Galápagos Could Become Strategic U.S. Outpost in Anti-Drug Push as Ecuador Weighs Constitutional Change

Ecuadorian President Daniel Noboa announced the possible installation of a U.S.-controlled military base in the Galápagos Islands aimed at reinforcing anti-drug operations along the Pacific coast. The plan hinges on a referendum set for November that would amend Ecuador's constitution to lift the 2008 prohibition on foreign military bases.

Noboa's government describes the proposed site as a "control platform" for joint maritime and aerial surveillance, stressing that it would remain under Ecuadorian state supervision. The Galápagos, located roughly 1,000 kilometers off the mainland, sit along a major trafficking corridor where seizures have increased in recent years.

Officials argue that a base on Baltra Island could help monitor vessels used for drug smuggling as well as illegal fishing and fuel trafficking, as Colombia One reports.

The constitutional hurdle, however, remains significant: Ecuador has prohibited foreign military bases since 2008, after the closure of a U.S. anti-drug installation in Manta. Noboa has positioned the referendum as a way to let citizens decide whether to permit foreign installations under cooperative frameworks.

Scientists and conservationists have raised concerns about environmental consequences. The Galápagos are a UNESCO World Heritage Site known for endemic species and fragile ecosystems. Experts note that military infrastructure, increased personnel, and expanded aircraft and maritime operations could introduce invasive species, increase pollution, and disrupt wildlife habitats, as local news site Primicias points out.

A researcher from the Galápagos National Park told Colombia One that "there is no guarantee that such infrastructure would leave no trace in such a delicate environment."

The historical example of U.S. military activity during World War II on Baltra Island is often cited. At the time, rapid development and troop presence altered local ecosystems. Park documents recall that the change ""greatly harmed the local species," even with regulations in place to prevent direct harm. Concerns have also surfaced over recent efforts to ease environmental inspection standards for incoming U.S. vessels.

Other questions remain unresolved, including how many personnel could be stationed there, what equipment would be permitted, how long access would last, and what operational limits would be imposed. Supporters say the installation could help contain illegal fishing and stimulate local infrastructure and tourism. Opponents argue that the potential benefits do not outweigh ecological and sovereignty risks.