Trump refuses to say if CIA has authority to assassinate Venezuela’s president

Trump refuses to say if CIA has authority to assassinate Venezuela’s president | World News

Donald Trump has refused to say if the CIA has the authority to assassinate Venezuela’s president, after approving covert operations in the country to tackle alleged drug trafficking.

The classified decision, first revealed by The New York Times, marks a significant escalation in efforts to pressure President Nicolas Maduro‘s regime.

Mr Trump said large amounts of drugs were entering the US from Venezuela, much of it trafficked by sea.

“We are looking at land now, because we’ve got the sea very well under control,” he said.

When asked why the coastguard wasn’t asked to intercept suspected drug trafficking boats, which has been a longstanding US practice, Mr Trump said the approach had been ineffective.

“I think Venezuela is feeling heat,” he said.

He declined to answer whether the CIA has the authority to execute Mr Maduro.

The US has offered a $50m (£37m) reward for information leading to his arrest, accusing him of connections to drug trafficking and criminal organisations – claims he denies.

US targets ‘drug boats’

Mr Trump also alleged Venezuela had sent a significant number of prisoners, including individuals from mental health facilities, into the US, though he did not specify the border through which they reportedly entered.

On Tuesday, he announced America had targeted a small boat suspected of drug trafficking in waters off the Venezuelan coast, resulting in the deaths of six people.

According to the president’s post on social media, all those killed were aboard the vessel.

Read more from Sky News:
Pakistan agrees to ceasefire with Afghanistan after
Venezuela opposition leader wins Nobel Peace Prize

The incident marked the fifth such fatal strike in the Caribbean, as the Trump administration continues to classify suspected drug traffickers as unlawful combatants to be confronted with military force.

War secretary Pete Hegseth authorised the strike, according to Mr Trump, who released a video of the operation.

The black-and-white footage showed a small boat seemingly stationary on the water. It is struck by a projectile from above and explodes, then drifts while burning for several seconds.

Mr Trump said the “lethal kinetic strike” was in international waters and targeted a boat travelling along a well-known smuggling route.

There has also been a significant increase in US military presence in the southern Caribbean, with at least eight warships, a submarine, and F-35 jets stationed in Puerto Rico.

‘Bomb the boats’: Bold move or dangerous overreach?

It’s a dramatic – and risky – escalation of US strategy for countering narcotics.

Having carried out strikes on Venezuelan “drug boats” at sea, Trump says he’s “looking a” targeting cartels on land.

He claims the attacks, which have claimed 27 lives, have saved up to 50,000 Americans.

By framing bombings as a blow against “narcoterrorists”, he’s attempting to justify them as self-defence – but the administration has veered into murky territory.

Under international law, such strikes require proof of imminent threat – something the White House has yet to substantiate.

Strategically, Trump’ss militarised approach could backfire, forcing traffickers to adapt, and inflaming tensions with Venezuela and allies wary of US intervention.

Without transparent evidence or congressional oversight, some will view the move less like counterterrorism and more like vigilantism on the seas.

The president’s “bomb the boats” rhetoric signals a shift back to shock and awe tactics in foreign policy, under the banner of fighting drugs.

Supporters will hail it as a bold, decisive move, but to critics it’s reckless posturing that undermines international law.

The strikes send a message of strength, but the legal, moral and geopolitical costs are still being calculated.