The United States has declared a new war — this time, on drug cartels. President Donald Trump announced a military campaign targeting “narco-terrorists” as US forces carried out at least four strikes on suspected smuggling boats in the Caribbean Sea. But is this even legal?
The US military has carried out four known strikes targeting go-fast-style boats in the Caribbean Sea, international waters, and killing a total of 21 people, as part of the Trump administration’s “war on cartels”.
Trump declared drug cartels as unlawful combatants and stated that the United States is engaged in “a non-international armed conflict” with them, the administration informed Congress on Thursday. Rights observers and legal experts have described the deadly attacks as “extrajudicial killings” and violations of human rights, Al Jazeera reported.
Since assuming office in January, Trump has designated several drug cartels, including the Tren de Aragua cartel based in Venezuela, as “global terrorist organisations”.
What Trump said
In recent weeks, the Trump administration has deployed warships in the Caribbean to target boats purportedly involved in “narco-trafficking”, increasing military and political pressure on Venezuela’s President Nicolas Maduro , who has condemned the “US aggression” against his nation.
Speaking at Naval Station Norfolk on Sunday, President Trump praised the US Navy’s efforts to combat “cartel terrorists”, noting that another vessel off Venezuela’s coast had been hit on Saturday. He also hinted at further actions within Venezuelan territory, stating, “In recent weeks, the navy has supported our mission to blow the cartel terrorists the hell out of the water … we did another one last night. Now we just can’t find any.”
“They’re not coming in by sea anymore, so now we’ll have to start looking about the land because they’ll be forced to go by land,” Trump added.
Later, at the White House, he mentioned that the US military build-up in the Caribbean had halted drug trafficking from South America. “There’s no drugs coming into the water. And we’ll look at what phase two is,” he said.
How Maduro reacted
Venezuelan leader Maduro, who has condemned the strikes as “heinous crimes”, has indicated his readiness to declare a state of emergency should a US military attack occur amid a significant US military build-up in the southern Caribbean.
The US has deployed at least eight warships and one submarine to the eastern Caribbean, along with F-35 aircraft to Puerto Rico, bringing thousands of sailors and marines to the region, Reuters reported.
In August, the US doubled its existing bounty on Maduro to Rs 50 million and accused him of being one of the world’s leading narco traffickers, alleging collaboration with cartels to flood the US with fentanyl-laced cocaine. In a televised address last Monday, Maduro announced a “consultation process” to invoke a “state of external unrest” under the Constitution of Venezuela, aimed at protecting the populace.
Maduro has consistently claimed that the Trump administration aims to overthrow his government, an allegation Trump has denied, stating, “We’re not talking about that.” Venezuela’s Vice President Delcy Rodriguez said that the emergency declaration would grant Maduro special powers to mobilise the armed forces and close Venezuela’s borders if necessary, intended to defend the nation’s sovereignty and territorial integrity against “any serious violation or external aggression”.
Caracas has responded by staging military drills, mobilising militias, and deploying its Russian-made fighter jets under a “defence of the nation” campaign.
Is this even legal?
Human Rights Watch (HRW) has criticised the maritime strikes, describing them as “extrajudicial killings”. Sarah Yager , Washington director at HRW, said, “US officials cannot summarily kill people they accuse of smuggling drugs. The problem of narcotics entering the United States is not an armed conflict, and US officials cannot circumvent their human rights obligations by pretending otherwise.”
Salvador Santino Regilme , a political scientist leading the International Relations programme at Leiden University, told Aljazeera that under Article 2(4) of the United Nations Charter, the use of force by one state against another is prohibited unless authorised by the UN Security Council or exercised in legitimate self-defence under Article 51. He added that the US claim that strikes against “drug traffickers” near Venezuela constitute self-defence “appears legally untenable.”
Regilme noted that drug trafficking, even when transnational, does not amount to an “armed attack” under customary international law. “Unless Washington can prove that the targeted actors carried out or imminently threatened a large-scale armed attack attributable to Venezuela, these actions risk violating the charter’s core prohibition on the use of force and undermining another state’s territorial integrity,” he explained.
Celeste Kmiotek, a senior staff lawyer at the Atlantic Council, a Washington-based think tank, stated in a report that even outside armed conflict, striking a vessel without imminent threat or judicial process may constitute an arbitrary deprivation of life. Domestically, lethal targeting abroad requires a clear legal basis under US statutes or the US Constitution, she noted, adding that no congressional consent or specific Authorisation for Use of Military Force (AUMF) covers anti-drug operations in Venezuela.
Can US legally justify strike
The Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel has issued an opinion, previously unreported, asserting that the President is authorised to employ deadly force against a broad range of cartels, which are deemed an imminent threat to Americans.
According to CNN sources, the list of cartels extends beyond those the administration has publicly identified as terrorist organisations. Legal experts highlighted the significance of the opinion, noting that it appears to sanction an indefinite campaign against a concealed roster of groups. This grants the President the authority to designate drug traffickers as enemy combatants and execute them without legal oversight.
Historically, individuals involved in drug trafficking were treated as criminals with due process rights, with the Coast Guard intercepting drug-trafficking vessels and apprehending smugglers.
“If the OLC opinion authorising strikes on cartels is as broad as it seems, it would mean DOJ has interpreted the President to have such extraordinary powers that he alone can decide to prosecute a war far broader than what Congress authorised after the attacks on 9/11,” said Sarah Harrison , a former associate general counsel at the Defense Department who now serves as a senior analyst at the Crisis Group.
“By this logic, any small, medium or big group that is trafficking drugs into the US — the administration could claim it amounts to an attack against the United States and respond with lethal force,” Harrison added, referring to the legal opinion outlines described to her by CNN.
The US military has carried out four known strikes targeting go-fast-style boats in the Caribbean Sea, international waters, and killing a total of 21 people, as part of the Trump administration’s “war on cartels”.
Trump declared drug cartels as unlawful combatants and stated that the United States is engaged in “a non-international armed conflict” with them, the administration informed Congress on Thursday. Rights observers and legal experts have described the deadly attacks as “extrajudicial killings” and violations of human rights, Al Jazeera reported.
Since assuming office in January, Trump has designated several drug cartels, including the Tren de Aragua cartel based in Venezuela, as “global terrorist organisations”.
What Trump said
In recent weeks, the Trump administration has deployed warships in the Caribbean to target boats purportedly involved in “narco-trafficking”, increasing military and political pressure on Venezuela’s President Nicolas Maduro , who has condemned the “US aggression” against his nation.
Speaking at Naval Station Norfolk on Sunday, President Trump praised the US Navy’s efforts to combat “cartel terrorists”, noting that another vessel off Venezuela’s coast had been hit on Saturday. He also hinted at further actions within Venezuelan territory, stating, “In recent weeks, the navy has supported our mission to blow the cartel terrorists the hell out of the water … we did another one last night. Now we just can’t find any.”
“They’re not coming in by sea anymore, so now we’ll have to start looking about the land because they’ll be forced to go by land,” Trump added.
Later, at the White House, he mentioned that the US military build-up in the Caribbean had halted drug trafficking from South America. “There’s no drugs coming into the water. And we’ll look at what phase two is,” he said.
How Maduro reacted
Venezuelan leader Maduro, who has condemned the strikes as “heinous crimes”, has indicated his readiness to declare a state of emergency should a US military attack occur amid a significant US military build-up in the southern Caribbean.
The US has deployed at least eight warships and one submarine to the eastern Caribbean, along with F-35 aircraft to Puerto Rico, bringing thousands of sailors and marines to the region, Reuters reported.
In August, the US doubled its existing bounty on Maduro to Rs 50 million and accused him of being one of the world’s leading narco traffickers, alleging collaboration with cartels to flood the US with fentanyl-laced cocaine. In a televised address last Monday, Maduro announced a “consultation process” to invoke a “state of external unrest” under the Constitution of Venezuela, aimed at protecting the populace.
Maduro has consistently claimed that the Trump administration aims to overthrow his government, an allegation Trump has denied, stating, “We’re not talking about that.” Venezuela’s Vice President Delcy Rodriguez said that the emergency declaration would grant Maduro special powers to mobilise the armed forces and close Venezuela’s borders if necessary, intended to defend the nation’s sovereignty and territorial integrity against “any serious violation or external aggression”.
Caracas has responded by staging military drills, mobilising militias, and deploying its Russian-made fighter jets under a “defence of the nation” campaign.
Is this even legal?
Human Rights Watch (HRW) has criticised the maritime strikes, describing them as “extrajudicial killings”. Sarah Yager , Washington director at HRW, said, “US officials cannot summarily kill people they accuse of smuggling drugs. The problem of narcotics entering the United States is not an armed conflict, and US officials cannot circumvent their human rights obligations by pretending otherwise.”
Salvador Santino Regilme , a political scientist leading the International Relations programme at Leiden University, told Aljazeera that under Article 2(4) of the United Nations Charter, the use of force by one state against another is prohibited unless authorised by the UN Security Council or exercised in legitimate self-defence under Article 51. He added that the US claim that strikes against “drug traffickers” near Venezuela constitute self-defence “appears legally untenable.”
Regilme noted that drug trafficking, even when transnational, does not amount to an “armed attack” under customary international law. “Unless Washington can prove that the targeted actors carried out or imminently threatened a large-scale armed attack attributable to Venezuela, these actions risk violating the charter’s core prohibition on the use of force and undermining another state’s territorial integrity,” he explained.
Celeste Kmiotek, a senior staff lawyer at the Atlantic Council, a Washington-based think tank, stated in a report that even outside armed conflict, striking a vessel without imminent threat or judicial process may constitute an arbitrary deprivation of life. Domestically, lethal targeting abroad requires a clear legal basis under US statutes or the US Constitution, she noted, adding that no congressional consent or specific Authorisation for Use of Military Force (AUMF) covers anti-drug operations in Venezuela.
Can US legally justify strike
The Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel has issued an opinion, previously unreported, asserting that the President is authorised to employ deadly force against a broad range of cartels, which are deemed an imminent threat to Americans.
According to CNN sources, the list of cartels extends beyond those the administration has publicly identified as terrorist organisations. Legal experts highlighted the significance of the opinion, noting that it appears to sanction an indefinite campaign against a concealed roster of groups. This grants the President the authority to designate drug traffickers as enemy combatants and execute them without legal oversight.
Historically, individuals involved in drug trafficking were treated as criminals with due process rights, with the Coast Guard intercepting drug-trafficking vessels and apprehending smugglers.
“If the OLC opinion authorising strikes on cartels is as broad as it seems, it would mean DOJ has interpreted the President to have such extraordinary powers that he alone can decide to prosecute a war far broader than what Congress authorised after the attacks on 9/11,” said Sarah Harrison , a former associate general counsel at the Defense Department who now serves as a senior analyst at the Crisis Group.
“By this logic, any small, medium or big group that is trafficking drugs into the US — the administration could claim it amounts to an attack against the United States and respond with lethal force,” Harrison added, referring to the legal opinion outlines described to her by CNN.
You may also like
'Deeply distressing': Over 200 animals, elderly woman rescued from New York home; wildlife rehabilitator arrested
Found in bathtub: Man decapitated in New York home; girlfriend's teenage son taken into custody
'Raebareli lynching a stain on nation': Congress questions 'collective morality'
Mumbai Accident: Speeding Car Breaks Coastal Road Railing, Plunges Into Arabian Sea; Driver Rescued
Marcus Rashford to be impacted as UEFA release controversial statement - 'Regrettable'
