NPR Politics Podcast
Episode: Are The Strikes On Venezuelan Boats ‘War’ – And Do The Rules Of War Apply?
Date: December 3, 2025
Hosts: Tamara Keith, Franco Ordonez, Greg Myhre
Episode Overview
In this episode, the NPR Politics team investigates the Trump administration’s unprecedented policy of launching deadly military strikes against alleged Venezuelan drug boats. With over 80 people killed, lawmakers and legal experts are questioning both the justification and the legality of these actions. The hosts examine whether the strikes amount to “war,” if the rules of war apply, and the broader political context—including contradictions in U.S. policy on Latin America.
Main Discussion Points & Insights
1. Background and Timeline of the Strikes
- Initial Action: First missile strike on an alleged drug boat in the Caribbean occurred on September 2nd, resulting in nine initial deaths and two survivors left aboard (03:03).
- Escalation: After the initial strike, further attacks were ordered, killing the remaining survivors and ultimately sinking the boat (03:03).
- Scope: Over 20 strikes have been carried out, with more than 80 deaths ascribed to the campaign (02:06).
2. Chain of Command and Controversy
- Reporting and Orders: Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth claimed he watched the first strike live but denied giving an explicit order to kill everyone (02:48, 03:39). Instead, responsibility for subsequent strikes was pinned on Admiral Frank “Mitch” Bradley.
- Quote: “I did not personally see survivors, but I stand because the thing was on fire. It was exploded in fire smoke.” – Pete Hegseth (03:39)
- Administration Response: The Trump administration has sought to distance itself from the fatal decisions, emphasizing the “fog of war” and denying direct presidential involvement (04:39, 05:59).
3. Legal and Ethical Dimensions
- No Declared War: The administration frames the campaign as a “war on drugs,” yet no formal war has been declared—posing complex legal questions (04:25, 05:03).
- Rules of Engagement: The Pentagon’s law of war manual clearly prohibits firing on the shipwrecked, raising questions about compliance (10:54).
- Quote: “Orders to fire upon the shipwrecked would be clearly illegal.” – Greg Myhre referencing Pentagon manual (10:54)
- Precedent: Traditionally, the US Coast Guard interdicts boats, arrests suspects, and rarely, if ever, uses lethal force (06:13).
- In previous years, over 200 suspected drug boats were stopped without killing suspects. About 20% of these contained no drugs (06:13).
- Deviation: The current policy abandons this precedent, with the administration arguing previous methods were ineffective due to persistent drug flow, though most fentanyl (the major U.S. drug crisis) comes by land, not sea (07:15).
4. Transparency and Evidence Questions
- Lack of Proof: The White House claims each boat carries lethal quantities of drugs but offers only grainy videos as evidence, with no independent verification produced (08:08).
- Political Spin: President Trump and officials have sought to assign blame to the military and deny direct involvement or knowledge—both as a legal defense and political strategy (14:09).
5. Politics of “Lethality” and Legal Oversight
- Military Legal Culture: Hegseth has a public record of opposing “overlawyering” military actions, firing the heads of the Army and Air Force JAG Corps upon taking office. He has vocally promoted “More Lethality, Less Lawyers” in media and print, pushing to relax rules of engagement (12:41).
- Quote: “We also don’t fight with stupid rules of engagement. We untie the hands of our war fighters to intimidate, demoralize, hunt and kill the enemies of our country.” – Paraphrased from Hegseth’s speech (13:18)
- Political Liability: Hegseth’s approach has been fraught with controversy, from confirmation scandals (alcohol, security breaches) to current legal scrutiny (13:35, 14:09).
6. Congressional and Bipartisan Concern
- Investigations: Members of both parties are demanding answers, investigating the strikes, and showing rare bipartisan daylight in their pushback against the administration (14:09, 18:01).
7. Broader Policy Contradictions
- Approach to Venezuela: The Trump administration’s position is openly hostile to Venezuela's leader, Nicolas Maduro, with these strikes seen as part of a broader push for regime change (15:57).
- Quote: “This is more about, frankly, what I’m told is regime change and all the actions, law look to be that way.” – Franco Ordonez (15:57)
- Pardon of Honduran President: The recent pardon of ex-Honduran president Hernandez—convicted of drug trafficking—undermines the administration’s tough-on-drugs message, fueling charges of hypocrisy (16:43).
- Quote: “The efforts to get Hernandez and put him behind bars were quite significant. The evidence against him was quite significant. So there are a lot, a lot of questions about Trump doing this that are only leading to accusations of deceit and hypocrisy...” – Franco Ordonez (17:09)
- Not Just Democrats: Criticism of these policies comes from Republicans as well as Democrats, signaling growing divisions within the GOP’s support for Trump’s approach (18:01).
Notable Quotes
-
On Responsibility for Strikes:
“He seems to be saying, totally right call, but not me. Don’t look at me. Look at this admiral here.”
– Tamara Keith (04:07) -
On War on Drugs vs. Actual War:
“They are definitely acting as if this is a war.”
– Franco Ordonez (05:03) -
On Evidentiary Standards:
“The White House just hasn't provided evidence that there are drugs on these boats other than these grainy videos...”
– Tamara Keith (08:08) -
On Military Law:
“Orders to fire upon the shipwrecked would be clearly illegal.”
– Greg Myhre paraphrasing the Pentagon’s war manual (10:54) -
On Hegseth’s Orientation:
“He has been a liability for the White House from the beginning.”
– Tamara Keith (13:35) -
On Intra-GOP Pushback:
“It is definitely Republicans as well... it is creating a little bit more of a divide... this is a big [issue].”
– Franco Ordonez (18:06)
Key Timestamps
| Time | Segment | |:----------:|:------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| | 01:33 | Introduction of today’s topic: military strikes on Venezuelan drug boats | | 02:06 | Details on the first strike and subsequent escalation | | 03:39 | Hegseth discusses what he witnessed and “fog of war” defense | | 05:03 | Discussion on lack of declared war and administration’s justifications | | 06:13 | Historical context: how US has previously handled drug boats | | 07:49 | White House claims vs. lack of evidence on drug presence | | 10:08 | Which laws and rules of war apply to this situation | | 10:54 | Pentagon’s law of war manual on killing shipwrecked survivors | | 12:41 | Hegseth’s philosophy: “More Lethality, Less Lawyers” and impact on military legal culture | | 13:35 | Hegseth’s accumulation of scandals and current status as liability | | 14:09 | President Trump’s attempts to distance himself politically and legally | | 15:57 | Broader US policy toward Venezuela and signs of push for regime change | | 16:43 | Contradiction with pardon of ex-Honduran president convicted of drug trafficking | | 18:01 | Bipartisan Congressional criticism emerges |
Memorable Moments
- Sharp Use of “Fog of War”: Hegseth evoked both literal and metaphorical confusion to defend his actions and minimize accountability, a line that the press panel scrutinized (03:39-05:03).
- Switch from Law Enforcement to Lethal Military Action: The episode foregrounded just how unprecedentedly aggressive these new tactics are (06:13-07:15).
- Emerging Bipartisan Tension: Rare for recent years, but both parties’ members are now openly questioning the administration’s judgment and seeking oversight (18:01).
Closing Thoughts
This episode explores not only whether the rules of war apply to the Trump administration’s drug boat strikes, but also how the political, ethical, and legal boundaries of U.S. military power are being tested and redrawn. It paints a portrait of an administration aggressively pursuing its agenda, often at the boundaries of law and precedent—and now facing mounting scrutiny from Congress, experts, and even its own party.