Trump used the military to target a Venezuelan vessel. Is it legal?

Summary

---

Episode Overview

Podcast: Consider This from NPR
Episode: Trump used the military to target a Venezuelan vessel. Is it legal?
Date: September 19, 2025
Host: Ari Shapiro (NPR)
Guest: John Bellinger (Senior Fellow on International Law, Council on Foreign Relations; former State Department legal adviser)

This episode examines the recent and unprecedented U.S. military strikes on Venezuelan vessels ordered by President Trump during his second term. With the context of Trump’s growing militarization of both domestic and foreign policy, NPR explores the legality of these actions under U.S. and international law, their broader implications, and the questions this new approach raises for American democracy and global norms.

---

Key Discussion Points

1. President Trump’s Militarization in Office

• Increased Military Symbolism and Action

  • Trump, in his second term, has leaned more heavily into his role as commander in chief. Notable events include:
    • A grand military parade on his birthday (aligned with the Army’s 250th birthday).
      “Trump waved as tanks rolled through the streets of Washington. A military parade of such magnitude is unusual in the US during peacetime.” [00:15]
    • Rebranding of the Department of Defense as the “Department of War.”
      “Really, it has to do with winning. We should have won every war. We could have won every war, but we... chose to be very politically correct or wokey.” — [Trump, 01:07]
  • Deployment of the National Guard in Democrat-led cities like Los Angeles and Washington.

• Trump’s Rhetoric and Policy

  • Trump continues to use very strong language about projecting U.S. military power: “America's enemies have learned that if you threaten the American people, our soldiers are coming for you. Your defeat will be certain, your demise will be final, and your downfall will be total and complete.” — [Trump, 00:47]

2. The Venezuelan Strikes: What Happened?

• Details of the Attacks

  • U.S. military strikes destroyed boats in international waters, targeting what the administration described as “narco-terrorists” from Venezuela. At least 14 Venezuelan citizens were killed.
  • Strikes were documented and made public via social media by President Trump.
    “A 30 second video clip shows a boat bobbing in the water, then a fireball and a plume of smoke. President Trump posted the footage on social media this week...” [03:18]

• Precedent

  • According to Secretary of State Marco Rubio and NPR analysts, these strikes go significantly “farther than what other presidents have authorized.”
    “These strikes really are without precedent and go much farther than what other presidents have authorized.” — [NPR Analyst, 02:13]

3. Legal Authority and Questions

• Unclear Legal Basis

  • The legal foundation for the strikes is tenuous.
  • Trump filed a War Powers Report after the first attack, citing his Article 2 constitutional authority and claiming “self-defense,” but did not specify the nature of the threat. “He said he was acting in self defense, but he really didn't lay it out in any detail.” — [Bellinger, 04:56]
  • The second strike had even less publicly available justification.

• Comparison with Past Practice

  • Previous administrations justified lethal action abroad (e.g., against al-Qaeda or ISIS) only when there was evidence of imminent threats or attacks against the U.S. “This is different than what prior presidents have done in launching drone strikes or other attacks against members of Al Qaeda or ISIS.” — [Bellinger, 06:26]

• Domestic and International Law

  • Under international law, most experts view the strikes as impermissible unless the targeted individuals pose an imminent threat. “At the international level, I have not seen a single international lawyer who thinks that it's permissible for a country to blow up the civilians of another country on the high seas unless they were actually posing an imminent attack.” — [Bellinger, 07:13]
  • U.S. courts generally avoid adjudicating such questions, calling them “non-justiciable.”

4. Accountability and Global Implications

• Accountability Challenges

  • Legal challenges are unlikely to succeed; courts frequently defer on executive military actions.
  • The actions set a troubling precedent—how would the U.S. respond if other nations acted similarly? “If Russia or a China or a country closer to home like Mexico or Canada just blew up a boat on the high seas with suspected drug traffickers, possibly even Americans in it, would we think that that's okay?” — [Bellinger, 07:31]

• Call for Congressional Oversight

  • Bellinger strongly urges Congress and the public to demand greater transparency and justification: “It’s important for all Americans and their representatives in Congress to ask tough questions about this. What was the basis for this?” — [Bellinger, 08:14] “These strikes really are unprecedented, particularly if they continue. I think it's important for Congress and the American people to ask tough questions about whether this is really consistent with the rule of law and the kind of country that the United States wants to be.” — [Bellinger, 09:07]

---

Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments

• On Trump’s Militaristic Rebranding: “We should have won every war. We could have won every war, but we... chose to be very politically correct or wokey.” — Trump [01:07]

• Expert Skepticism on Legality: “It’s legally questionable under both U.S. and international law.” — John Bellinger [04:56]

• On Global Precedent and Reciprocity: “Would we think that that’s okay? I don’t think President Trump and his administration are likely to be held accountable for this. But it certainly raises very serious questions under both domestic law and international law.” — John Bellinger [07:31]

---

Key Timestamps

• 00:15 — Military parade and increased symbolism under Trump
• 01:07 — Rebranding the Department of Defense as Department of War; Trump’s rhetoric
• 01:34 — Domestic deployment of the National Guard
• 01:45 — Secretary Marco Rubio details Venezuelan strikes
• 02:13 — Analyst outlines the unprecedented nature of strikes
• 03:18 — Video and social media dissemination of attacks; legal stakes introduced
• 04:32-09:27 — Interview with John Bellinger, legal analysis and discussion of consequences
• 09:27-09:34 — Closing with Bellinger’s call for oversight

---

Summary: What Does This Mean for Listeners?

This episode delivers a focused and urgent look at how President Trump’s expanded use of military force—both at home and abroad—raises profound and novel legal dilemmas. The core issue: Under what circumstances can the President unilaterally authorize deadly military strikes, particularly against non-state actors in international waters, and is there sufficient legal justification? While the administration cites self-defense, legal experts warn the rationale is thin and sets a risky new precedent, potentially undermining rule of law and international norms. Listeners are encouraged to weigh the implications for American democracy, global conduct, and the balance of power between branches of government.

Transcript

[A]

My generals. Those generals are going to keep us so safe. They're going to have a lot of problems. The other side, they're going to look at, they're going to look at a couple of them. These are central casting. If I'm doing a movie, I pick you, General.

[B]

My generals. During his first term, President Trump used that phrase a lot. And in his second term, Trump has leaned even more into his role as commander in chief of the US Military. In June, Trump, fired, finally got a military parade. He'd been asking for one since his first term. The Army's 250th birthday happened to fall on Trump's 79th birthday. Trump waved as tanks rolled through the streets of Washington. A military parade of such magnitude is unusual in the US during peacetime time.

[A]

And again, America's enemies have learned that if you threaten the American people, our soldiers are coming for you. Your defeat will be certain, your demise will be final, and your downfall will be total and complete.

[B]

More recently, Trump rebranded the Department of Defense the Department of War.

[A]

Really, it has to do with winning. We should have won every war. We could have won every war, but we, we really chose to be very politically correct or wokey.

[B]

And in this second term, Trump has not only leaned into the symbolism of the military, he has also seized opportunities to deploy military force. That includes in the United States, where he's deployed the National Guard in Los Angeles and Washington, both cities led by Democrats.

[A]

Other cities are hopefully watching this. They're all watching, just like everyone's watching here. They're all watching and maybe they'll self clean up.

[B]

Overseas, the US Military has also carried out actions that defy precedent. Here's Secretary of State Marco Rubio. We destroyed a drug boat that left Venezuela operated by a designated narco terrorist organization, which is what these are. Over the past few weeks, President Trump has ordered military strikes on Venezuelan boats. The attacks happened in international waters and killed at least 14 people, likely Venezuelan citizens.

[C]

These strikes really are without precedent and go much farther than what other presidents have authorized.

[B]

Consider this. Do the strikes on Venezuelan vessels signal a new way of using the military abroad? And is it legal? From npr, I'm Ari Shapiro. This message comes from Carvana. Explore Carvana's quick and easy financing and browse thousands of car options, all within your budget and timeline. Get pre qualified [e-mail] financing subject to credit approval. Additional terms and conditions may apply.

[D]

Sources and methods, the crown jewels of the intelligence community. Shorthand for how do we know what's real? Who told us? If you have those answers. You're on the inside and NPR wants to bring you there. From the Pentagon to the State Department to spy agencies, listen to understand what's really happening and what it means for you. Sources and methods. The new national Security podcast from npr.

[B]

On the Throughline podcast from npr, immigration enforcement might be more visible now, but this moment didn't be begin with President Trump's second inauguration or even his first, a series from Throughline about how immigration became political and a cash cow. Listen to Throughline in the NPR app or wherever you get your podcasts. It's consider this from NPR. A 30 second video clip shows a boat bobbing in the water, then a fireball and a huge plume of smoke. President Trump posted the footage on social media this week, saying he ordered the US Military to attack what Trump called narco terrorists from Venezuela. It's at least the second time this month that President Trump has ordered this sort of a deadly strike on a boat that he claims carried illegal drugs. The attacks raise big legal questions, questions that John Bellinger has wrestled with for years. He was legal adviser to the State Department, the George W. Bush administration, and he also testified to Congress about lethal drone strikes during the Obama administration. Welcome.

[C]

Nice to be with you, Ari.

[B]

Venezuela's President Nicolas Maduro called the first attack on a boat, quote, a military action on civilians who were not at war and were not militarily threatening any country. We don't know who was on the boats or whether they were carrying illegal drugs as Trump claims. But what legal authority is the president using to order these attacks without any prior approval from the courts or from Congress?

[C]

Well, it's unclear. Is the answer the attack based on the facts that the White House has put out so far for both, for both attacks, is that it's legally questionable under both U.S. and international law. The president, after the first attack on September 2, filed a report with Congress called the War Powers Report in which he said that he was acting under his constitutional authority under Article 2 of the Constitution. He didn't claim any congressional authority and he said that it was an action in self defense, but he didn't specify whether the boat or the people on it posed any particular threat, whether they had conducted an attack or were planning an attack. So the president said that he had the constitutional authority to do it. He said he was acting in self defense, but he really didn't lay it out in any detail. As far as the second attack on September 15, he has not laid out in any detail what the basis was for that.

[B]

So if I could Just parse what you're saying. The President is claiming this is his constitutional authority under Article 2, that the US is acting in self defense against an imminent threat and that these drug cartels are a terrorist organization in the President's designation that the US Is, am I correct, effectively at war with in his analysis.

[C]

Well, it's not clear whether he is saying that we are at war with these groups. He says that they are a terrorist group and that they're engaged in drug trafficking. Now, his war powers report used the words self defense, but never said that this group had either attacked the United States or was planning an attack against the United States. So this is different than what prior presidents have done in launching drone strikes or other attacks against members of Al Qaeda or isis.

[B]

So you said that these claims are questionable under US and international law. Typically, those questions would be answered by some kind of judicial process in court. Is there such a process? Can these claims be evaluated under U.S. law?

[C]

Sometimes there can be challenges in court, but the courts generally try to stay out of these questions, finding that they are non justiciable at the international level. I have not seen a single international lawyer who thinks that it's permissible for a country to blow up the civilians of another country on the high seas unless they were actually posing an imminent attack. But the question is really, is this the sort of thing that Americans would think is acceptable if other countries did it? If Russia or a China or a country closer to home like Mexico or Canada just blew up a boat on the high seas with suspected drug traffickers, possibly even Americans in it, would we think that that's okay? I don't think President Trump and his administration are likely to be held accountable for this. But it certainly raises very serious questions under both domestic law and international law.

[B]

So where do you think this is likely to lead?

[C]

Well, as the former lawyer for the State Department, where we really assess whether actions of the United States are under both domestic law and international law, and whether if another country did this same thing, we would think it was acceptable. I think that it's important for all Americans and their representatives in Congress to ask tough questions about this. What was the basis for this? There is some. If more facts were to come out that were to show that this boat had people on it who were planning an attack against the United States, that would be one set of facts and might justify it. On the other hand, if this was just a group of drug traffickers who were bad guys, this is not the way the United States or other countries generally deal with a threat like that, we would use our Coast Guard to interdict it. We would arrest the people. These strikes really are unprecedented, particularly if they continue. I think it's important for Congress and the American people to ask tough questions about whether this is really consistent with the rule of law and the kind of country that the United States wants to be.

[B]

That's former State Department legal advisor John Bellinger. He's now a senior fellow on international law at the Council on Foreign Relations. Thank you for your time.

[C]

Thanks, Ari. Nice to be with you.

[B]

This episode was produced by Vincent Akovino. It was edited by Courtney Dorning and Justine Kennan. Our executive producer is Sammy Yenigun. It's Consider this from npr. I'm Ari Shapiro. And a couple things before we go. First, a big thank you to our Consider this plus listeners who support the show. Your contribution makes it possible for NPR journalists around the world to do their jobs. Supporters also get to hear every episode in even less time with no sponsor messages. Learn more at plus.NPR.org and speaking of listening to podcasts, NPR is launching a newsletter called Pod Club, written each week for podcast fans by podcast fans. Subscribing is free. You get fresh recommendations in your inbox every Friday. The link to sign up is in our show notes [e-mail] podclub.

[D]

Military commanders, intelligence officials, diplomatic power players. They know things you may not about where the world is headed. And we will pull back the curtain on what they're thinking. On sources and methods, NPR's new national security podcast. Our team will help you understand America's shifting role in the world. Listen to Sources and Methods from npr. It's fall, so maybe you're figuring out your Halloween costume or where to get a pumpkin spice latte. And if you want to know what buzzy movies and TV shows to check out this fall, we've got you covered. Listen to Pop Culture Happy Hour in the NPR app or wherever you get your podcast. Want to hear this podcast without sponsor breaks? Amazon prime members can listen to Consider this sponsor free through Amazon Music. Or you can also support NPR's vital journalism and get consider this plus@ +npr.org that's +npr.org.