On October 19, 2025, U.S. Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth announced that U.S. forces had carried out an attack on a semi-submersible vessel in the Caribbean, allegedly linked to the Colombian leftist rebel group ELN (National Liberation Army), that was transporting drugs, primarily fentanyl.
The attack resulted in the deaths of at least three people, according to U.S. reports, although Colombian President Gustavo Petro claimed the attack killed Colombian fishermen and violated sovereignty, presenting it as part of a broader U.S. strategy driven by “oil greed” rather than anti-drug initiatives.
Simultaneously, President Donald Trump publicly called Petro a “drug trafficking leader” on social media, accusing him of encouraging massive drug production in Colombia despite US subsidies. Trump announced the immediate halt to all US aid and payments to Colombia, marking a sharp escalation of bilateral tensions. This incident is part of a series of US attacks in the region, including previous actions against vessels linked to Venezuela, amid ongoing accusations of drug trafficking by groups such as the Tren de Aragua.
The US attack and Trump’s rhetoric have severely damaged relations between the United States and Colombia, a historically close alliance focused on counternarcotics cooperation.
Petro responded by denouncing the action as “murder” and a violation of sovereignty, threatening a war scenario in the Caribbean. This has resonated in the region, with Venezuela and other leftist governments criticizing the United States for its imperialism, which could foster anti-US alliances in Latin America.
The attack disrupted a potential drug shipment, in line with Trump’s “tough on drugs” stance, which includes designating cartels as terrorist organizations and carrying out lethal operations.
However, critics argue that it targets low-level operators (e.g., low-income youth) rather than major traffickers, who often operate out of US cities like Miami and New York.
This could temporarily reduce the flow of fentanyl, but risks escalating violence as rebel groups like the ELN could retaliate or change tactics.
Reports indicate civilian casualties, and Petro claims the vessel drifted due to engine failure and was carrying unarmed people. This has led to accusations of possible war crimes, generating international scrutiny and protests. In Colombia, it could fuel anti-American sentiment and reinforce Petro’s narrative of defending national sovereignty.
The cessation of US aid—estimated in the billions over decades for anti-drug programs, military support, and economic development—could cripple Colombia’s economy and security system.
Colombia, a major US ally, relies on this funding to combat cocaine production, which has reached record levels under Petro’s administration, despite his focus on peace negotiations with the rebels rather than eradication. This could force Colombia to seek alternative alliances, such as with China or Russia, which would alter regional geopolitics.
For Trump, this reinforces his image as a decisive leader in the fight against the fentanyl crisis, which kills tens of thousands of people annually in the United States.
It appeals to his base, but risks alienating moderate voters and international allies. In Colombia, Petro—already unpopular and with low approval ratings—could use the incident to build support by portraying Trump as an aggressor, although it could further polarize the country.
The broader consequences include the potential isolation of the United States in Latin America, with figures like Petro warning of an “oil war” involving Venezuela and Guyana.
The attacks could spark a broader conflict, with Maduro’s Venezuela mobilizing militias and Petro threatening retaliation.
This is part of Trump’s aggressive foreign policy, which includes his rhetoric about regime change toward Venezuela, but could draw condemnation from the UN or human rights groups for the extrajudicial killings.
In the long term, it could incentivize drug cartels to innovate smuggling methods or ally with state actors, exacerbating global drug trafficking.
This event underscores a fundamental clash between the United States’ militarized anti-drug strategies and Colombia’s progressive approach under the Petro administration, which prioritizes social reforms and negotiations over force.
Trump’s actions signal a return to unilateral US interventions in Latin America, potentially effective in short-term disruptions but counterproductive by fostering resentment and instability.
Ultimately, if root causes—such as US demand for drugs or poverty in producing countries—are not addressed, these attacks may perpetuate cycles of violence rather than resolve the crisis.
If left unaddressed, this could lead to broader regional confrontation, highlighting the need for multilateral diplomacy rather than unilateral attacks.
