In a classified session with lawmakers, the Government of Donald Trump clarified that the military campaign against drug trafficking in the Caribbean is limited to vessels in international waters, admitting that there is no legal or regulatory basis to extend operations into Venezuelan territory.
Written by: La Tabla/Data Journalism Platform 6 NOV 2025
Officials from the Trump administration informed lawmakers that the United States does not consider ground attacks within Venezuela, acknowledging that there is no legal justification to extend the military campaign initiated in September against alleged vessels linked to drug trafficking. The clarification was made during a classified session led by Secretary of State Marco Rubio, Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth, and legal advisors from the White House, according to sources cited by CNN.
📌 Context of the Decision
– The U.S. military operation began in September with a naval deployment in the Caribbean, under the premise of combating criminal organizations linked to drug trafficking.
– CNN revealed that the opinion from the Department of Justice’s Office of Legal Counsel authorized action only against suspicious vessels in international waters.
– Lawmakers were informed that this opinion does not enable attacks inside Venezuela or any other sovereign territory.
⚖️ Legal Foundations Behind the Decision
The U.S. government’s clarification is based on a legal framework that precisely defines the scope of military operation. First, the opinion issued by the Department of Justice’s Office of Legal Counsel states that the use of force is authorized only against vessels linked to drug trafficking in international waters. In other words, action is restricted to a maritime context and cannot extend to Venezuelan territory or any other sovereign state.
In addition to this limitation, the presidential executive order that initiated the campaign in September does not contemplate land targets. Therefore, the operation remains strictly naval.
On an international level, the United Nations Charter is clear: Article 2(4) prohibits the use of force against the territorial integrity of another state, except in cases of legitimate defense. Article 51 specifies that this defense is only valid against an armed attack. Since Venezuela has not attacked the United States, there is no justification to invoke this exception.
Finally, the principle of sovereignty and non-intervention, enshrined in customary international law, reinforces the prohibition of any military action without consent from the affected state or without an explicit mandate from the U.N. Security Council.
Together, these legal and regulatory instruments explain why Washington recognizes that it lacks a legal basis to extend its military campaign to Venezuelan soil. The decision aims to preserve the legality of operations, avoid a violation of sovereignty, and mitigate the risk of a regional crisis.
🧩Political and Strategic Implications
– Tactical de-escalation: The Trump administration avoids opening a ground front that could trigger a regional crisis.
– Legislative oversight: Congress demands transparency and limits on presidential power in unauthorized military operations.
– International legitimacy: Keeping the operation in international waters preserves a degree of legality in front of multilateral organizations.
📍 Conclusion
The decision not to extend the military campaign to Venezuelan territory reflects an acknowledgment that there is no legal or regulatory basis for justifying ground attacks. The U.S. government remains within the confines of internal legal opinion and international law, aware that a ground incursion would violate Venezuelan sovereignty and lack normative support.