The Daily – The U.S. Keeps Killing Venezuelans on Boats. Is That Legal?

Date: September 25, 2025
Hosts: Natalie Kitroeff
Guest: Charlie Savage, NYT National Security Correspondent

Overview

This episode investigates a series of unprecedented U.S. military strikes ordered by President Trump against boats in the Caribbean, purportedly carrying Venezuelan drug traffickers. NYT’s Charlie Savage explains how these operations mark an extraordinary escalation in U.S. counternarcotics policy, why the legal justifications are highly disputed, and how broader political objectives—especially pressure on the Venezuelan regime—may be driving the actions.

Key Discussion Points and Insights

1. What Happened? Unprecedented Military Strikes on Civilian Boats

• Summary of Events:

  • Over the past month, three boats in the Caribbean have been destroyed by the U.S. military—each resulting in the deaths of all 17 people aboard (00:26).
  • President Trump claims the boats were carrying drugs and operated by "narco-terrorists," but has released no concrete proof (00:26).
  • These strikes follow a secret order signed by Trump in late July, directing military force against suspected cartel-affiliated smugglers designated as terrorists (03:53).

• Charlie Savage:

  “This is a fundamental shift...the United States is claiming a right to summarily kill everyone on a boat it suspects of drug running in international waters...to treat the issue...as if it’s an armed attack...as if they were combatants on a battlefield in a war.” (02:04)

2. Legal and Ethical Alarm: Is This Justified—or Legal?

• Legal Experts’ Reaction:

  • There is widespread alarm among legal scholars—including conservative figures—over the targeting and killing of people suspected, not proven, to be drug smugglers (07:20, 21:50).
  • The administration has not provided a detailed legal memo or rationale publicly, instead relying on terse, vague statements (13:41).
  • Experts emphasize that designating a criminal drug gang as a terrorist organization does not legally grant war-like powers to the President (19:10).

• Charlie Savage:

  “The Trump administration has not put out a detailed legal rationale for how this isn’t just murder...A hallmark of the entire ethos [of law of armed conflict] is you do not deliberately target civilians, even criminal suspects, unless they are directly participating in hostilities.” (07:20)
  “The executive branch saying 'we’re going to designate this group as a foreign terrorist organization'… does not come with the authority to attack them as if it were a war.” (19:36)

3. Questionable Evidence and Motives

• Lack of Transparency:

  • In each strike, the administration’s evidence is scant or redacted. The released videos were edited and omitted key context—such as boats turning away from the U.S. before being hit (09:38).
  • The only tangible evidence of drugs came after the third strike, when Dominican authorities found suspected contraband (11:04).

  “There was no evidence, there was just an assertion. And then there was this oddity of why are there so many people on this boat?” (07:20 – Charlie Savage)

• Suspicions of Other Motives:

  • The U.S. military placed heavy, war-fighting naval assets near Venezuela—assets not typically used for drug interdiction (29:11).
  • The administration continues to link the Venezuelan government under President Nicolás Maduro to the gangs, despite U.S. intelligence reportedly contradicting this claim (29:02, 28:26).
  • The buildup suggests these military moves may be as much about threatening or destabilizing Maduro as fighting narcotics trafficking (26:00, 29:58).

4. Legal Realities: Limits of Terrorism Designations

• Terrorist or Not?:

  • The legal definition of a terrorist organization centers on violence with political or ideological aims—not profit (16:46).
  • Drug cartels, as Savage and Kitroeff discuss, are profit driven, not ideologically motivated (18:01).
  • Designation as a Foreign Terrorist Organization (FTO) allows for economic sanctions and criminal penalties for providing support, but not military attacks (19:10).

  “No… That authority is limited to imposing economic sanctions, freezing accounts...It does not come with the authority to attack them as if it were a war.” (19:10 – Charlie Savage)

5. Potential for Oversight and Accountability

• Judicial and Legislative Barriers:

  • There is little prospect for a court challenge or prosecution, either at home or via international bodies such as the ICC, since the U.S. is not a signatory (22:43).
  • Soldiers acting under orders are not likely to be prosecuted, and recent Supreme Court rulings shield the President from liability for official actions (22:51).
  • Congress retains oversight through the War Powers Resolution. Some Democrats have introduced resolutions to halt the military action (24:28).
  • A draft bill circulating may seek to retroactively legalize this military campaign against "narco-terrorists" (25:13).

• Charlie Savage:

  “The most obvious place as a matter of international law would be the International Criminal Court in The Hague…But the United States has not joined...and so there’s probably not ever going to be jurisdiction there.” (22:43)

6. Broader Implications: Slippery Slopes and Precedent

• Domestic and International Consequences:

  • The use of military force on suspicion—against noncombatants, and outside recognized war zones—breaks established U.S. and international law norms (33:20).
  • The administration’s approach extends not just to the Caribbean but domestically, with increased use of federal troops and attempts to designate domestic groups as terrorist organizations (32:03).
  • This aggressive strategy, the panel notes, marks the Trump 2 administration as feeling “radically unconstrained” compared to any predecessor—pushing boundaries that may erode future checks on presidential power (33:43).

• Charlie Savage:

  “This is an administration that is unlike any we’ve seen before, including the Trump 1 administration. It is demonstrably feeling radically unconstrained by limitations that previous presidents...felt some need to adhere to.” (33:43)

Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments

• On unprecedented strikes:

  “Safe to say, these are extraordinary and unprecedented moves.” (03:12 – Natalie Kitroeff)

• On legal confusion:

  “Just because if there are drugs on a boat…doesn’t necessarily mean they’re bound for here. It looked like it was going to Trinidad and Tobago from Venezuela, and that’s often a transshipment point to Europe.” (09:02 – Charlie Savage)

• On Maduro and intelligence:

  “Part of what’s fascinating…turns out that the U.S. government does not believe that’s true [that the gangs are controlled by Maduro]...the intelligence community actually has produced memos…and thinks the opposite is true.” (28:26 – Charlie Savage)

Timestamps for Key Segments

• [00:26–03:47] – Overview: What are the strikes, and why are they so significant?
• [03:53–07:07] – How the secret military order was discovered; details of the first strike.
• [07:20–13:26] – Legal skepticism and lack of transparency; challenges to the administration’s claims.
• [13:41–19:36] – Discussion: Legal basis for military action, terrorism designations, and the limitations they impose.
• [21:39–24:28] – Can the legality of these strikes be challenged? Possible venues and obstacles.
• [24:28–26:37] – Congressional pushback, draft legislation, and the potential for expanded conflict.
• [26:37–33:43] – Maduro, the real objective, and the broader, deeply troubling consequences for rule of law and presidential power.

Final Reflections

This episode paints a deeply unsettling portrait of a new, unrestrained approach to foreign and domestic security—a policy that leverages lethal military force under disputed legal pretenses, with potentially limited avenues for oversight or accountability. The broader message: By blurring lines between crime and war, and by expanding the President's authority to target even suspected criminals abroad and at home, these actions may set a far-reaching, perilous precedent for U.S. power.

For further details, listen to the full episode of The Daily by The New York Times.