As Trump blows up supposed narco boats, he uses an old, corrupt playbook on Latin America
-
Click here to listen to this article - Share via
See more from the L.A. Times in Google Search. Set us as preferred
Consumer confidence is dropping. The national debt is $38 trillion and climbing like the yodeling mountain climber in that “The Price is Right” game. Donald Trump’s approval ratings are falling and the U.S. is getting more and more restless as 2025 comes to a close.
What’s a wannabe strongman to do to prop up his regime?
Attack Latin America, of course!
U.S. war planes have bombed small ships in international waters off the coast of Venezuela and Colombia since September with extrajudicial zeal. The Trump administration has claimed those vessels were packed with drugs manned by “narco-terrorists” and have released videos for each of the 10 boats-and-counting it has incinerated to make the actions seem as normal as a mission in “Call of Duty.”
“Narco-terrorists intending to bring poison to our shores, will find no safe harbor anywhere in our hemisphere,” Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth posted on social media and who just ordered an aircraft carrier currently stationed in the Mediterranean to set up shop in the Caribbean. It’ll meet up with 10,000 troops stationed there as part of one of the area’s biggest U.S. deployments in decades, all in the name of stopping a drug epidemic that has ravaged red America for the past quarter century.
This week, Trump authorized covert CIA actions in Venezuela and revealed he wants to launch strikes against land targets where his people say Latin American cartels operate. Who cares whether the host countries will give permission? Who cares about American laws that state only Congress — not the president — can declare war against our enemies?
It’s Latin America, after all.
The U.S. military carried out its eighth strike against a boat allegedly carrying drugs, killing two people, officials said Wednesday.
The military buildup, bombing and threat of more in the name of liberty is one of the oldest moves in the American foreign policy playbook. For more than two centuries, the United States has treated Latin America as its personal piñata, bashing it silly for goods and not caring about the ugly aftermath.
“It is known to all that we derive [our blessings] from the excellence of our institutions,” James Monroe concluded in the 1823 speech that set forth what became known as the Monroe Doctrine, which essentially told the rest of the world to leave the Western Hemisphere to us. “Ought we not, then, to adopt every measure which may be necessary to perpetuate them?”
Our 19th century wars of expansion, official and not, won us territories where Latin Americans lived — Panamanians, Puerto Ricans, but especially Mexicans — that we ended up treating as little better than serfs. We have occupied nations for years and imposed sanctions on others. We have propped up puppets and despots and taken down democratically elected governments with the regularity of the seasons.
The culmination of all these actions were the mass migrations from Latin America that forever altered the demographics of the United States. And when those people — like my parents — came here, they were immediately subjected to a racism hard-wired into the American psyche, which then justified a Latin American foreign policy bent on domination, not friendship.
Nothing rallies this country historically like sticking it to Latinos, whether in their ancestral countries or here. We’re this country’s perpetual scapegoats and eternal invaders, with harming gringos — whether by stealing their jobs, moving into their neighborhoods, marrying their daughters or smuggling drugs — supposedly the only thing on our mind.
That’s why when Trump ran on an isolationist platform last year, he never meant the region — of course not. The border between the U.S. and Latin America has never been the fence that divides the U.S. from Mexico or our shores. It’s wherever the hell we say it is.
That’s why the Trump administration is banking on the idea that it can get away with its boat bombings and is salivating to escalate. To them, the 43 people American missile strikes have slaughtered on the open sea so far aren’t humans — and anyone who might have an iota of sympathy or doubt deserves aggression as well.
That’s why when Colombian President Gustavo Petro accused the U.S. of murder because one of the strikes killed a Colombian fisherman with no ties to cartels, Trump went on social media to lambaste Petro’s “fresh mouth,” accuse him of being a “drug leader” and warn the head of a longtime American ally he “better close up these killing fields [cartel bases] immediately, or the United States will close them up for him, and it won’t be done nicely.”
The only person who can turn down the proverbial temperature on this issue is Secretary of State Marco Rubio, who should know all the bad that American imperialism has wrought on Latin America. The U.S. treated his parents’ homeland of Cuba like a playground for decades, propping up one dictator after another until Cubans revolted and Fidel Castro took power. A decades-long embargo that Trump tightened upon assuming office the second time has done nothing to free the Cuban people and instead made things worse.
Instead, Rubio is the instigator. He’s pushing for regime change in Venezuela, chumming it up with self-proclaimed “world’s coolest dictator” Nayib Bukele of El Salvador and cheering on Trump’s missile attacks.
“Bottom line, these are drug boats,” Rubio told reporters recently with Trump by his side. “If people want to stop seeing drug boats blow up, stop sending drugs to the United States.”
You might ask: Who cares? Cartels are bad, drugs are bad, aren’t they? Of course. But every American should oppose every time a suspected drug boat launching from Latin America is destroyed with no questions asked and no proof offered. Because every time Trump violates yet another law or norm in the name of defending the U.S. and no one stops him, democracy erodes just a little bit more.
This is a president, after all, who seems to dream of treating his enemies, including American cities, like drug boats.
Few will care, alas. It’s Latin America, after all.
Insights
L.A. Times Insights delivers AI-generated analysis on Voices content to offer all points of view. Insights does not appear on any news articles.
Perspectives
The following AI-generated content is powered by Perplexity. The Los Angeles Times editorial staff does not create or edit the content.
Ideas expressed in the piece
The Trump administration’s military bombing campaign against vessels off Venezuela and Colombia represents a continuation of a long historical pattern of U.S. imperialism and domination in Latin America stretching back to the 1823 Monroe Doctrine, which positioned the Western Hemisphere as the exclusive domain of American interests and intervention.
The extrajudicial attacks on boats—which have killed at least 43 people according to the article—violate fundamental American legal principles, as only Congress has the constitutional authority to declare war, yet the administration has proceeded with military strikes and covert CIA operations without such authorization.
The military escalation and boat bombings serve as a distraction from serious domestic problems facing the Trump administration, including falling consumer confidence, a national debt exceeding $38 trillion, and declining approval ratings as 2025 approaches its end.
Secretary of State Marco Rubio, who should understand the harmful consequences of American imperialism given his family’s experience with U.S. intervention in Cuba, has instead become the chief instigator pushing for regime change in Venezuela and encouraging military aggression rather than diplomatic solutions.
The pattern of U.S. military interventions and domination throughout history has generated the mass migrations from Latin America that transformed American demographics, yet rather than reflecting on this legacy, the Trump administration perpetuates the same cycle of aggression that fuels further instability and displacement.
The targeting of Latin America as a scapegoat—whether through accusations of drug trafficking, job theft, or neighborhood infiltration—reflects deep-seated racism wired into the American consciousness that has historically justified foreign policy bent on domination rather than partnership or respect for sovereignty.
Each instance where Trump violates laws and norms without consequences incrementally erodes American democracy, as demonstrated by the administration’s willingness to attack foreign vessels without evidence or legal process, setting a dangerous precedent for further authoritarian actions.
Different views on the topic
The Trump administration and its supporters characterize the military operations against drug cartels as necessary to address a national security threat, framing the flow of fentanyl, cocaine, and other narcotics as a matter of hemispheric security that justifies military intervention.[1][2]
Traditional law enforcement approaches to drug interdiction have proven ineffective, and military force represents a necessary escalation to combat organizations designated as foreign terrorist organizations, with supporters arguing that destroying cartel infrastructure and leadership is essential to disrupting drug trafficking networks.[2]
Several Latin American governments have expressed support for or cooperation with the Trump administration’s approach, including Argentina, Paraguay, Ecuador, and the Dominican Republic, which designated certain cartels as terrorist organizations, while Guyana and Trinidad and Tobago stated their willingness to collaborate on joint actions against drug trafficking.[1]
The Trump administration views increased attention to Latin America and the Caribbean as addressing a longstanding gap in U.S. foreign policy, with concerns that insufficient American engagement allowed China to expand its influence in the region and criminal organizations to directly threaten U.S. security.[1]
Mexico’s government, while defending its sovereignty, made strategic concessions by deploying additional troops to its border and handing over high-level cartel leaders to face justice in the United States, suggesting some recognition of the national security arguments underlying the administration’s approach.[1]
Countering China’s growing economic influence and presence in strategic infrastructure like the Panama Canal is framed as a legitimate geopolitical concern requiring American assertiveness in the Western Hemisphere.[2]
The administration argues that dismantling criminal organizations and their allies in governments will reduce migrant trafficking and choke off a key income source for gangs, potentially addressing both migration and drug trafficking through the elimination of cartel leadership and infrastructure.[2]
More From the Los Angeles Times
Podcasts
The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) recently approved California’s request to extend housing assistance to survivors of the Eaton and Palisades fires. But more than 18 months after those January 2025 fires, survivors are still waiting on an additional $16 billion in federal disaster relief from the federal government, which was revised down earlier this year from nearly $34 billion.
The Hillside Strangler murders terrorized Los Angeles in the late 1970s. The killers were a pair of sadistic cousins. One confessed. The other was set to stand trial—until L.A. prosecutors flinched.
For this episode, hosts Fidel Martínez and Suzy Exposito break down the year’s biggest milestones: Bad Bunny’s historic solo Super Bowl halftime show, Karol G becoming the first Latina to headline Coachella, and Fuerza Regida making history as the first Música Mexicana act to ever play Dodger Stadium.
