featured
CIA Launches an Illegal Drone War Inside Venezuela // Kyle Kulinsky
Kyle Kulinsky | Trusted Newsmaker
CIA Drone Strikes Inside Venezuela Spark Legal, Moral, and Political Firestorm
Another day, another “this is fine” moment in U.S. foreign policy. According to reporting discussed on The Kyle Kulinski Show, the CIA allegedly carried out a drone strike on a port facility inside Venezuela. If true, this is not a gray area, not a vibes-based controversy, and not a matter of partisan interpretation. It is an act of war conducted without congressional authorization and therefore illegal under both U.S. and international law.
What the Report Claims Happened
CNN reported that a drone strike hit a port facility along the Venezuelan coast, with U.S. intelligence involvement. Independent journalists and commentators quickly framed this as part of a broader campaign of covert military action aimed at destabilizing the Venezuelan government. The alleged objective is regime change, followed by the privatization of Venezuela’s oil, gas, and mineral resources. This is not subtle. This is Cold War playbook material with a modern drone interface.
The CIA reportedly acted with assistance from U.S. Special Operations forces, which only deepens the legal exposure. Covert action does not magically become legal just because it is quiet. Dropping explosives inside a sovereign country is still war, even if you whisper while doing it.
Conflicting Narratives and Convenient Confusion
Here’s where the story gets messier. Venezuelan officials and some local witnesses claimed the explosion was an industrial accident, possibly at a factory or feed plant. Meanwhile, former President Donald Trump publicly suggested the U.S. carried out the attack. CNN reporting also attributed responsibility to the CIA. So on one side, people on the ground say accident. On the other, U.S. political and intelligence figures say “yeah, that was us.”
This contradiction is not reassuring. Either the U.S. government conducted an illegal strike and admitted it, or it falsely took credit for a deadly explosion inside another country. Neither option screams competence or restraint. The fact that this confusion persists long after the incident only reinforces how opaque and unaccountable modern covert warfare has become.
The Broader Pattern of Drone Warfare
The Venezuela strike does not exist in isolation. According to the transcript, U.S. forces have carried out numerous drone attacks on boats in the Caribbean, ostensibly as part of a drug interdiction campaign. Physical evidence from these strikes reportedly washed ashore and revealed marijuana, not fentanyl or cocaine. Marijuana, a substance legal in the majority of U.S. states, including many states whose citizens would presumably object to fishermen being incinerated over it.
Over one hundred people are reported killed and more than twenty boats destroyed. Families in Venezuela, Colombia, and Trinidad and Tobago have lost relatives. The narrative that these were hardened cartel operations collapses when the evidence points to small-scale fishermen and low-level smuggling. The human cost is real, even if the justification is paper-thin.
Legality, Impeachment, and the Constitution
The U.S. Constitution is painfully clear. Congress authorizes war. Bombing inside a country with which the U.S. has no declared war is unconstitutional. Even supporters who try to rationalize maritime strikes as something less than war have a harder time explaining drone attacks on land. By publicly acknowledging such strikes, U.S. leadership effectively hands critics a ready-made impeachment argument.
The transcript highlights a broader frustration: there are so many potential grounds for impeachment that political actors seem paralyzed by choice. Illegal wars, emoluments violations, corruption, and now alleged covert bombing campaigns pile up faster than accountability mechanisms can respond.
The Political Fallout and What Comes Next
Beyond legality, there is the question of escalation. If covert drone strikes fail to force political change, what follows? More strikes? Fighter jets? Ground invasion? History suggests that once a country commits to regime change, it rarely stops halfway. Speculation that continued attacks would pressure Venezuelan leadership to step aside appears increasingly detached from reality.
There is also the political irony. Figures who once claimed to oppose endless wars now face a moment of proof. Will they object when “their side” engages in the same behavior they previously condemned? The transcript expresses deep skepticism that they will, pointing instead to a pattern of silent compliance and rhetorical gymnastics.
Why This Story Matters
This is not just about Venezuela. It is about whether covert warfare has become so normalized that legality no longer matters, as long as the right people approve it. Drone strikes reduce political risk at home while exporting violence abroad. The lack of transparency ensures that by the time the public hears about it, the damage is already done.
If democratic oversight cannot restrain intelligence agencies and executive power, then the concept of consent in warfare becomes meaningless. Whether this particular explosion was an accident or an attack, the fact that credible evidence points toward an illegal drone campaign should alarm anyone who still believes laws are supposed to apply to governments too.
