Trump Unleashes Land War on Venezuelan Drug Traffickers—No Routes Safe Now

Paul Riverbank, 11/28/2025Trump targets Venezuelan drug routes by land, hinting at bold U.S. military escalation.

Some listeners might have been caught off guard by the president’s candor. “There aren’t too many coming in by sea anymore. Have you probably noticed that?” Trump remarked, pressing home the notion that the old patterns of narcotics trafficking have already shifted—at least, as far as maritime routes are concerned. He cited the 85% drop in drugs entering by water, tying it directly to a series of military strikes in waters frequented by smuggling gangs such as Venezuela’s Tren de Aragua and Colombia’s ELN. Those 21 fatal strikes since September, according to Southern Command reports, weren’t mere statistics on a sheet; they’d prompted traffickers to seek new routes and made clear just how kinetic the U.S. commitment had become.

But it was what Trump said next that moved the needle—something of a warning, but also a declaration of intent. “We’ll be starting to stop them by land also. The land is easier, but that’s going to start very soon.” The phrase hung in the air, not only for the assembled troops but for listeners back home, especially given recent White House ambiguity around possible ground operations in Venezuela proper. Only weeks earlier, when asked about potential boots on the ground, Trump replied, “I don’t rule out anything.” It’s the kind of open-ended answer that both agitates and intrigues—a rhetorical window left just wide enough for speculation, but grounded in the administration’s pattern of escalating response.

What’s clear is that U.S. leadership sees narcotics trafficking—particularly with its deadly toll measured in “hundreds of thousands” of American lives, per Trump’s own estimate—as not just a law enforcement problem but a strategic threat. “We warn them, ‘stop sending poison to our country,’” the president said, underscoring a policy priority that increasingly blurs the line between counter-drug and military operations.

Meanwhile, the security conversation hasn’t remained solely focused on Latin America. During the same Thanksgiving event, Trump addressed the deadly attack on National Guard members in D.C.—a tragic reminder that threats to U.S. safety wear many faces. The president didn’t shy away from current controversies either, touching on enhanced vetting for Afghans who entered the country following the chaotic withdrawal from Kabul.

As for specifics about this shift to land-based operations against drug traffickers, the administration has yet to offer concrete details. Military leaders and national security officials are, by all accounts, refining their plans and considering how interdiction efforts might adapt to new smuggling methods—vehicle convoys along unmonitored stretches of the Venezuelan and Colombian border, perhaps, or clandestine crossings via Central American corridors. For law enforcement, intelligence, and military personnel, the challenge is almost certainly growing more complex by the week.

For observers, two questions come into focus: How will traffickers adapt under pressure, and what are the broader costs and risks of a more directly interventionist U.S. approach? That calculus—balancing the gains of interdiction with potential blowback or regional instability—will define the headlines in the months ahead. What’s indisputable is this: The administration, keenly aware of shifting trafficking routes and the evolving geopolitics of narcotics, is unlikely to step back now that the stakes have been so clearly set.

If you asked the Air Force’s 7th Bomb Wing at Dyess about their recent work, they’d likely point to an operations board still covered with mission markers in the Eastern Pacific and Caribbean. President Trump, gathered with U.S. service members for Thanksgiving, made sure to single them out—and he went a step further, hinting the fight against Venezuelan drug traffickers is poised for a significant expansion, one that could soon take on an entirely new landscape.Some listeners might have been caught off guard by the president’s candor. “There aren’t too many coming in by sea anymore. Have you probably noticed that?” Trump remarked, pressing home the notion that the old patterns of narcotics trafficking have already shifted—at least, as far as maritime routes are concerned. He cited the 85% drop in drugs entering by water, tying it directly to a series of military strikes in waters frequented by smuggling gangs such as Venezuela’s Tren de Aragua and Colombia’s ELN. Those 21 fatal strikes since September, according to Southern Command reports, weren’t mere statistics on a sheet; they’d prompted traffickers to seek new routes and made clear just how kinetic the U.S. commitment had become.But it was what Trump said next that moved the needle—something of a warning, but also a declaration of intent. “We’ll be starting to stop them by land also. The land is easier, but that’s going to start very soon.” The phrase hung in the air, not only for the assembled troops but for listeners back home, especially given recent White House ambiguity around possible ground operations in Venezuela proper. Only weeks earlier, when asked about potential boots on the ground, Trump replied, “I don’t rule out anything.” It’s the kind of open-ended answer that both agitates and intrigues—a rhetorical window left just wide enough for speculation, but grounded in the administration’s pattern of escalating response.What’s clear is that U.S. leadership sees narcotics trafficking—particularly with its deadly toll measured in “hundreds of thousands” of American lives, per Trump’s own estimate—as not just a law enforcement problem but a strategic threat. “We warn them, ‘stop sending poison to our country,’” the president said, underscoring a policy priority that increasingly blurs the line between counter-drug and military operations.Meanwhile, the security conversation hasn’t remained solely focused on Latin America. During the same Thanksgiving event, Trump addressed the deadly attack on National Guard members in D.C.—a tragic reminder that threats to U.S. safety wear many faces. The president didn’t shy away from current controversies either, touching on enhanced vetting for Afghans who entered the country following the chaotic withdrawal from Kabul.As for specifics about this shift to land-based operations against drug traffickers, the administration has yet to offer concrete details. Military leaders and national security officials are, by all accounts, refining their plans and considering how interdiction efforts might adapt to new smuggling methods—vehicle convoys along unmonitored stretches of the Venezuelan and Colombian border, perhaps, or clandestine crossings via Central American corridors. For law enforcement, intelligence, and military personnel, the challenge is almost certainly growing more complex by the week.For observers, two questions come into focus: How will traffickers adapt under pressure, and what are the broader costs and risks of a more directly interventionist U.S. approach? That calculus—balancing the gains of interdiction with potential blowback or regional instability—will define the headlines in the months ahead. What’s indisputable is this: The administration, keenly aware of shifting trafficking routes and the evolving geopolitics of narcotics, is unlikely to step back now that the stakes have been so clearly set.