The Trump administration has carried out a series of maritime strikes in the Caribbean and eastern Pacific that officials say aim to stop deadly fentanyl shipments. Reporting in The Washington Post ties the operation largely to White House deputy chief of staff Stephen Miller, who — according to former U.S. officials — originally framed the campaign as a means to reduce both the flow of drugs and migration to the United States. The strikes have killed nearly 100 people and observers warn the effort’s goals are muddled and may backfire.
Origins And Shift In Focus
According to published reports, Miller initially focused on striking Mexican cartel networks to weaken organized crime, stabilize parts of Latin America and reduce the number of migrants risking the journey north. A former U.S. official quoted by The Washington Post summarized Miller’s aim:
“Miller’s larger vision was to reduce the flow of drugs — and migrants — into the United States.”
When pressure for results and diplomatic realities intervened — including Mexican efforts to curb cartel activity — the campaign reportedly shifted toward Venezuelan-linked targets. Small boats from Venezuela became primary targets of the lethal strikes, and the operation has at times been framed publicly as part of a broader effort to pressure or even topple Nicolás Maduro’s government.
Allies, Rhetoric And Domestic Consequences
Reporters say Miller found allies in figures such as Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth. President Trump has publicly cast the strikes as connected to efforts against Maduro and has advanced unverified claims about Maduro’s ties to large drug operations and even suggestions that Venezuela’s oil is a strategic prize. Miller has echoed strong rhetoric online, accusing Venezuela’s nationalization of oil of enriching hostile actors and funding illegal activity.
U.S. officials told The Washington Post Miller has also suggested domestic policy moves that could follow an escalated confrontation. He reportedly indicated that a strong Venezuelan reaction could be used as a pretext to invoke the Alien Enemies Act to speed the deportation of large numbers of Venezuelan immigrants — a move that would affect hundreds of thousands and accelerate removals for people whose status he has sought to revoke.
Why Critics Say This Will Backfire
Critics and regional analysts warn that military pressure on Venezuela — layered on top of the country’s severe economic collapse and social crisis — would likely generate more displacement, not less. History shows that war and military intervention typically increase refugee flows. Many Venezuelans and other migrants flee primarily because of economic collapse, violence and the breakdown of institutions; strikes and instability are likely to amplify those drivers.
The Biden administration proposed $4 billion in humanitarian and development assistance aimed at addressing root causes of migration in the region, but that plan met partisan resistance. Advocates for softer, diplomatic and development-focused tools argue they are better suited to reduce the long-term pressures that push people to migrate.
Bottom Line
What began as a policy pitched as countering fentanyl and curbing migration has evolved into a much broader and riskier campaign with unclear objectives. Observers warn that military strikes in the region — especially if they escalate into a confrontation with Venezuela — are more likely to deepen instability and spur further migration to the United States rather than stem it.
