troop

WASHINGTON — The nation’s most advanced aircraft carrier arrived in the Caribbean Sea on Sunday in a display of U.S. military power, raising questions about what the new influx of troops and weaponry could signal for the Trump administration’s drug enforcement campaign in South America.

The arrival of the USS Gerald R. Ford, announced by the U.S. military in a news release, marks a major moment in what the Trump administration says is an antidrug operation but has been seen as an escalating pressure tactic against Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro. Since early September, U.S. strikes have killed at least 80 people in 20 attacks on small boats accused of transporting drugs in the Caribbean and eastern Pacific Ocean.

The Ford rounds off the largest buildup of U.S. firepower in the region in generations, bringing the total number of troops to around 12,000 on nearly a dozen Navy ships in what Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth has dubbed Operation Southern Spear.

The Ford’s carrier strike group, which includes squadrons of fighter jets and guided-missile destroyers, transited the Anegada Passage near the British Virgin Islands on Sunday morning, the Navy said in a statement.

Rear Adm. Paul Lanzilotta, who commands the Ford’s carrier strike group, said it will bolster an already large force of American warships to “protect our nation’s security and prosperity against narco-terrorism in the Western Hemisphere.”

The administration has maintained that the buildup of warships is focused on stopping the flow of drugs into the U.S., but it has released no evidence to support its assertions that those killed in the boats were “narco-terrorists.” An Associated Press report recently found that those killed included Venezuelan fishermen and other impoverished men earning a few hundred dollars per trip.

President Trump has indicated military action would expand beyond strikes by sea, saying the U.S. would “stop the drugs coming in by land.”

The U.S. has long used aircraft carriers to pressure and deter aggression by other nations because their warplanes can strike targets deep inside another country. Some experts say the Ford is ill-suited to fighting cartels, but it could be an effective instrument of intimidation for Maduro in a push to get him to step down.

Secretary of State Marco Rubio says the United States does not recognize Maduro, who was widely accused of stealing last year’s election, as Venezuela’s legitimate leader. Rubio has called Venezuela’s government a “transshipment organization” that openly cooperates with those trafficking drugs.

Maduro, who faces charges of narco-terrorism in the U.S., has said the government in Washington is “fabricating” a war against him. Venezuela’s government recently touted a “massive” mobilization of troops and civilians to defend against possible U.S. attacks.

Trump has justified the attacks on drug boats by saying the U.S. is in “armed conflict” with drug cartels while claiming the boats are operated by foreign terrorist organizations.

He has faced skepticism and opposition from leaders in the region, the United Nations human rights chief and U.S. lawmakers, including Republicans, who have pressed for more information on who is being targeted and the legal justification for the boat strikes.

Senate Republicans, however, recently voted to reject legislation that would have put a check on Trump’s ability to launch an attack against Venezuela without congressional authorization.

Experts disagree on whether or not American warplanes may be used to strike land targets inside Venezuela. Either way, the 100,000-ton warship is sending a message.

“This is the anchor of what it means to have U.S. military power once again in Latin America,” said Elizabeth Dickinson, the International Crisis Group’s senior analyst for the Andes region. “And it has raised a lot of anxieties in Venezuela but also throughout the region. I think everyone is watching this with sort of bated breath to see just how willing the U.S. is to really use military force.”

Finley writes for the Associated Press.

PORTLAND, Ore. — A federal judge in Oregon ruled Friday that President Trump’s administration failed to meet the legal requirements for deploying the National Guard to Portland after the city and state sued in September to block the deployment.

The ruling from U.S. District Judge Karin Immergut, a Trump appointee, followed a three-day trial last week in which both sides argued over whether protests at the city’s U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement building met the conditions for using the military domestically under federal law.

The administration said the troops were needed to protect federal personnel and property in a city that Trump described as “war ravaged” with “fires all over the place.”

In a 106-page opinion, Immergut found that even though the president is entitled to “great deference” in his decision on whether to call up the Guard, he did not have a legal basis for doing so because he did not establish that there was a rebellion or danger of rebellion, or that he was unable to enforce the law with regular forces.

“The trial record showed that although protests outside the Portland ICE building occurred nightly between June and October 2025, ever since a few particularly disruptive days in mid-June, protests have remained peaceful with only isolated and sporadic instances of violence,” Immergut wrote. “The occasional interference to federal officers has been minimal, and there is no evidence that these small-scale protests have significantly impeded the execution of any immigration laws.”

The Trump administration criticized the judge’s ruling.

“The facts haven’t changed. Amidst ongoing violent riots and lawlessness, that local leaders have refused to step in to quell, President Trump has exercised his lawful authority to protect federal officers and assets. President Trump will not turn a blind eye to the lawlessness plaguing American cities and we expect to be vindicated by a higher court,” said Abigail Jackson, a White House spokeswoman.

“The courts are holding this administration accountable to the truth and the rule of law,” Oregon Atty. Gen. Dan Rayfield said in an e-mailed statement. “From the beginning, this case has been about making sure that facts, not political whims, guide how the law is applied. Today’s decision protects that principle.”

Democratic cities targeted by Trump for military involvement — including Chicago, which has filed a separate lawsuit on the issue — have been pushing back. They argue the president has not satisfied the legal threshold for deploying troops and that doing so would violate states’ sovereignty.

Immergut issued two orders in early October that had blocked the deployment of the troops leading up to the trial. The first order blocked Trump from deploying 200 members of the Oregon National Guard; the second, issued a day later, blocked him from deploying members of any state’s National Guard to Oregon, after he tried to evade the first order by sending California troops instead.

Immergut has called Trump’s apocalyptic descriptions of Portland “simply untethered to the facts.”

The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has already ordered that the troops not be deployed pending further action by the appeals court. The trial Immergut held further developed the factual record in the case, which could serve as the basis for further appellate rulings.

Witnesses including local police and federal officials were questioned about the law enforcement response to the nightly protests at the city’s ICE building. The demonstrations peaked in June, when Portland police declared one a riot. The demonstrations typically drew a couple dozen people in the weeks leading up to the president’s National Guard announcement.

The Trump administration said it has had to shuffle federal agents around the country to respond to the Portland protests, which it has characterized as a “rebellion” or “danger of rebellion.”

Federal officials working in the region testified about staffing shortages and requests for more personnel that have yet to be fulfilled. Among them was an official with the Federal Protective Service, the agency within the Department of Homeland Security that provides security at federal buildings, whom the judge allowed to be sworn in as a witness under his initials, R.C., because of safety concerns.

R.C., who said he would be one of the most knowledgeable people in Homeland Security about security at Portland’s ICE building, testified that a troop deployment would alleviate the strain on staff. When cross-examined, however, he said he did not request troops and that he was not consulted on the matter by Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem or Trump. He also said he was “surprised” to learn about the deployment and that he did not agree with statements about Portland burning down.

Attorneys for Portland and Oregon said city police have been able to respond to the protests. After the Police Department declared a riot on June 14, it changed its strategy to direct officers to intervene when person and property crime occurs, and crowd numbers have largely diminished since the end of that month, police officials testified.

The ICE building closed for three weeks over the summer because of property damage, according to court documents and testimony. The regional field office director for ICE’s Enforcement and Removal Operations, Cammilla Wamsley, said her employees worked from another building during that period. The plaintiffs argued that was evidence that they were able to continue their work functions.

Rush and Johnson write for the Associated Press. Johnson reported from Seattle. AP staff writer Michelle L. Price contributed to this report from Palm Beach, Fla.