The United States claims it is going after a powerful Venezuelan drug network known as the “Cartel de los Soles,” but some analysts argue that label is more fiction than fact. As Washington steps up military and diplomatic pressure, critics question whether the U.S. is targeting a Venezuelan cartel that may not technically exist or if the campaign is part of a broader political strategy against the Maduro regime.
The Trump administration has labeled the Cartel de los Soles a Foreign Terrorist Organization, accusing Venezuela’s political elite including President Nicolás Maduro of overseeing a vast human trafficking and drug trafficking network. The U.S. has even deployed warships to Caribbean waters and launched strikes on vessels it claims are linked to cartels originating from Venezuela.
Adding to the pressure, Washington recently more than doubled a reward for information leading to Maduro’s capture, citing his alleged role in global narcotics trafficking. In U.S. courts, other Venezuelan officials have been convicted in narco-terrorism cases, lending some legal weight to these claims.
According to analysts familiar with Latin America’s organized crime, the idea of a monolithic “Cartel de los Soles” is misleading. Rather than a structured organization like Medellín or Sinaloa cartels, they say it’s more of a loose network of military and political figures with ties to illicit trafficking.
Several experts insist there’s no real command-and-control structure. Instead, corruption runs through multiple branches of the Venezuelan state, but without unified, centralized leadership.
A declassified U.S. intelligence memo reportedly concluded that Venezuela’s government does not directly control one of the targeted gangs, Tren de Aragua. According to the memo, the Venezuelan regime may allow criminal operations to happen, but it doesn’t necessarily direct them.
Some former U.S. officials suggest that claims about the cartel are based on shaky intelligence or political motivation. They argue that allegations are being used to justify more aggressive U.S. policy toward Maduro framing it as a “narco-terror” campaign, rather than a purely law enforcement mission.
Military actions against suspected drug traffickers raise serious legal questions. International lawyers note that drug trafficking, while criminal, does not automatically meet the legal definitions that permit the use of armed force under international law.
Groups like Human Rights Watch argue that maritime strikes on drug vessels could amount to “extrajudicial killings,” since the targets are being treated more like battlefield actors than criminals. Some legal scholars say the U.S. is stretching its counterterrorism powers in a way that merges crime-fighting with warfare a problematic precedent.
By insisting on the existence of a centralized “Cartel de los Soles,” the U.S. gains powerful leverage. Labeling the network terrorist gives Washington new tools: freezing assets, imposing sanctions, and justifying military action.
For the Venezuelan government, those accusations are a familiar echo of regime-change rhetoric. Maduro has consistently denied running a cartel, calling the U.S. campaign a smear effort. Analysts worry that dramatized cartel claims could be paving the way for more interventionist policies disguised as drug war strategy.
The U.S. says it is targeting a Venezuelan cartel that may not technically exist, painting it as a terrorist organization and deploying military force accordingly. But experts warn that this “cartel” might be more conceptual than concrete a network of complicit actors rather than a single criminal enterprise. As Washington presses its campaign, the debate isn’t just about drugs. It’s about power, politics, and whether the U.S. is truly fighting a cartel or using the word to justify pressure on the Maduro regime.
