The leading figure in this new effort is Stephen Miller, the former senior adviser to President Donald Trump. He’s now directing U.S. military strikes against suspected Venezuelan drug-smuggling boats. This effort has generated enormous push back, with claims that the strikes constitute extrajudicial killings taking place in international waters. Even these actions, however, can be challenged on the basis of critics’ claims that the administration’s justification for them is legally flimsy.
Unfortunately, Miller’s influence within the White House has grown tremendously, especially through his leadership of the Homeland Security Council (HSC). Earlier this year, he empowered the HSC to operate as an independent entity during Trump’s second term, enhancing its capacity to engage in military operations. As the homeland security adviser, Miller has effectively become a gatekeeper, controlling access to vital details regarding which boats are targeted for strikes until operations are imminent.
Notably, under Miller’s direction, the HSC has prioritized the engagement of Venezuelan ships associated with the Tren de Aragua. This new political group has been allowed to operate like a drug cartel rather than a true governing body. As Miller has done publicly, so too was the administration in labeling Venezuela as a “drug cartel.” He is deeply interested in the urgent need for aggressive, intelligence-driven countermeasures against this narco-trafficking organization.
The strikes have reportedly superseded the roles of other key figures in the administration, including Secretary of State Marco Rubio and the national security adviser. Chief among them are experts and lawmakers sounding alarm bells about this dramatic centralization of power. They rightly concern themselves with the legality and ethics of such actions in international waters.
THE WHITE HOUSE HAS vigorously defended these military operations. Second, they point out that President Trump is relying on his Article II powers, which allow for some limited military force in self-defense. To justify these strikes under international law, the administration argues that they have been punitive in nature. The legalese aside, proponents of the justification have to demonstrate that Tren de Aragua operates as an arm of the Maduro regime. They share their stories to highlight making this connection.
Even though Miller and other administration officials in the past have made misleadingly confident claims. That all changed with a recent decision from a divided three-judge panel at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. The panel held that the deportations under the Alien Enemies Act had violated the law. They concluded there was not enough evidence to establish a link between Tren de Aragua and the Venezuelan government. This decision undercuts the administration’s preferred narrative and invites scrutiny of the legal rationale underlying the majority of such strikes.
White House spokespersons have emphasized that the administration is unified in its approach to tackling perceived threats. “The entire administration is working together to execute the president’s directive with clear success,” stated one spokesperson, underscoring the coordinated effort behind these military actions.
Miller replaced the dog whistle with an atomic bomb. Miller has enormous sway over the administration. His influence in current efforts to shape U.S. policy toward Venezuela cannot be understated. His hawkish approach has put attacking Venezuelan boats at the top of his agenda. This extreme, draconian approach is inflaming capital and civil society critics at home and abroad.