Overview of the Strikes

Since September 2025, the United States has carried out at least 22 military strikes targeting alleged drug-trafficking vessels off the coasts of the Caribbean and Latin America. These strikes have killed at least 86 people, prompting criticism from legal experts and human rights officials, who describe the attacks as extrajudicial killings and violations of both international and domestic law.

Legal and Human Rights Concerns

• International law: The strikes may violate Article Two of the UN Charter, which prohibits force except in self-defense, and the Geneva Conventions, which protect civilians not taking part in hostilities.
• “Double-tap” attacks: Reports indicate the U.S. has conducted follow-up strikes on survivors, potentially violating the Hague Convention against “no quarter given” policies.
• Administration defense: The Pentagon argues the operations are lawful, claiming the targeted vessels were transporting deadly narcotics and labeling traffickers as “unlawful combatants.” Experts reject these arguments, asserting the reasoning blurs the line between criminal activity and armed conflict.

Weak Oversight and Institutional Erosion

Experts highlight that institutional guardrails have been weakened under Trump:

• Congress: Two bills requiring congressional approval for the strikes failed in the Senate.
• Military legal advisors: JAG officers who questioned the strikes’ legality have reportedly been sidelined or fired.
• Public perception: Polling shows a slim majority of Americans approve of the strikes, suggesting growing acceptance of unchecked executive military power.

Broader Implications

Legal scholars argue that the strikes represent a radical extension of wartime powers to ordinary criminal activity, effectively giving the president authority to kill accused criminals without due process.

• Domestic concerns: Experts like Rebecca Ingber compare the administration’s reasoning to a “garbled AI-generated legal argument,” pointing out the lack of clear legal justification.
• International concerns: UN officials warn the strikes undermine norms governing the use of force, and foreign intelligence partners could face pressure over cooperation.

Conclusion

Experts caution that current U.S. military practices set a dangerous precedent, eroding the distinction between law enforcement and wartime operations. Without robust congressional oversight or internal resistance from the military, legal mechanisms to halt the strikes remain limited, putting civilians at risk both abroad and within the precedent set for U.S. policy.