A controversial U.S. military operation targeting drug smuggling vessels off Venezuela’s coast has triggered significant legal and political scrutiny after revelations that aircraft involved were disguised as civilian planes. The operation, which occurred last September, employed surveillance planes repainted to mimic non-military aircraft while carrying munitions within their fuselages rather than standard external mounts—a practice that appears to contradict Pentagon guidelines governing the laws of armed conflict.
The disclosure, initially reported by The New York Times and confirmed by anonymous sources familiar with the operation, emerges amid escalating tensions between the Trump administration and Congress over military authority. The Senate is preparing to vote on a war powers resolution that would prohibit further unauthorized military action in Venezuela, following a series of strikes that resulted in numerous casualties and culminated in the capture of Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro.
President Trump has aggressively lobbied Republican senators to oppose the resolution, expressing particular frustration over challenges to his war powers authority. The administration has justified its actions by characterizing the campaign against drug cartels as an ‘armed conflict’ and labeling boat operators as unlawful combatants.
Legal experts and military manuals, however, raise serious concerns about the tactics employed. The Defense Department’s extensive guidelines explicitly prohibit ‘perfidy’—the act of feigning civilian status during combat operations—warning that such practices endanger civilian populations and violate military honor codes. Pentagon press secretary Kingsley Wilson maintained that all aircraft undergo ‘rigorous procurement processes’ to ensure compliance with domestic and international laws.
The initial September strike, which involved the disguised aircraft, was followed by a secondary attack that killed two survivors clinging to wreckage—an action that legal experts suggest may have violated international laws of war. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth acknowledged observing the first strike live but denied witnessing the follow-up attack.
Congressional scrutiny intensifies as lawmakers review classified legal justifications for Maduro’s ouster. Senators from both parties have expressed skepticism about the operation’s legality and the administration’s long-term plans for Venezuela, with some arguing that legal rationales should be publicly disclosed rather than kept secret.
The unfolding controversy highlights broader tensions between executive military authority and congressional oversight, with significant implications for future U.S. military operations and adherence to international legal standards.