Inside Trump’s Shadow War in the Caribbean: New Videos, New Testimony, and a Deepening Constitutional Crisis

By The New York Times – Special Investigative Report

In Washington, a constitutional alarm is beginning to sound — quietly inside classified briefing rooms, loudly across military circles, and urgently among lawmakers who now fear that a covert military escalation in the Caribbean may represent the most serious War Powers confrontation of Donald Trump’s presidency.

 

At the center of the storm is a deadly sequence of U.S. military strikes on a small Venezuelan vessel — strikes that killed unarmed survivors who appeared to be waving for help. Newly revealed testimony, previously unseen video footage, and detailed accounts from retired senior military officials paint a portrait of a military operation that experts say may violate the laws of war, the War Powers Act, and longstanding U.S. military doctrine.

And behind the scenes, according to senior analysts, lies an uncomfortable possibility: the mission may be far less about narcotics, and far more about regime change — and oil.

---

A Retired General’s Warning: “This Has Nothing to Do With Narco Terrorists”

The clearest alarm came from retired Army General Barry McCaffrey, who offered one of the most unflinching public assessments yet.

“At face value, it’s nonsense,” he said. “Venezuela is a transit country. The cocaine is coming from Colombia. This looks like a buildup for combat operations — not counter-narcotics.”

According to McCaffrey, the deployment of B-1s, B-52 bombers, a carrier strike group, an attack submarine, Marine amphibious units, and Special Operations teams far exceeds anything normally associated with drug-interdiction operations.
“It appears,” he warned, “that the U.S. could now take down the Venezuelan armed forces.”

---

The Video Congress Wasn’t Supposed to See

Behind closed doors last week, members of Congress viewed the full classified video of a September 2 strike in the Caribbean — including the parts that were not released publicly.

The footage, according to lawmakers present, shows:

A capsized Venezuelan vessel

Two shirtless survivors sitting on debris

No weapons

No radio

No movement indicating aggression

No ability to “return to the fight”

And yet, according to multiple lawmakers, the men were struck three additional times, killing both.

Representative Adam Smith, ranking member of the House Armed Services Committee, described what he saw bluntly:

“It looked like two shipwrecked people. They posed no threat. It was a highly questionable decision.”

Representative Jim Himes offered a harsher judgment:

“They were clinging for life.
They had no means of survival.
And then they were killed.
It raises profound moral and legal concerns.”

Military legal experts say the implications are unmistakable: once a combatant is incapacitated and unable to attack, they are hors de combat — and killing them is prohibited under both U.S. and international law.

 

---

A Secretary of Defense Under Fire

Further fueling the controversy is Trump’s Secretary of Defense, Pete Hegseth, whose social-media posts — including memes of cartoon characters killing enemies — have been labeled “psychopathic” by critics and are now under scrutiny from Pentagon ethics advisors.

Screenshots show Hegseth reposting a message from a media personality encouraging more boat killings, replying:

“Your wish is our command. Just sunk another narco boat.”

The remark, paired with the classified video, has deeply rattled military officers who fear that the nation’s highest military authority is embracing a philosophy of total war, absent legal guardrails.

One Pentagon official, speaking on background, said:

“It’s the most alarming posture from a SecDef in modern history.”

---

A Four-Star Admiral Forced Out

The Wall Street Journal reported this week that Admiral Alvin Holsey, a respected four-star commander with deep expertise in the region, is being forced into early retirement — allegedly after raising concerns about the legality of the strikes.

Hegseth reportedly told Holsey:

“You’re either on the team or you’re not.
When you get an order, you move fast and don’t ask questions.”

The dismissal has sent a chilling message across the ranks. Officers now fear retaliation for speaking candidly, even when required by law to report violations of the rules of engagement.

 

---

The War Powers Question the White House Won’t Answer

Trump never sought — nor received — authorization from Congress to conduct wartime operations in Venezuela.
Under the War Powers Act, he is required to consult Congress when introducing U.S. forces into hostilities.

But the administration has asserted a sweeping claim:
That by labeling Venezuelan smuggling groups as “foreign terrorist organizations,” Trump has inherent authority to use lethal military force — even without congressional approval.

Legal scholars warn this is a radical reinterpretation of presidential power.

A former Obama national security adviser put it starkly:

“If a president can kill anyone, anywhere, merely by claiming they might someday pose a threat, there are no boundaries left.”

---

The Oil Shadow

Several analysts have pointed out inconsistencies in the administration’s stated rationale:

Cocaine production is in Colombia, not Venezuela.

Fentanyl, the drug killing Americans in record numbers, is trafficked through Mexico, not the Caribbean.

And Trump recently pardoned the former Honduran president convicted of running one of the world’s largest drug-trafficking networks.

General McCaffrey summarized the geopolitical reality succinctly:

“This is about Venezuelan oil. Full stop.”

Venezuela sits atop the largest proven oil reserves on Earth.

---

A Crisis That Is Growing, Not Fading

Multiple congressional committees are now seeking:

Access to all classified footage

Relevant communications between the White House and the Pentagon

Legal memoranda approving the strikes

An accounting of all casualties

A full review of whether the War Powers Act has been violated

Members of both parties privately acknowledge that they lack clarity on the scope of the operations.

One senior Democratic aide said:

“We don’t know how many strikes have occurred.
We don’t know how many people have died.
We don’t know the mission’s true objective.”

---

A Nation at a Crossroads

For decades, U.S. presidents have stretched the limits of wartime authority.
But the combination of:

unilateral lethal strikes

shaky legal justification

pursuit of regime change

disregard for Congress

and an increasingly politicized Pentagon

marks a threshold many experts fear the nation has never crossed.

Benjamin Rhodes, former deputy national security adviser, issued a warning that now echoes across Washington:

“Congress must reassert itself.
We are in dangerous territory.
I cannot think of a precedent for this.”

---

Conclusion: A Test of Law, Power, and American Identity

As the investigation deepens, one question looms largest:
If Congress fails to challenge the expansion of unilateral presidential war-making, what limits — if any — remain?

The answer may define not only the balance of power in Washington, but the future of U.S. military conduct abroad.

For now, lawmakers are divided, the Pentagon is uneasy, and the American public is largely unaware that the nation may be on the brink of a shadow conflict in the Caribbean.

And behind it all, two men — unarmed, isolated, waving for help — remain at the heart of a growing moral and legal reckoning.