The family of Alejandro Carranza, a Colombian fisherman, is demanding answers after he was killed in a U.S. military strike in the Caribbean, with the U.S. alleging drug trafficking but his loved ones and the Colombian government maintaining his innocence. This incident has sparked a diplomatic crisis, raising questions about the legality of the strikes and their impact on regional stability.
Alejandro Carranza, a 40-year-old fisherman from Santa Marta, Colombia, left his home on September 14, 2025, for a routine fishing trip from La Guajira, Venezuela. The next day, the U.S. military conducted a strike in international waters, targeting a vessel it claimed was carrying drugs and killing three people, including Carranza. His family learned of his death through news reports, as he failed to return or contact them. The U.S. government released footage and statements asserting the boat was involved in narcotics trafficking, but provided limited evidence to support these claims.
Carranza’s family vehemently denies any involvement in drug-related activities, describing him as a devoted father, husband, and hardworking fisherman. His niece, Lizbeth Perez, expressed fear and confusion, recalling him as a kind and cheerful person who loved his work. His wife, Katerine Hernandez, questioned why the U.S. did not detain him instead of taking his life, emphasizing that fishermen have the right to live without such threats. The family is still awaiting concrete proof of his involvement and feels his death was an unjust act that has left his five children without a father.
The Trump administration justifies the strikes as part of a ‘non-international armed conflict’ with drug cartels, arguing that narcotics pose a severe threat to American lives. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth stated the campaign aims to remove ‘narco-terrorists from our hemisphere’ and secure the U.S. from drugs. President Donald Trump and Secretary of State Marco Rubio have framed the operations as self-defense, citing thousands of drug-related deaths in the U.S. However, critics point out that the main driver of such deaths is fentanyl from Mexico, not necessarily cocaine from South America.
Colombian President Gustavo Petro has condemned the strike as an ‘assassination’ and a violation of sovereignty, accusing the U.S. of murder. He claimed Carranza’s boat had mechanical issues and was adrift with a distress signal, and that Carranza had no ties to drug trafficking. In response, Petro suspended intelligence sharing with the U.S. and halted arms purchases. Trump retaliated by cutting off U.S. aid to Colombia and labeling Petro an ‘illegal drug leader,’ escalating a diplomatic row between the historically allied nations.
Legal experts and human rights advocates have raised concerns about the strikes’ compliance with international law. Daniel Kovalik, a lawyer representing Carranza’s family, argued that extrajudicial killings are unlawful, as individuals should be arrested and tried in court, not summarily executed. He plans to sue the U.S. government, noting that drug trafficking is not a capital crime and that the boats posed no imminent violent threat. The U.S. invocation of war-time powers to target alleged cartels has been criticized as a stretch of legal boundaries.
The broader context includes at least 21 U.S. strikes in the Caribbean and Pacific since September, resulting in 83 deaths and heightening fears among local fishermen. In Taganga, Colombia, fishermen like Juan Assis Tejeda report seeing drones overhead and worry about being mistakenly targeted. The strikes have also intensified pressure on Venezuela, which the U.S. accuses of harboring the ‘Cartel de los Soles.’ This has led to speculation about potential U.S. military action on Venezuelan soil, with Trump and Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro expressing willingness to talk amid rising tensions.
Moving forward, Carranza’s family continues to seek answers and justice through potential legal action, while the U.S. and Colombia navigate a strained relationship. The situation underscores the risks of unilateral military interventions and their unintended human costs. As diplomatic efforts unfold, the outcome could influence anti-drug cooperation in the region and set precedents for international law, with implications for peace and security in the Americas.
