Venezuela Land Strikes Loom as Trump Turns Up the Heat on Cartels
Escalating the fight against dangerous narcotics entering the United States, President Donald Trump (R) and his administration have taken the gloves off against the narco-traffickers embedded in Venezuela and Colombia. In the latest show of resolve, Senator Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) sounded the alarm, describing land strikes in Venezuela as a “real possibility” and warning the world that the U.S. is prepared to do what it takes to cut off the deadly drug pipelines threatening American streets. These tough stances—along with recent waves of U.S. airstrikes on drug-smuggling vessels—signal that Trump’s America First doctrine is alive and well.
For weeks, U.S. naval forces have conducted targeted attacks against Venezuelan and Colombian boats suspected of drug trafficking. Sources confirm that more than ten vessels have been destroyed, resulting in at least 43 traffickers neutralized in the Caribbean and Pacific theaters since early September, according to The Tribune’s latest coverage. The push comes as Trump allies have repeatedly called out the failure of previous administrations to stop the growing flood of fentanyl and other illicit drugs streaming through Latin America’s lawless corridors. These bold operations are designed to finally close the pipeline that brings poison across our border.
Senator Graham made it clear on Sunday: “Land strikes in Venezuela are a real possibility. President Trump has decided that Nicolás Maduro (Independent)—an indicted drug trafficker—must go. We will not allow Venezuela or Colombia to become launching pads for narco-terrorism against our people.”
This assertive policy dovetails with the administration’s ongoing anti-drug surge, which now extends beyond maritime interdictions. In a headline-making move, President Trump has quietly authorized CIA covert actions inside Venezuelan territory—escalating efforts to dismantle cartel infrastructure from within (President Trump has authorized CIA covert operations in Venezuela). These strategies represent a new frontier in the war on drugs, targeting both smuggling logistics and cartel leadership directly at the source.
Republicans emphasize that President Trump’s decision aligns with America’s right to self-defense. Under Article II of the Constitution, the president is commander-in-chief, granting him both the responsibility and authority to take actions necessary for national security. Graham compared Trump’s strategy to George H.W. Bush’s successful Panama operation in 1989—demonstrating that tough, decisive leadership works. When Democrats and establishment Republicans criticize, it raises the question: whose interests are they defending—the American people, or foreign strongmen?
Trump’s Bold New Doctrine: Unapologetic Force Against Narco-Terrorists
Inside the Beltway, talk of “overreach” from both sides can’t mask the stubborn reality: drugs pouring over our border are fueling a national crisis. As Graham and Trump push forward, critics from the left and right gripe about international law and congressional oversight, yet the stakes are too high for business-as-usual politics. In fact, while some lawmakers—including Senator Mark Kelly (D) and Senator Todd Young (R)—demanded explicit evidence of fentanyl on destroyed vessels (lawmakers including Senator Mark Kelly … not specifically fentanyl), the administration maintains that intelligence justified the strikes against key cartel transporters.
President Trump (R) stated bluntly that “he does not plan to seek a declaration of war for these operations” and that the ongoing strategy is not about paperwork, but about saving American lives. The facts on the ground bear out the urgency: fentanyl is killing tens of thousands of Americans each year, while previous diplomatic efforts did little to disrupt cartel safe havens. As noted in recent interviews, the president’s position is simple: “Our strategy involves directly killing people who bring drugs into the United States.”
Graham has cited George H.W. Bush’s Panama action as precedent, reminding observers that “bold action protects America.”
The administration’s resolve has also reverberated across Latin America. Colombian President Gustavo Petro (Independent), an outspoken critic of U.S. intervention, condemned the strikes as “murder.” Instead of backing down, Trump slapped personal sanctions on Petro and slashed American security aid to Colombia, proving that anti-American rhetoric comes with consequences (Colombian President Gustavo Petro condemned the U.S. strikes as murder). Meanwhile, Graham and others have clarified that proposed land strikes are not an “invasion,” but focused efforts to deny terrorists and traffickers the sanctuaries they’ve exploited for too long.
Not every lawmaker is cheering. Senator Rand Paul (R) and others have voiced reservations, with Paul questioning the lack of Congressional debate and the impact on U.S.-Latin relations. Nevertheless, support for Trump remains strong among conservative voters who have grown tired of Washington indecision and Biden-era half-measures. The White House stands firm: America has every right—and duty—to defend itself by any means necessary.
From Panama to Present: America’s Evolving War on Drugs and Why Trump’s Strategy Resonates
To fully appreciate this moment, it’s critical to look back at decades of U.S. policy missteps and rising threats from the southern hemisphere. For years, Venezuela and Colombia have operated as safe havens for cartels funneling heroin, cocaine, and fentanyl into U.S. cities. Obama-Biden appeasement and diplomatic soft talk let criminal states thrive, but Trump’s America First vision changes the equation.
It’s not the first time the United States has acted boldly in its backyard. As Senator Graham explained, George H.W. Bush’s 1989 intervention in Panama set a precedent for direct action when national security was on the line (Graham referenced historical precedents … Panama in 1989). Opponents raised legal challenges then, just as they do now, yet history has judged those efforts as necessary to restore order and combat criminal regimes.
“If we don’t hit these cartels where they live, our kids pay the price,” warned Graham. “This is about shutting down the global fentanyl pipeline—not occupying Venezuela.”
Graham’s stance taps into the mounting public demand for answers as drug overdose deaths continue to climb. DEA statistics show that over 110,000 Americans died from overdoses last year, the majority linked to synthetic opioids like fentanyl. Venezuela’s Maduro regime, already under U.S. indictment for drug crimes, is a linchpin in this deadly trade. Rather than chase endless diplomatic circles, Trump’s strategy is designed to put pressure directly on these state-supported traffickers.
Historically, presidents of both parties have exercised commander-in-chief authority to conduct limited military operations, citing national security and regional stability. Trump’s critics compare today’s Latin America situation to the War Powers debates of past conflicts, but the scale of the narcotics crisis—and its corrosive effects on American communities—have made inaction untenable. In this climate, conservative leaders argue that the president’s resolute action reflects not only legal authority but moral clarity.
Graham and his conservative allies are betting that American voters, frustrated with decades of drug violence and political posturing, will reward strength. With Trump’s re-election and approval ratings climbing, it’s clear that the base is hungry for policies that protect their families and put American interests first. Whether or not land strikes commence in the coming weeks, the message from Washington is unmistakable: the era of permissiveness is over, and America is on the offense.