News Americas, New York, Fri. Oct. 17, 2025: With over 27 people now dead from unilateral U.S. military strikes in Caribbean waters near Venezuela, human rights organizations are accusing the Trump administration of murder.

An infographic titled “US strikes another ‘narco-trafficking vessel’ off Venezuelan coast” created in Ankara, Turkiye on October 15, 2025. US President Donald Trump said the US carried out another strike Tuesday on ‘a narco-trafficking vessel’ off the coast of Venezuela. (Photo by Yasin Demirci/Anadolu via Getty Images)

“All available evidence suggests that President Trump’s lethal strikes in the Caribbean constitute murder, pure and simple,” said Jeffrey Stein, staff attorney with the ACLU’s National Security Project. “The public deserves to know how our government is justifying these attacks as lawful, and, given the stakes, immediate public scrutiny of its apparently radical theories is imperative.”

On October 15, the Center for Constitutional Rights and the American Civil Liberties Union filed a Freedom of Information Act, (FOIA) request seeking the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel, (OLC) opinion authorizing these strikes. The groups argue that the U.S. has crossed a dangerous legal and moral line by targeting unarmed civilians under the guise of anti-narcotics operations.

Lethal Strikes Under “Counter-Narcotics” Cover

Since early September, the U.S. has launched repeated airstrikes against private vessels it claims were drug-smuggling boats operating in international Caribbean waters. The strikes – now totaling at least six – are part of a new Joint Task Force, (JTF), initiative under the U.S. Southern Command, (SOUTHCOM), which aims to “synchronize and augment counter-narcotics efforts” across the Western Hemisphere.

The JTF, led by the II Marine Expeditionary Force, integrates military, intelligence, and Homeland Security resources, expanding aerial and maritime surveillance, real-time intelligence sharing, and rapid-response capabilities. The Trump administration claims these measures are essential to dismantling narcotrafficking networks it now labels as “terrorist non-state armed groups.”

However, legal scholars say the administration’s reclassification of narcotics cartels as “terrorists” stretches the limits of both domestic and international law, effectively treating criminal suspects as combatants.

Legal Ambiguity and Public Outrage

During recent Senate hearings, Attorney General Pam Bondi declined to confirm the existence of legal guidance authorizing such strikes. But Charles Young, nominated as U.S. Army general counsel, admitted that the OLC opinion exists, drafted by an interagency working group including White House and executive branch lawyers.

“This is an unprecedented expansion of presidential power,” said Baher Azmy, legal director of the Center for Constitutional Rights. “In a constitutional democracy, no president can arbitrarily choose to assassinate individuals from the sky based on his whim or say-so.”

Amnesty International condemned the attacks as “murder—plain and simple,” noting that the administration has provided “no plausible legal justification” for killing alleged drug smugglers without evidence or due process.

“This was the fifth U.S. strike in the Caribbean since early September, bringing the body count to 27,” said Daphne Eviatar, Amnesty International USA’s Director for Security and Human Rights. “These airstrikes outrageously flout international law and set a dangerous precedent for other leaders around the world.”

Military Fallout and Regional Alarm

Meanwhile, tensions are rising within the U.S. military itself. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth announced that Admiral Alvin Holsey, who leads SOUTHCOM operations in Latin America, will step down two years early. Sources told Reuters that disagreements over the legality and escalation of Caribbean operations contributed to his decision.

Holsey’s resignation comes as the U.S. continues a military buildup near Venezuela, deploying guided missile destroyers, F-35 fighter jets, and a nuclear submarine. The administration insists these moves are necessary to counter “narcoterrorist threats,” though critics say they risk igniting a regional conflict.

Adding to concerns, Trump confirmed he has authorized CIA covert operations inside Venezuela, heightening fears of regime-change efforts against President Nicolás Maduro.

Collateral Damage and Human Cost

Boats are pictured on the shore of La Cueva Bay, north coast of Trinidad and Tobago, on October 16, 2025. Police in Trinidad and Tobago told AFP on October 16, 2025, they are investigating whether two citizens were among six people killed in a US strike on a boat allegedly transporting drugs from Venezuela after reports by residents of Las Cuevas village. (Photo by AFP) (Photo by STRINGER/AFP via Getty Images)

Among those killed in the fifth strike were two men from Trinidad and Tobago – Chad “Charpo” Joseph and Rishi Samaroo – whose families insist they were not involved in drug trafficking. “If you see a boat, you are supposed to stop and intercept it, not blow it up,” said Joseph’s aunt, Lynette Burnley, calling the attack “wickedness.”

To date, at least 28 people have been killed in the ongoing U.S. operation, which rights groups warn amounts to extrajudicial execution.

As the ACLU and CCR press for transparency, the question remains: can the U.S. justify these killings under international law – or is it rewriting the rules of engagement in its own image?

Ramotsamai Itumeleng Khunyeli contributed to this story.

Analysis By NAN Business Editor

News Americas, Georgetown, Guyana, Tues. Oct. 14, 2025: ExxonMobil’s Guyana President, Alistair Routledge on Monday claimed the company is “still operating in the red to the tune of around US$6 billion” in Guyana, as he retorted over to a question by three U.S. senators on the company’s tax breaks. So which number is closer to reality: $6 billion or $3.4 billion in losses?

The ExxonMobil Guyana offices at 86 Duke Street in Georgetown, Guyana. Photographer: Jose A. Alvarado Jr./Bloomberg via Getty Images

What Routledge Said

Speaking at Exxon’s Ogle, East Coast Demerara headquarters, Routledge told reporters that the NGO Oil and Gas Governance Network, (OGGN) may have misled U.S. senators about the company’s tax filings. He said that ExxonMobil Guyana is still operating with a negative cash flow of around six billion US dollars.

“We continue to be actually cash flow negative on an accumulative basis… we are probably still around six billion US dollars in negative cash flow as we look at the cumulative expenditures and cumulative revenues that we’ve seen from the Stabroek Block,” he told reporters.

Routledge asserted that in ExxonMobil Corporation’s 2023 and 2024 tax filings, there were no Guyanese tax credits included in either of those filings, “and you would recall that prior to 2023, we were not making profits here in Guyana, so there were no tax credits from that. Up until this point, there have been no Guyana tax credits used by ExxonMobil.”

The Alternative Figure: $3.4 Billion

But Exxon’s own Guyana website identifies a different figure: US$3.4 billion in red ink — even while acknowledging an accounting profit in 2024. According to Exxon’s 2024 financials:

Gross production rose sharply with the Prosperity FPSO, boosting revenue for all partners

Despite posting an accounting profit, the company said it remains “in the red” by US$3.4 billion

Exxon and its co-venturers have invested a cumulative US$55 billion in Guyana to date. This divergence begs the question: how can a company be both profitable on paper and yet claim to be billions in losses?

The Contractual Context

Under the 2016 Production Sharing Agreement (PSA), Exxon’s Guyana deal allows it to recover up to 75% of its share of oil revenue for cost recovery before profit payments begin. In practice, this means a large portion of early revenue goes to recovering the developer’s costs- capital, exploration, infrastructure – leaving little net profit early on.

Furthermore, financials for 2024 show:

Operating expenditures of GYD 477.6 billion

Depreciation/amortization at GYD 301.8 billion

Exploration, production, royalties also eat into margins

These mechanics help explain how Exxon could legitimately claim negative cash flow despite strong revenues.

Why It Matters for Guyana

The optics of a $6B loss vs $3.4B matters deeply for public trust, fiscal policy, and future licensing. Guyana has collected over US$6.2 billion in oil profits and royalties since 2020 – so when Exxon claims it’s in the red, critics say the narrative raises concerns about transparency and fairness. If Exxon can delay or reduce profit sharing through cost recovery claims, that changes the magnitude and timing of what Guyana as a partner actually realizes.

Bottom Line

Both $6 billion and $3.4 billion claims could contain grains of truth, depending on accounting methods, timing, amortization and recovery policies.

Routledge emphasized cash flow negativity and absence of Guyanese tax credits in filings.

Exxon’s public data insists on a lower loss figure despite profits.

The discrepancy boils down to methodology, timing, and cost recovery mechanics.

So, while the $6B figure commands headlines, the $3.4B estimate rooted in Exxon’s own reporting asks where did the almost three additional billion come from?. It’s really a question of how loss and profit are really defined.