TRUMP AUTHORIZES CIA SECRET OPERATIONS IN VENEZUELA AS PRESIDENT CONSIDERS MILITARY LAND STRIKES

The Trump administration has reportedly granted the CIA new powers to secretly operate inside Venezuela — a move that significantly escalates U.S. actions against Nicolás Maduro’s government.

According to reports, this authorization gives the CIA the ability to take “covert action” aimed at Maduro and his regime, either on its own or as part of a larger U.S. military campaign.

Speaking at the White House on Wednesday, Trump confirmed that he had “authorized” CIA operations in Venezuela, claiming the country had “emptied their prisons into the United States of America” and contributed to America’s drug crisis.

Just a month earlier, Trump’s administration informed Congress that the U.S. is now formally involved in an “armed conflict” with drug cartels. The classified notice labeled these cartels “unlawful combatants” — a term usually used in wartime — and invoked emergency powers to justify missile strikes in the Caribbean and near Venezuela’s coast. These attacks have reportedly killed at least 27 people in recent weeks.

Trump said that U.S. defense officials are currently “looking at land” strikes inside Venezuela.

“We are certainly looking at land now because we’ve got the sea under control,” he said Wednesday.

This statement came shortly after another American airstrike destroyed a vessel off Venezuela’s coast. The White House claimed the target was involved in drug trafficking.

However, critics have accused the administration of carrying out extrajudicial killings. Members of Congress and civil rights organizations are demanding evidence and the legal documents used to justify the deadly strikes.

“All available evidence suggests that President Trump’s lethal strikes in the Caribbean constitute murder, pure and simple,” said Jeffrey Stein, director of the ACLU’s National Security Project. “The public deserves to know how our government is justifying these attacks as lawful, and, given the stakes, immediate public scrutiny of its apparently radical theories is imperative.”

When asked whether Maduro himself could be targeted, Trump brushed off the question as “ridiculous.”

“I don’t want to answer a question like that,” he said.

Trump and his defense officials, including Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth, have claimed that the targeted boats were linked to members of the Tren de Aragua gang and other “narcoterrorists.” They have shared videos of the attacks on social media but have yet to release concrete evidence to support those claims.

Trump insisted that lawmakers were briefed on the missions, saying they had received “information that they were loaded up with drugs.”

“That’s what matters,” he added.

He went on to describe the aftermath of the strikes, claiming the destroyed vessels released “drug dust” and “fentanyl dust.”

“We know when they go out, we have much information about each boat that goes out. Deep, strong information,” Trump said.

Earlier in the year, Trump signed an executive order labeling Tren de Aragua as a foreign terrorist organization, which allowed him to invoke the Alien Enemies Act to deport suspected members. However, neither of those legal designations permits the use of lethal force.

According to the Washington Office on Latin America, the U.S. campaign violates long-standing rules of warfare and maritime law. The organization stated that using deadly force against suspected drug traffickers “violates the letter and spirit of more than a century of international standards and the United States’ own regulations for maritime operations against civilian vessels in international waters.”

In response, Venezuela’s Defense Minister Vladimir Padrino accused Washington of trying to overthrow Maduro’s government.

“I want to warn the population: We have to prepare ourselves because the irrationality with which the U.S. empire operates is not normal,” Padrino said in a televised address last week. “It’s anti-political, anti-human, warmongering, rude and vulgar.”

COMMENTARY:

What the administration has announced is not the deployment of American ground forces but rather a shift in tools — an authorization for the CIA to carry out “covert action” in Venezuela. Supporters see this as an intelligence-driven operation designed to disrupt the flow of deadly narcotics before they ever reach U.S. borders. It’s not a new war; it’s a focused effort to strike at the heart of the networks poisoning American communities.

For months, the White House has said that traditional interdiction efforts aren’t enough. Fast-moving drug boats and organized gangs continue to funnel fentanyl and other lethal substances northward. This operation is meant to attack those supply lines at their source, using intelligence rather than infantry, and aiming to protect Americans without committing troops to foreign soil.

The underlying motivation is the tragic rise in overdose deaths. Every day, families across the United States lose loved ones to fentanyl and other synthetic opioids. Supporters of this action say the moral duty of the government is to stop that poison at its point of origin. Stopping these traffickers is viewed not as aggression, but as self-defense — an act of public protection on behalf of millions of Americans.

By relying on covert intelligence operations and precision strikes, the U.S. can target these networks surgically instead of waging a massive military campaign. This approach aims to avoid the enormous costs, both human and financial, that come with full-scale war. The mission, as it’s described, is to stop criminals and safeguard American lives, not to occupy Venezuela.

That difference is crucial. The American people expect strength from their government, but not recklessness. They want action against cartels and gangs that profit from addiction, yet they do not want another endless foreign war. Covert and selective operations offer a balance — decisive pressure on traffickers without the deployment of large numbers of troops.

Oversight and transparency will still matter. Critics will demand to see legal justifications and evidence, as they should in a democracy. Yet supporters argue that when the nation faces a flood of lethal narcotics, the president has not only the right but the responsibility to act. Protecting Americans from foreign-sourced poison is a legitimate exercise of national defense.

The administration maintains that these actions are defensive — designed to cut off trafficking routes, destroy smuggling vessels, and dismantle state-supported criminal networks. If conducted lawfully, such measures align with America’s duty to protect its citizens from harm. This is not about regime change; it’s about defending American communities from external threats.

There is also a geopolitical dimension. When a foreign government allows or assists gangs that export drugs and violence into the United States, Washington cannot ignore it. A proportionate, intelligence-led response sends a message that the U.S. will defend itself against state-sponsored criminality. No boots on the ground are necessary to make that point clear.

Many Americans see this pragmatically. Keep the poison out. Stop the traffickers. Protect the next generation. Do it with precision and minimal risk to U.S. forces. If covert operations can accomplish that without escalating into a wider war, then such actions are not only justified but essential.

Ultimately, the goal must be singular — to save American lives. With strong oversight and adherence to law, these covert measures could form a shield against the flow of drugs and violence crossing our borders. If the mission succeeds in stopping the poison and dismantling those who profit from it, it will be viewed not as an act of aggression, but as a defense of the homeland itself.

ARTICLE:

https://share.newsbreak.com/fgx8rmtl?s=i16