USS Gerald R. Ford Arrives in Caribbean Following U.S. Strikes Near Venezuela

U.S. Navy photo of the USS Gerald Ford via U.S. Fleet Forces Command

The U.S. Navy’s largest and most advanced aircraft carrier, the USS Gerald R. Ford, was deployed into the Caribbean Sea on November 16, marking the most significant American military deployment in the region in decades. Dubbed "Operation Southern Spear" by Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, the operation is being promoted as a crackdown on narcotics smuggling routes. But, with nearly 12,000 U.S. troops aboard a dozen Navy ships and a backdrop of political tension with Venezuela, critics are concerned with the lack of oversight, with the prospect of innocent lives lost, and with risk of sparking a much larger international conflict.

Since early September, U.S. forces have launched 20 maritime strikes in the Caribbean and eastern Pacific, reportedly targeting drug-running vessels, resulting in over 80 fatalities. Yet, to date, federal officials have released no verifiable evidence confirming that those killed were in fact "narcoterrorists" or even traffickers.

President Trump’s administration says it is targeting groups like Tren de Aragua, a Venezuelan organization recently labeled as a foreign terrorist group. Supporters, like Senator Tom Cotton of Arkansas, defends the strikes as justified: “This is simply [Trump] keeping his word to the American people. The strikes were lawfully sound and extremely limited.”

Not everyone is convinced. Critics, from legal analysts to international watchdogs, warn that the administration is operating without clear oversight. “It’s a complete black hole,” said Senator Tim Kaine (D-Va.), expressing concern over the lack of transparency. “The military is not to be used just so we can kill anyone we want anywhere in the world as long as the president has put them on a secret list.”

Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro has condemned the operation, calling it a “fabrication” of war and accusing the U.S. of provoking instability. His government has reportedly mobilized both troops and civilians in response to what they view as a potential escalation.

Efforts by Senate Democrats to rein in the scope of U.S. actions failed recently. On November 6, 2025, the U.S. Senate narrowly rejected a resolution (49–51) that would have required congressional authorization for strikes targeting drug-related vessels and potential land targets in Venezuela. Senate Republicans led the opposition to the measure, maintaining the administration’s authority to act unilaterally. Meanwhile, experts remain divided over the legality and wisdom of conducting strikes in international waters near Venezuelan territory, as the administration continues to justify its actions as necessary to “stop the drugs coming in by land.”

While the President clearly holds authority to order military strikes without prior congressional approval, the lack of verifiable evidence confirming the identity of those killed in recent maritime operations raises urgent questions about oversight. Congress must weigh its constitutional role in authorizing the use of force, especially when military action blurs the line between counter-narcotics enforcement and the potential for broader conflict. The Trump administration has publicly denied any intention to pursue regime change in Venezuela, emphasizing that the goal is to disrupt narcotrafficking networks, not topple Nicolás Maduro’s government. However, these statements stand in contrast to the administration’s often aggressive rhetoric labeling Maduro a dictator and accusing him of running a transnational drug empire. This dual message raises questions whether the operation is genuinely limited in scope – or if it may lay the groundwork for a deeper entanglement with a hostile regime. Aggressive rhetoric has been a tactic of this administration from the beginning to bring into sharp focus the problems we face because media coverage of these dire national security problems has largely been missing.

Back home in the North State, the implications go beyond foreign policy. Drug policy, border security, and national defense all have local reverberations. With fentanyl and other narcotics continuing to plague rural counties like Shasta, locals may ask whether these overseas operations will truly disrupt the flow of drugs to our streets. Trump has stated that the drug crisis was caused in large part by the loss of blue collar jobs through offshoring and over-regulation. He is working to reverse those trends, but that takes time. Environmental restrictions and resulting mill closures have decimated the lumber industry in Shasta and surrounding counties. Our communities will need to pull together to fight the scourge of drug abuse, but we can hope that these national and global moves will bring some relief.

In the coming weeks, we will see if Congress will reassert control over the use of military force. The international community will watch to see whether the U.S. operations expand onto Venezuelan soil, and critics will be waiting for hard evidence tying these deadly strikes to the traffickers they're said to target. Finally, will these attacks end up decreasing the destruction caused by drug abuse on our streets and in our communities, or will it just raise the prices and put more people at risk?

Shasta Unfiltered will continue to track this story as it unfolds.