US President Donald Trump’s allies have invoked the so-called “war on terror” to defend his military strikes on alleged drug-trafficking vessels in the Caribbean and Pacific. However, legal experts and human rights advocates argue that the comparison to Obama-era drone strikes is misleading and legally unfounded.

Legal Experts Reject “War on Terror” Justification

Trump’s boat strikes, which have killed nearly 100 people since September 2025, lack congressional authorization and occur in regions where the US is not in armed conflict.

“These strikes are breaking completely new, very dangerous ground,” said Annie Shiel, US advocacy director at the Center for Civilians in Conflict.

Experts emphasize that the strikes target civilians rather than legitimate military targets, meaning international humanitarian law does not apply.

Republican Allies Invoke Obama Drone Campaign

To defend the strikes, some Republican lawmakers likened them to the drone assassination campaign under former President Barack Obama.

“Throughout the Obama years, we used this targeting system to find and kill a lot of bad guys all over the world,” said Senator Tim Sheehy.
Senator Markwayne Mullin added, “What’s the difference between Obama attacking terrorists in the Middle East versus those poisoning our streets?”

While Obama’s drone strikes were also controversial, analysts argue Trump’s boat attacks go further by lacking any legal or military framework.

Critics Highlight Civilian Status of Drug Traffickers

John Walsh, director for drug policy at WOLA (Washington Office on Latin America), said drug cartels are not combatants:

“The frame of drug trafficking as ‘narcoterrorism’ is an obfuscation. These traffickers are selling drugs, not waging war on governments.”

Despite Pentagon claims that the strikes target “designated terrorist organizations” under the Law of Armed Conflict, critics stress that this law only applies during armed conflicts—which do not exist in the Caribbean or eastern Pacific.

Fentanyl and “Weapon of Mass Destruction” Label

The Trump administration has designated drug organizations as foreign terrorist groups and labeled fentanyl a “weapon of mass destruction (WMD),” echoing claims used to justify the 2003 Iraq invasion. Critics warn that such rhetoric could expand the administration’s authority to carry out strikes without oversight.

“This is a flawed legal reasoning all across the board,” said Walsh. “There’s no limiting principle on where and when that authority could be asserted by President Trump.”

Calls for Transparency and Accountability

Rights advocates have demanded the release of the classified Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) memo justifying the strikes. Experts say the memo likely mirrors legal rationales from the post-9/11 “war on terror” era.

“Placing too much faith in internal processes without meaningful external accountability enabled expansion,” said Jessica Dorsey, assistant professor of international law at Utrecht University.
Samuel Moyn, Yale law professor, added: “Two wrongs don’t make a right. The Trump administration is expanding executive war powers further, unchecked.”

Conclusion

Legal analysts and human rights groups warn that Trump’s boat strikes represent extrajudicial killings that violate both US and international law. Critics argue that invoking the “war on terror” as a defense is legally unsound and sets a dangerous precedent for future military operations.