Iraq. And now we're seeing that there's a possibility it came into play here in the Western Hemisphere. However, in the days since the strikes, as everyone has pressed for additional details, you've seen the president release a letter that he sent to Senator Chuck Grassley talking about his responsibilities as commander-in-chief under Article 2 of the Constitution to defend the country. And that seems to invoke that he is using his presidential powers to say that the strike was necessary and justified.

5:08So his argument then is that the people on the boat were going to cause harm to the United States and so that he was justified in taking that boat out. That's correct. But has the Trump administration provided proof that the people on the boat actually were part of the cartel? Like, do we know anything about the 11 individuals on board? We know so little about the individuals on board and we don't actually even know if there were actually 11 because we just have this very grainy video that shows an explosion. Where does the 11 number come from? Is that from the White House? From the White House and from the administration.

5:41You know, we see this strike on the boat. We don't know if it was a manned or an unmanned aircraft that struck the boat. We don't know if it was a drone launching a missile or a helicopter launching a missile. The president was sending basically a warning shot to the cartels. The boat didn't have to be blown up in that manner in this very fiery explosion. It could have been sunk. You know, those members could have been arrested. So this is very much just a sign to the cartels. Yeah, it's so interesting to me because, you know, the White House, Trump puts out this grainy video of the U.S. military blowing up this boat.

6:19You see the explosion in the video, but then are not providing any information beyond what we're able to see with our own eyes, the types of details that you're describing. We just don't know. I mean, that seems unprecedented. And our own reporting and others has started to pull back some layers that Congress isn't getting answers either. You know, all of us have been asking the Pentagon, under what specific authority can you give us anything else? Because we're used to over the years as these drone strikes have occurred, for example, when we go after terrorist groups in the Sahel and U.S. AFRICOM will put out a statement and say that this was the target and they will name the senior leader killed.

6:59And they'll usually say it was a drone strike or some type. They'll describe it a little bit. They won't maybe say what type of drone. But we haven't even gotten that. Those are the bare minimums that we haven't gotten in this strike. I mean, this isn't the first time we've even heard about Trendy Agua. This group has been a fixation of Trump throughout his whole first year back in office. What do we know about this organization? This group, depending on who you ask, is not quite the giant cartel in the room compared to others. And our own reporting here at the Post has exposed that the intelligence community assesses that Venezuela's leader, Nicolas Maduro, doesn't have a direct tie to Trundale Agua and that he's not directing their action.

7:45So it's nebulous at best why these 11 individuals were targeted that day. And so what does that mean to put the terrorist definition on drug cartels? What does that allow the U.S. to do? It provided them greater cover and greater authority to go after these individuals as if they were going after a member of al-Qaeda or ISIS. You know, without warning, strike without warning, targets of opportunity. But that doesn't necessarily mean that they can or should and what sort of international laws apply. And even, you know, getting down into how the military operates, there are very specific rules of engagement that the military has to follow.

8:30And we've had very little disclosure on whether those were followed. Is there anything in like the international code that says like, no, you can't do that. You've broken some kind of law here. The ICC, the International Criminal Court, could possibly step in, but we don't recognize the ICC. The United States doesn't. Correct. And, you know, let's flip it. But let's say that China came over and they found a boat to be a threat to their national interests and blew it up without notification or authorization. What would we be expecting to hear from Congress right now and from the White House? Probably uproar.

9:09And yet this has just been done unilaterally with very little explanation and just the promise that more is going to happen. Yeah, Tara, the point about how America would respond if this happened. And to us, this was a Venezuelan boat. So how has Venezuela responded to this attack? So Venezuela's leader, Nicolas Maduro, has used this to try and gin up sympathy from his populace and has called tens of thousands of reservists to basically be ready for an invasion, suggesting that this is a precursor to the U.S. actually coming in and maybe trying to oust him or attack cartels in Venezuela directly.

9:51I would say that his fears probably aren't unfounded. President Trump actually talked about and asked his leaders in his first term in 2018 about options for using the military to oust Maduro. And as we've seen, a lot of his second term has been unfinished business from his first term. So, you know, it's possible that the president is thinking, you know, how could this be expanded to get Maduro out of office? Yeah. Are people in Venezuela like Maduro, are they seeing this as an act of war? Like, is this a declaration of war from the United States? Well, Maduro certainly is. If he's seeing it that way, and what has the response been in the U.S.?

10:30You mentioned that Congress has been asking a lot of questions and not getting a lot of answers. I think what you're seeing is a growing amount of concern in Congress about the lack of consultation, the lack of explanation and where Congress's powers, because Congress has the power to declare wars. And this isn't the first time that Congress has been irritated at a president that has taken action without consulting them. I think that we need more time to pass to see if there really can be direct ties made to terrorism. It also depends on how the definition of terrorism has been expanded or is being expanded.

11:12because I don't think we've traditionally thought of drug smelaglers as terrorists, but it's definitely seen as a threat. And, you know, there's no question that overdoses in the U.S. have been a significant problem. Is that terrorism, though?

11:32I mean, to that end, we saw Vice President J.D. Vance. He reacted to some online criticism of the attack. There was an anti-Trump podcaster who called what they did a war crime. And so what Vance said, and just a warning, he used a curse word here. He wrote, I don't give a shit what you call it. And then we saw Rand Paul, who is largely anti-war, kind of tore into Vance and has continued to tear into him over what Vance said there. So let's take a listen to what Paul said on Fox News. Think about it this way. This is how people don't quite get this. Let's say there's a house in your neighborhood and they're all selling fentanyl and thousands of people have died and you're just so mad.

12:11Do you go over there and just kill them or burn them? No, you go to a judge and you get a warrant and you do that. What do you make of that criticism? I think that it's notable that there aren't more Republicans joining his voice right now. But conversely, you have also not seen the U.S. military take any additional action like this. There was another boat seizure and boat destruction. The Coast Guard took the lead because the Coast Guard has the law enforcement capabilities and did it in a much more traditional way where there's still a video of a fiery boat explosion, except they had arrested the alleged smugglers.

12:53There were seven of them, got them off the boat and then blew up the boat. Yeah. Which that had a bunch of drugs on it. Yes. It just raises a lot of questions. And I think that even though the administration has pledged that there's going to be more of these strikes to come, and we've heard chatter that potential drone strikes against cartels within Mexico is an option or potential drone strikes within Venezuela is an option. And who knows how much credibility there is to that chatter. But these are all things that the administration has been considering as a broad array of options. Yeah. But you're not seeing it.

13:32After the break, why the Department of Defense is becoming the Department of War, and how Donald Trump is reshaping the military more broadly to achieve his goals. We'll be right back.

13:52When it comes to the big questions, who you ask matters. From breaking news to politics that impact your life to advice you can trust. Get answers you don't have to question with Ask the Post AI. Trained exclusively on post journalism with clear sourcing. And if we don't know the answer, we'll tell you. Ask the Post AI. Find it on WashingtonPost.com or in the app.

14:24So Tara, we've been talking about this strike that happened just earlier this month. And it's interesting because just shortly after that, Trump also went and renamed the department that oversees the military. Can you explain what is going on with this change? Through an executive order, he rebranded the Pentagon as the Department of War instead of the Department of Defense, a name that it has held since 1949. This is something where he's possibly going to come to odds with Congress because Congress has the authority to name it the Department of Defense. He sidestepped the issue a little bit by saying this is kind of an honorific.

15:00This will be a secondary title. But almost immediately, the Secretary of Defense, now Secretary of War, was taking plaques off of his office and putting up new nameplates on the walls and replacing the seals on the walls. They're traditionally blue SEALs that say Department of Defense, and now they're wooden SEALs that say Department of War. In a way, that's kind of window dressing, but it's also messaging to the force that they're on different footing now. That's kind of the window dressing for some of the things you've seen the president do with the military and test what the limits he can do with the military, with these domestic deployments, with sending troops to the border, with now taking action.

15:42in our own hemisphere, having the military take a direct strike against cartels in our own hemisphere. These aren't things that we've seen previously. Is the idea, I mean, when you hear like defense, you think you're defending yourself. But when I hear war, you kind of think of offense, right? Like, is this now the Trump administration saying like, we're going to be proactively taking offensive measures to protect America, whether that is blowing up a boat or sending troops to the border or sending the National Guard into cities like D.C. The interesting thing about this is that preemptive strike is not a new concept for the military, and that was done under the Department of Defense, under presidents way before Trump.

16:29Department of War, however, this administration and Secretary Hegseth and the president seem convinced that changing the name will put the service members that are in the department on a more clear footing on what their mission is. Hmm. How so? Instead of defending against a ray of threats, which they, you know, have cobbled together for anything from like climate change, which is now being stripped from a lot of the manuals. You know, the Department of Defense is not defending against climate change or any of these kind of like broader national security issues that the Defense Department has looked at as security threats.

17:09Because if you have extreme climate in a country that's already destabilized, that almost guarantees that eventually the U.S. will think it needs to intervene and may send either troops or some other types of resources because climate change can lead to conflict. Hmm. But they're saying that's not... That's not the mission. That's not the mission anymore. We definitely have seen reporting and talked to our sources about the upcoming National Defense Strategy, which kind of lays out how the military will posture itself. And for a decade or more, the military has been trying to be postured towards meeting the rising threat of China.

17:55And it seems like there's going to be a much greater emphasis on defense of the homeland. which the Trump administration has been broadcasting pretty much since day one. Not only American First, but Golden Dome and border security and now patrolling the Caribbean. So whether that means that resources will be kind of recalibrated and pulled back to more of a defense of the homeland posture, we'll wait and see.

18:26Well, also, we recently saw Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth go to Puerto Rico, and it was a surprise visit, as I understand it. What was he doing there? And what does that trip reveal about how the Trump administration is going to be prioritizing defense in the Caribbean? Well, Puerto Rico basically is the closest area of operations for us where there's Navy facilities, there's Air National Guard facilities, there's an Army training facility. So if you're looking to surge in the Caribbean and be within striking distance of Venezuela, Puerto Rico is not a bad choice. It's also the U.S. territory and we're sending more F-35s there.

19:08So we'll just see if there's going to be a buildup there. What did Hexas say while he was down there? He and the governor of Puerto Rico both reiterated that Puerto Rico is now the front line in the drug war. So if you look at it that way and you consider the southern border the front line of immigration prevention, you might expect a similar buildup. In Puerto Rico to stop the drugs from coming in by sea. Yes. I mean, is it possible that we're going to start to see, you know, you said there was this interception of this other boat by the Coast Guard, but are we going to see more attacks on boats suspected of bringing drugs to America like what we saw with the Venezuelan boat where we just blow up a boat filled with people because we think they might be bringing us drugs?

19:57What I thought was surprising was just how bluntly both the vice president and the secretary of state were and the secretary of defense. And yes, this is going to keep happening. This is what we're going to do. And whether that was considered just a warning or signaling to see if that has an effect or if we're going to actually see more strikes. And since then, you've seen the Coast Guard kind of return to normal order of business. So it might be that these legal questions that are getting raised might have a chilling effect on these strikes for now. You know, Tara, it's not lost on me that last week was the anniversary of the 9-11 terrorist attacks on the U.S.

20:41And it strikes me that a lot of the rhetoric the Trump administration is using to justify the attack on this Venezuelan boat is very reminiscent of the rhetoric used to justify strikes after 9-11. So how are you making sense of this moment, you know, in light of that history? I was here in the city on September 11th. I was a reporter. I watched the Pentagon burn from across the tidal basin. I very quickly, with other colleagues, ended up being in Iraq. And those attacks and the subsequent 20 years have defined my career and others. As we've seen this war on terror expand, expand the continents.

21:21We've seen the Pentagon try to get out of the Middle East, and it's almost impossible for U.S. forces to leave the Middle East. So the idea that there's now another theater where potential war operations or military strikes against terrorist organizations are now authorized and may become more frequent can be unsettling in a way because you did see the president say we're going to, you know, he's going to campaign on getting out of wars. But that doesn't seem to be the direction his administration is moving in.

21:59Well, Tara, thank you so much for coming on and explaining all this. I really appreciate it. Thank you for having me.

22:09Tara Kopp covers the military and national security for The Post. That's it for Post Reports. Thanks for listening. This journalism, Tara's reporting and insights, that's what you support when you become a Washington Post subscriber. It's a great time to subscribe. You can still get our core subscription for$20 for an entire year. This is billed as a single$20 payment for the first year, then renews at$120 per year thereafter. And you can cancel anytime. Go to WashingtonPost.com slash subscribe. That's WashingtonPost.com slash subscribe. There's also a link to subscribe in our show notes. Today's show was produced by Alana Gordon.

22:52It was mixed by Sean Carter and edited by Peter Bresnan. Thanks to National Security Editor Andy DeGranpree. I'm Cole Biekowitz. We'll be back tomorrow with more stories from The Washington Post.

23:17When it comes to the big questions, who you ask matters. from breaking news to politics that impact your life to advice you can trust. Get answers you don't have to question with Ask the Post AI, trained exclusively on post journalism with clear sourcing. And if we don't know the answer, we'll tell you. Ask the Post AI. Find it on WashingtonPost.com or in the app.