Venezuela’s government has condemned former President Donald Trump’s declaration that its airspace is “closed,” calling the move a violation of international law and a colonialist threat to its sovereignty. The remarks come amid U.S. airstrikes on suspected drug‑trafficking vessels in the Caribbean and Eastern Pacific that have drawn mounting scrutiny from lawmakers.
Venezuela’s government is sharply criticizing former President Donald Trump after he publicly declared its airspace off limits, escalating already fraught relations between Washington and Caracas.
According to NPR’s reporting on a statement released on Saturday, Nov. 29, 2025, the Venezuelan government said Trump’s comments amounted to a “colonialist threat” and violated international law. The statement was issued after Trump said he was closing Venezuela’s airspace, a move he has promoted publicly as part of a broader crackdown on drug trafficking and migration.
Venezuela argued that “no authority outside the Venezuelan institutional framework has the power to interfere with, block, or condition the use of international airspace,” and said such declarations “represent an explicit use of force, which is prohibited by Article 2, paragraph 4 of the U.N. Charter of the United Nations,” according to NPR’s summary of the statement.
NPR reports that Trump has framed the airspace move as tied to U.S. military operations against alleged narcotraffickers at sea, part of what the administration calls a tougher stance on Venezuela and regional drug cartels.
Limits of U.S. authority and ongoing flights
A U.S. president cannot unilaterally close another country’s sovereign airspace under international law. While the Federal Aviation Administration can issue advisories or restrictions for U.S. carriers over foreign territory, it does not control access to another nation’s airspace. NPR notes that Trump’s declaration is therefore largely symbolic and has been treated by Venezuela as an unlawful attempt to assert extraterritorial control.
Public flight‑tracking data reviewed by multiple news outlets on Sunday showed commercial traffic still crossing Venezuelan airspace, underscoring that no formal, internationally recognized shutdown has taken effect. Some airlines had already reduced or suspended routes to the country after earlier U.S. security warnings.
Airstrikes on suspected drug‑trafficking boats
Trump’s airspace remarks come against the backdrop of a U.S. military campaign targeting suspected drug‑smuggling vessels in maritime zones linked to Venezuela and neighboring states. According to a widely cited summary of the operation, the strikes form part of Operation Southern Spear, an effort the administration describes as a mission to disrupt narcotics flows from Latin America to the United States.
An overview of the campaign indicates that, as of mid‑November, U.S. forces had conducted at least 21 airstrikes on 22 vessels in the Caribbean Sea and Eastern Pacific, killing more than 80 people and leaving only two survivors. The U.S. says the boats are operated by narcotrafficking groups it has labeled “narco‑terrorists,” including organizations based in or tied to Venezuela. Independent observers, however, note that Washington has provided limited public evidence to substantiate the allegations against specific targets.
Allegations over a September strike and Hegseth’s response
The legality and conduct of the maritime campaign came under intense scrutiny after The Washington Post reported in late November that Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth allegedly gave a verbal order during a Sept. 2, 2025 operation to ensure no one survived a strike on a suspected drug‑smuggling boat in the Caribbean.
According to that report, U.S. forces carried out a second strike after the initial attack left survivors clinging to debris, with the follow‑up strike allegedly intended to “kill everybody” on board. Legal experts quoted in subsequent coverage said such an order, if proven, could constitute a war crime under U.S. and international law because it would amount to an instruction to show no quarter to persons hors de combat.
Hegseth has forcefully rejected the accusations. As highlighted by conservative outlet The Daily Wire, he dismissed the reporting as “fake news” on social media and described the boat attacks as lawful “lethal, kinetic strikes” against narco‑terrorist groups linked to U.S.-designated terrorist organizations. The Pentagon has disputed the Post’s account but has not publicly released full operational details of the September mission.
Mounting concern in Congress
Lawmakers from both parties have raised concerns about the strikes and about Trump’s increasingly confrontational posture toward Venezuela.
In an interview with ABC’s This Week, Sen. Chris Van Hollen, a Democrat from Maryland, said the reported conduct of the boat campaign could amount to a “war crime” if the administration lacked solid evidence the targeted vessels were carrying drugs. “They’ve never presented the public with the information they’ve got here,” Van Hollen said, adding that “if that theory is wrong, then it’s plain murder,” according to NPR’s account of his remarks.
Republican Sen. Eric Schmitt, a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, has taken the opposite view. Speaking on Fox News’ Sunday Morning Futures, Schmitt argued that Trump is acting “well within his Article 2 powers” as commander in chief in ordering the strikes. “I think it’s a two part strategy,” he said, describing the approach as targeting chemical precursors “coming from China” and then “tak[ing] out the cartels that are distributing this and bringing it to the United States of America,” NPR reports.
NPR also notes that leading Democrats have accused Trump of pushing the United States toward a wider conflict with Venezuela. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer wrote on X that Trump’s “reckless actions towards Venezuela are pushing America closer and closer to another costly foreign war.” Republican Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, a former Trump ally, likewise posted that “Congress has the sole power to declare war,” underscoring unease over what many lawmakers see as unilateral escalation.
Plans for congressional oversight
Members of both parties have signaled support for investigating the conduct and legal basis of the maritime strikes. According to reporting from the Associated Press and other outlets, leaders on the House and Senate Armed Services Committees say they plan to review classified briefings and operational records related to the campaign, including the September incident described in the Washington Post.
NPR reports that Democrats and Republicans alike have voiced frustration that the Trump administration has carried out the Venezuela‑linked operations and associated strikes without explicit authorization from Congress. Any forthcoming hearings would likely examine the scope of the president’s Article II authorities, the evidence used to select targets, and whether the rules of engagement complied with U.S. and international humanitarian law.
While Venezuela portrays Trump’s airspace declaration and the boat strikes as part of a broader push for regime change, U.S. officials insist the operations are aimed at combating drug trafficking and protecting Americans. The dispute has added a volatile new layer to an already tense relationship, with both sides warning of potential escalation if the other does not change course.
