The U.S. military conducted another strike on a boat suspected of transporting drugs in the eastern Pacific Ocean on Wednesday, resulting in the deaths of two men, Associated Press reported. This follows a strike launched just one day earlier against an alleged drug vessel in the same region, which killed one person and left two survivors. In the case of that earlier incident, U.S. Southern Command stated that it “immediately notified the U.S. Coast Guard to activate the Search and Rescue system for the survivors.”
These strikes are part of an ongoing campaign by the Trump administration to target suspected drug-trafficking vessels in Latin American waters, including both the eastern Pacific and the Caribbean Sea. Since this effort began in early September, it has resulted in at least 196 deaths. Despite the high number of casualties, the military has not provided evidence that any of the targeted vessels were carrying drugs.
The Pentagon inspector general’s office announced last week that it is launching a self-initiated review to evaluate whether the military followed the established Joint Targeting Cycle during these operations. This six-phase process includes a military commander’s intent, target development, analysis, decision, execution, and assessment. Notably, the inspector general’s review will not probe the actual legality of the strikes.
This has left the legal framework behind these operations under intense scrutiny from various military legal scholars and Democratic lawmakers
The administration maintains that the United States is engaged in an armed conflict with Latin American drug cartels, framing the campaign as a necessary measure to combat the rise of fatal drug overdoses within American communities. However, legal experts argue that the classification of this conflict is inaccurate and that certain actions taken during these operations are clearly unlawful.
Michael Schmitt, a former Air Force lawyer and professor emeritus at the U.S. Naval War College, stated, “I can’t imagine anyone, no matter what the circumstance, believing it is appropriate to kill people who are clinging to a boat in the water,” adding, “That is clearly unlawful.”
A specific point of contention involves reports regarding a strike on September 2, where it was alleged that Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth issued a verbal directive to “kill everybody” on a targeted vessel. Reports suggest that after the initial attack killed nine people, two survivors remained in the water, at which point the commander in charge, Adm. Frank Bradley, allegedly ordered a second strike to kill them.
While Hegseth has dismissed these reports as “fake news” on social media, insisting that the strikes are “in compliance with the law of armed conflict — and approved by the best military and civilian lawyers, up and down the chain of command,” the administration’s narrative has faced pushback.
Legal experts like Brian Finucane, a senior adviser with the International Crisis Group, argue that because the U.S. is not in a legitimate armed conflict with cartels, premeditated killings outside of such a framework constitute murder. “The term for a premeditated killing outside of armed conflict is murder,” Finucane noted, highlighting that such actions could lead to prosecution under the Uniform Code of Military Justice. Even the Pentagon’s own manual on the laws of war suggests that orders to fire upon the shipwrecked are clearly illegal.
As the military continues its operations, U.S. Southern Command has utilized social media to post footage of these strikes, including a recent video showing a boat resting on the water before being hit by an explosion, with the final seconds capturing smoke and fire. Whether the ongoing reviews will address the lack of evidence for the drug-trafficking claims remains to be seen.
For now, the administration remains committed to its strategy, even as lawmakers like Sen. Thom Tillis emphasize the need to get to the bottom of whether ethical, moral, or legal codes have been violated.
Published: May 28, 2026 04:45 pm