US destroyers head toward waters off Venezuela as Trump aims to pressure drug cartels
The USS Gravely, the USS Jason Dunham and the USS Sampson are expected to arrive soon, said the official, who was not authorized to comment and spoke Tuesday on the condition of anonymity.
A Defense Department official confirmed that the military assets have been assigned to the region in support of counter narcotics efforts. The official, who was not authorized to comment about military planning, said the vessels would be deployed 'over the course of several months.'
The deployment of US destroyers and personnel comes as Trump has pushed for using the US military to thwart cartels he blames for the flow of fentanyl and other illicit drugs into American communities and for perpetuating violence in some US cities.
Trump has also pressed Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum to cooperate more on security than her predecessor, specifically being more aggressive in pursuit of Mexico's cartels. But she has drawn a clear line when it comes to Mexico's sovereignty, rejecting suggestions by Trump and others of intervention by the US military.
Trump in February designated Venezuela's Tren de Aragua, MS-13 in El Salvador and six groups based in Mexico as foreign terrorist organizations. His Republican administration has also stepped up immigration enforcement against alleged gang members.
The designation is normally reserved for groups like al-Qaida or the Islamic State group that use violence for political ends — not for money-focused crime rings such as the Latin American cartels.
But the Trump administration argues the international connections and operations of the groups — including drug trafficking, migrant smuggling and violent pushes to extend their territory — warrant the designation.
Earlier this month, the Trump government announced it was doubling to $50 million a reward for the arrest of Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro, accusing him of being one of the world's largest narco-traffickers and working with cartels to flood the US with fentanyl-laced cocaine.
The press office of Venezuela's government did not respond to a request for comment from the AP on the deployment of the destroyers. But without mentioning the ships, Foreign Minister Yvan Gil in a statement Tuesday characterized the US government's drug-trafficking accusations against Venezuela.
'Washington's accusing Venezuela of drug trafficking reveals its lack of credibility and the failure of its policies in the region,' Gil said. 'While Washington threatens, Venezuela steadily advances in peace and sovereignty, demonstrating that true effectiveness against crime is achieved by respecting the independence of its peoples. Every aggressive statement confirms the inability of imperialism to subdue a free and sovereign people.'
Maduro on Monday said the US had increased its threats against Venezuela and announced the planned deployment of more than 4.5 million militia members around the country. The militias were created by then-President Hugo Chávez to incorporate volunteers who could assist the armed forces in the defense of external and domestic attacks.
'The empire has gone mad and has renewed its threats to Venezuela's peace and tranquility,' Maduro said at an event in Caracas, without mentioning any specific action.
Maduro was indicted in a New York federal court in 2020, during the first Trump presidency, along with several close allies on federal charges of narco-terrorism and conspiracy to import cocaine. Back then, the US offered a $15 million reward for his arrest.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Mint
13 minutes ago
- Mint
US tariffs a ‘major shock' but opportunity for India to ‘get out of comfort mindset', says Uday Kotak
Uday Kotak has joined the chorus calling on the Centre to channel budgetary support towards MSMEs, in order to brace against impact from United States President Donald Trump's hiked tariffs. Speaking to the Financial Times (FT), the billionaire industrialist and founder of Kotak Mahindra Bank, said the development is an 'opportunity' for India to 'get out of our comfort mindset' and expand support for small and medium entreprises. Uday Kotak said the hiked US tariffs came as a 'major shock' to many Indians, who 'woke up' to the impact of Donald Trump's trade war on the domestic economy. 'We (India) must think about this as an opportunity for us to get out of our cruise mindset and from a comfort mindset to 'we are at risk',' he told FT. He said that direct monetary support — capital, private equity and risk capital — from the government to small and medium industries would 'turbocharge' manufacturing, research and technology in India. According to Kotak, the tariff uncertainty has created urgency to 'transform India' and pivot, stating, 'India's macroeconomic situation is very comfortable. Our fiscal deficit is under control, our current account is under control, you've got macroeconomic stability. Policymakers and businesses should use the trade war to get focused on productivity, efficiency, excellence and building world-class brands.' He added that India with per capita GDP of $2,700, 'cannot be in a comfort zone', when compared to China ($13,000) and US ($89,000). 'At the current 'cruise' level, we'll keep on improving our position, but is it fast enough for us to get past the middle-income trap? I think there's a gap,' Kotak told the publication. Donald Trump last month announced that the US would charge India a total of 50 per cent tariffs — 25 per cent reciprocal duties and an additional 25 per cent as 'punishment' for trade with Russia amid the Ukraine invasion. In light of this, earlier in August, Mahindra Group Chairman Anand Mahindra also called on the government to direct liquidity towards MSMEs; and RPG Entreprises Harsh Goenka also expressed support for a fund to help exporters shift from China and find new markets.
Hindustan Times
16 minutes ago
- Hindustan Times
U.S. Allies Still Waiting for Tariff Relief on Autos and Steel
TOKYO—In return for billions of dollars of investment pledges and promises to buy more American goods, U.S. allies in Asia and Europe say President Trump agreed to lower tariffs on key exports such as cars and steel. Weeks later, they are still waiting. Earlier this year, Trump threatened many of the U.S.'s trading partners with lofty import duties. Then, in a rapid series of deals culminating this month, he lowered them in pacts that, in some cases, included pledges by those countries to invest in the U.S. The administration, however, has so far left in place a series of tariffs levied for national-security reasons on sensitive products such as cars, steel and aluminum. The delays in addressing those tariffs—as well as discrepancies over investment and other issues—have created uncertainty for businesses and policymakers over future U.S. trade policy. Japan and South Korea said agreements they struck with the U.S. included reducing to 15% a 25% tariff on imported automobiles—but for now that levy is still being collected, adding to mounting losses at some of the world's biggest carmakers. Toyota Motor estimates tariffs will cost it around $9.5 billion in lost operating profit in the fiscal year ending in March, an estimate that had assumed tariffs on U.S. car imports would be reduced this month. Even the U.K., which was the first country to agree to a new trade pact with Trump back in May, is still waiting for a reduction in steep tariffs on steel. The two sides are thrashing out final terms on exactly which U.K. steel exports will qualify. A U.S. administration official said the U.S. agreed to discuss and possibly adjust these so-called Section 232 tariffs but said the administration didn't make a firm commitment to change them as part of these initial agreements. Such teething problems illustrate the challenge of putting Trump's rapid-fire trade pacts into practice. Traditional trade agreements run to hundreds of pages and seek to define clear rules for cross-border commerce to encourage companies to take the risky step of engaging in international trade. Trade lawyers painstakingly haggle over tariffs and regulatory barriers to broaden market access. In his second term, Trump prefers bold pledges and handshake agreements to detailed legal texts with binding commitments. His trade policy is less about expanding international trade than it is about narrowing chronic U.S. trade deficits and recouping what he believes are billions of dollars lost to foreign countries under the existing global system. Trading partners, too, have shied away from formal agreements that would impose specific legal obligations on their side. That partly reflects a desire to avoid bureaucratic entanglements and move swiftly, according to analysts and government officials, as well as a wariness of Trump's commitment to agreements he does make. Trump in his first term signed new trade accords with Japan, South Korea, Canada and Mexico, among others, all of which he has effectively repudiated by unilaterally raising tariffs. President Trump in his second term prefers bold pledges and handshake agreements. Answering critics in Japan's Parliament who wanted to see a written version of Tokyo's trade pact with Trump, Prime Minister Shigeru Ishiba told lawmakers a formal treaty would mean even greater delays in implementation—without a guarantee that Trump would stick with it. The EU is pushing for a written statement—but has said it won't be legally binding. Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick said in an interview on CNBC on Tuesday that documents with deal terms for countries including Japan and South Korea are 'weeks away,' but that investors shouldn't expect '250-page trading agreements.' Unlike the stability and confidence-building brought by traditional trade deals, this new, looser approach to trade policy means delays, disputes and misunderstandings are the new normal for trade relations with the U.S., said Simon Evenett, a professor at IMD Business School in Switzerland who runs Global Trade Alert, which monitors trade policy. 'The upshot is we inject uncertainty rather than remove it,' Evenett said. 'It's the price you have to pay with Washington these days.' An administration official said the documents being prepared 'will more precisely lay out deal terms and put to bed any lingering uncertainty.' The official added that the president reserves the right to adjust tariff rates if he judges the other side has reneged on its commitments. As well as Japan, South Korea and the European Union, the U.S. has also reached preliminary agreements with smaller but significant trade players such as Vietnam. A deal with China has proved tougher, but Trump this month extended a deadline for higher tariffs on China to come into effect to allow further talks and a possible meeting with Chinese leader Xi Jinping. The typical format for a Trump deal includes a pledge by the U.S. trading partner to invest big sums in the U.S., promises to buy more American exports, and a lower tariff rate in return. Almost as soon as some of these pacts were announced, cracks in what exactly they entailed started to show. Following a deal with Seoul, the White House announced that South Korea would provide 'historic market access to American goods like autos and rice.' Yet Finance Minister Koo Yun-cheol, one of South Korea's top trade negotiators, told reporters when he returned home that he didn't discuss rice with the U.S. team at all. An administration official said White House announcements have laid out what trading partners have agreed to and 'we expect them to abide by these commitments.' Investment pledges have proved especially controversial, with U.S. allies pushing back on Trump's insistence that he will have considerable discretion over how those funds are invested. For instance, a $350 billion investment fund that was the cornerstone of the pact with South Korea, of which $150 billion is earmarked for cooperation in shipbuilding, would be 'owned and controlled by the United States, and selected by myself, as president,' Trump said. Kim Yong-beom, South Korea's presidential chief of staff for policy, said that the fund 'is not a structure where the U.S. unilaterally decides,' and that South Korea will also require the investment projects proposed by the U.S. to be 'commercially meaningful.' Japan's top tariff negotiator, Ryosei Akazawa, flew back to Washington only days after striking Japan's trade deal. In meetings with Trump officials, he protested that a July 31 White House executive order seemed to 'stack' a new levy of 15% on top of any pre-existing tariffs on U.S. imports from Japan. He had told Japanese lawmakers the 15% wouldn't be piled on top. He ultimately returned with a commitment from U.S. officials, he said, to revise the order. The U.S. has agreed not to stack the new tariffs for Japan, an administration official said, though the official added that this wasn't part of the deal Japan had initially negotiated. The EU is also waiting for relief on auto tariffs and is negotiating improved terms for steel producers. Asked about the vehicle tariffs recently, an EU spokesman said, 'The U.S. has made political commitments to us in this respect and we look forward to them being implemented.' Write to Jason Douglas at
Indian Express
16 minutes ago
- Indian Express
What both the US and Russia don't understand about today's India
By Manoj Sinha and Ramanand Sharma Prime Minister Modi's absence in Alaska a few days ago signaled the end of a temporal fantasy once hyped at rallies and whispered in think tanks: The Trump-Putin-Modi triangle. For a moment, it seemed alluring. The idea had flair. But illusions do not bend history. The triangle collapsed not with a dramatic explosion, but with the slow grind of reality. Trump always approached international politics the way he did real estate deals: As transactions. Nations were customers or competitors, never equals. NATO allies were free riders, Russia and India were dead economies, and trade deficits were personal insults. Tariffs soon became his weapon of choice. At Houston's 'Howdy Modi' rally, he had basked in camaraderie, hugging Modi before a roaring crowd. Yet the knife was always under the table. By 2019, India's duty-free trade privileges were scrapped. Last month, Trump slapped 50 per cent tariffs on Indian goods, punishing Delhi for refusing to abandon Russian oil. He accused India of 'financing Putin's war machine,' even as tariffs threatened $87 billion in exports. For Washington, it was moral posturing, but for India, it was survival. Russian crude at $20–30 cheaper than Brent was oxygen for a nation of 1.4 billion. Trump assumed coercion would bring Delhi to heel. Instead, India reminded Washington it was not Mexico, Japan, or Canada. Trump's bullying only confirmed what Delhi has long known: America's friendship often comes with a cost. Since 1947, India has refused to mortgage sovereignty to any bloc, be it Washington, Moscow, or Beijing. That explains what looks like a contradiction to the West. India drills with the US Navy while buying Russian S-400s. Modi beams alongside Trump, then lands in Moscow the next week. To Washington, this feels like betrayal. To Delhi, it is sovereignty in action. If Trump misread India, Putin did too. Isolated and sanctioned, he wooed Modi with oil discounts, defence offers, and a 'privileged partnership.' Trade surged to $65 billion, but Putin wanted more: An ideological ally, a BRICS crusader against the West. But PM Modi never abandoned the US Dollar and never let BRICS become anti-American. For Delhi, Moscow was a supplier, a hedge, a lever against China, nothing more. Putin mistook invoices for loyalty. The triangle cracked when Trump claimed he had 'stopped a war', boasting of mediating between India and Pakistan and later invited Pakistan's Chief of Army Staff to the White House. For Delhi, this was sacrilege. Kashmir is bilateral for India, never a playground for American theatrics. Meanwhile, Europe scolds India for buying Russian oil, accusing it of funding Putin. But the hypocrisy is glaring. Europe gorged on Russian gas for decades before discovering a moral conscience. It was Europe, not India, that bankrolled Putin's war chest. India merely seized an opportunity. Even as refiners sold re-exported fuel back to Europe, Brussels sermonised. When India asked for alternatives, there was no answer. No subsidies, no discounts, just lectures. India's choice was clear: It could not allow its economy to be crippled to soothe Europe's guilt. Tariffs cannot manufacture trust. Mediation cannot overwrite sovereignty. India will keep buying Russian oil because it must. It will deepen defence ties with Washington because it should. It will trade with Europe, balance China, and shape BRICS, all on its own terms. The tragedy is that the West still refuses to accept India as an independent pole in a multipolar world. History will not remember the hugs or handshakes. Strongmen may command applause, but national interest will dictate the fate of nations. Sinha is Principal, Aryabhatta College, University of Delhi. Sharma is an Assistant Professor, Aryabhatta College, University of Delhi
