The Trump administration has openly acknowledged significant uncertainties regarding its military actions against suspected drug smugglers in the Caribbean Sea and the Pacific Ocean. During briefings on October 26, officials admitted they do not know the identities of individuals killed in airstrikes, raising questions about the legality and justification for these operations.
Since September 2, 2023, the U.S. military has conducted strikes that reportedly resulted in the deaths of more than 60 civilians. Officials have categorized the victims as “unprivileged belligerents,” a term under international humanitarian law that complicates their legal status. These military actions are framed by the administration as part of a “non-international armed conflict” with designated terrorist organizations (DTOs). However, experts in international law argue that this designation does not apply, as the U.S. is not in an armed conflict with drug cartels.
In a War Powers report to Congress, President Donald Trump justified the strikes under his Article II constitutional authority as commander in chief, asserting the need for self-defense as a matter of international law. This rationale has received backing from the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel, which issued a classified opinion supporting the strikes.
Critics, including members of Congress, have labeled these actions as illegal extrajudicial killings. Rep. Sara Jacobs, a Democrat from California, emphasized that military forces cannot lawfully target civilians, even suspected criminals, without evidence of an imminent threat. She stated, “We are not in an armed conflict with these cartels. And so this is just murder.”
During the October 26 briefing, Jacobs revealed that Pentagon officials admitted they do not require positive identification of individuals aboard the targeted vessels, only a connection to a DTO. This lack of accountability raises significant ethical and legal concerns. The administration currently has no plans to seek authorization for use of military force similar to the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF), which allows counterterrorism operations against those responsible for the September 11 attacks.
Among the survivors of the strikes—two from an attack on October 16 and one from October 27—none have been prosecuted for drug smuggling. Jacobs noted that the Pentagon expressed an inability to hold or try the survivors due to an insufficient evidentiary burden, which raises troubling implications about the standards for lethal action compared to those for legal prosecution.
The Pentagon’s press secretary, Kingsley Wilson, did not respond to inquiries regarding the lack of identification of victims and the evidentiary standards for military strikes. Former State Department lawyer Brian Finucane pointed out that the administration’s failure to identify its targets undermines the assertion that they constitute narco-terrorists.
Moreover, a select group of lawmakers received a briefing on the legal rationale for the strikes, excluding many Democrats, leading to bipartisan criticism. Sen. Mark Warner, the senior Democrat on the Senate Intelligence Committee, condemned the administration’s actions as “indefensible and dangerous,” emphasizing that decisions on military force should not be politically motivated.
As the Pentagon continues these operations, the justification for targeting individuals without clear identities or imminent threats remains a contentious issue, raising profound questions about legality and ethics in modern warfare. The administration is under increasing pressure to clarify its legal stance and provide transparency regarding its military actions against DTOs.
