Catching Up: Controversy Surrounds Trump Administration’s Continuing Military Strikes on Alleged Drug Boats
These strikes have resulted in dozens of deaths and have drawn widespread criticism from legal experts, U.S. lawmakers, and international bodies like the UN, who question their legality.
Photo: Aaron Schwartz/Sipa/Bloomberg
Overview
Date: October 30 - November 2, 2025
Summary: The Trump administration has initiated lethal military strikes on alleged drug-smuggling boats in international waters, claiming the U.S. is in an armed conflict with “narcoterrorists” and that these operations do not require congressional approval. These strikes have resulted in dozens of deaths and have drawn widespread criticism from legal experts, U.S. lawmakers, and international bodies like the United Nations, who question their legality under U.S. and international law and deem them extrajudicial killings. The operations have also caused fear and division among Caribbean nations, raising concerns about regional stability and U.S. interventionism.
Sources
The New York Times - Why Trump’s Boat Killings Would Be Hard to Prosecute
The Washington Post - UN human rights chief says US strikes on alleged drug boats are ‘unacceptable’
The Washington Post - U.S. boat strikes spread fear across the Caribbean
El País - United States kills three more people in a new attack on a boat in the Caribbean
Key Points
The Trump administration has ordered and carried out lethal military strikes on alleged drug-smuggling vessels in international waters, primarily the Caribbean Sea and Eastern Pacific Ocean, since early September 2025.
The administration justifies these strikes by asserting that the United States is in a formal armed conflict with drug cartels, which it has designated as “foreign terrorist organizations,” and that the boat crews are “combatants.”
The Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) has issued legal opinions stating that these strikes do not trigger the requirements of the 1973 War Powers Resolution, thus negating the need for congressional approval or a declaration of war.
Legal specialists, Democratic lawmakers, and international bodies widely criticize these operations, arguing they violate U.S. and international law, amounting to extrajudicial killings.
There is significant congressional frustration over the administration’s lack of transparency, insufficient details, and failure to provide clear legal justifications for the strikes.
The strikes have resulted in a significant number of fatalities, with reports ranging from 61 to 65 people killed across 14 to 16 incidents.
The administration has publicly indicated the possibility of expanding these operations to include land targets, particularly in Venezuela.
The operations are contributing to increased U.S. military presence and tensions in the Caribbean region, stoking fears of broader U.S. intervention, especially concerning Venezuela.
Unique Highlights
The New York Times delves into the specific legal obstacles to prosecuting President Trump or his subordinates for these actions, citing the Supreme Court’s grant of presidential immunity for actions core to constitutional duties, the potential for pre-emptive pardons, and the Office of Legal Counsel’s memo blessing the operation. It also notes that the U.S. Constitution does not grant rights to noncitizens abroad and that the International Criminal Court currently lacks clear jurisdiction over these specific maritime strikes. The article highlights that fentanyl, the drug behind recent overdose surges, primarily comes from Mexico, while South America primarily produces cocaine, questioning the administration’s rationale.
CNN (Justice Department tells Congress…) identifies T. Elliot Gaiser, head of the Office of Legal Counsel, as the official who briefed lawmakers, arguing the strikes did not meet the definition of hostilities and did not require a declaration of war. It mentions that CNN first reported on the existence of the OLC opinion, which legal experts believe justifies an open-ended war without legal review.
CNN (Hegseth bars military officials…) details a new guidance from Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth’s office requiring prior approval for Defense Department personnel to discuss a broad list of topics, including “sensitive military operations” and “US military strikes on suspected drug boats,” with Congress. It cites Republican Representative Don Bacon’s criticism of the policy as an “amateur move” and mentions that Senate Armed Services Committee leaders, Republican Senator Roger Wicker and Democratic Senator Jack Reed, sent two unanswered letters seeking clarity.
NBC News focuses on the partisan nature of congressional briefings, reporting that Democrats were excluded from a Wednesday briefing on the strikes, which Democratic Senator Mark Warner called a “new low.” It includes White House spokesperson Anna Kelly’s statement accusing Democrats of “pushing bogus claims” and distracting from the government shutdown.
The Washington Post (UN human rights chief…) reports that the U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights, Volker Türk, condemned the strikes as “unacceptable” and a violation of international human rights law, calling for an investigation. It quotes spokeswoman Ravina Shamdasani stating that intentional use of lethal force is allowed only as a last resort against an imminent threat to life, otherwise it constitutes extrajudicial killings.
The Washington Post (U.S. boat strikes spread fear…) provides a detailed regional perspective, describing the fear and economic impact in Caribbean nations like Trinidad and Tobago, where fishers are staying close to shore. It highlights Barbados Prime Minister Mia Mottley’s concerns about peace in the region and CARICOM’s statement reaffirming the region as a “zone of peace.” The article specifically details Trinidadian Prime Minister Kamla Persad-Bissessar’s strong support for the strikes and her government’s differing stance from CARICOM, leading to Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro suspending an energy agreement with Trinidad. It also mentions U.S. sanctions imposed on Colombian President Gustavo Petro for criticizing the strikes and Grenada’s consideration of a U.S. request for a military radar installation, providing historical context of the 1983 U.S. invasion.
The Wall Street Journal cites a senior administration official who argued that the strikes do not endanger U.S. servicemembers because they are conducted by drones far from naval vessels, thus not triggering the War Powers Resolution. It references past OLC opinions from 1984 and 1996 to support this claim.
El País confirms Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth’s public confirmation of the extrajudicial operation, noting his use of capital letters mimicking President Trump and his sharing of a video of an attack on X. It lists specific designated terrorist organizations, including the Venezuelan gang Tren de Aragua and several Mexican cartels. The article details the unprecedented U.S. military deployment off the coast of Venezuela, including warships, a nuclear submarine, 10,000 troops, and the upcoming arrival of the aircraft carrier Gerald Ford. It also mentions the known survivors of these strikes (three people).
Contrasting Details
Number of Fatalities and Strikes: The articles present slightly varying figures. The New York Times and The Washington Post report 61 people killed in 14 strikes. CNN and El País report at least 64 people killed in at least 15 or 16 strikes, respectively. The Wall Street Journal states roughly 65 people in 15 airstrikes.
Trump’s Stance on Land Strikes in Venezuela: The Washington Post reports President Trump saying “No” on Friday when asked if he was considering land strikes in Venezuela. However, CNN reported last month that Trump was considering plans to target cocaine facilities and routes inside Venezuela, and El País states that Trump has indicated the campaign will enter a “second phase” with actions on land and has authorized the CIA to carry out missions in Venezuela.
Legality of Strikes and Congressional Oversight: The Trump administration, through the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel (CNN, The Wall Street Journal), maintains that the strikes are legal and do not require congressional authorization under the War Powers Resolution. Conversely, legal experts (The New York Times, CNN, The Washington Post), Democratic lawmakers (NBC News, The Wall Street Journal), and the UN Human Rights Chief (The Washington Post) assert that the strikes violate U.S. and international law and constitute extrajudicial killings.
Targeted Drugs and Routes: The Trump administration claims the strikes are necessary to stem the flow of “lethal drugs such as fentanyl” into the United States (The Washington Post, El País). However, The New York Times and The Washington Post point out that fentanyl primarily comes from Mexico, while South America produces cocaine. The Washington Post specifically states that at least half of the attacks have occurred on routes used to traffic cannabis and cocaine to West Africa and Europe, not fentanyl to the U.S.
Bipartisan Engagement in Congressional Briefings: White House spokesperson Anna Kelly claimed that the “Department of War has held nine bipartisan briefings on narcoterrorist strikes” (NBC News). However, Democratic Senator Mark Warner and other Democrats criticized the administration for excluding them from a Wednesday briefing, calling it a “new low” and “not how the system is supposed to work” (NBC News, The Wall Street Journal). Democratic Representative Gregory Meeks also stated a briefing was “incredible for how little information was shared” and “completely absent any credible legal rationale” (NBC News).
CARICOM’s Stance on the Strikes: The Caribbean Community (CARICOM) as a bloc issued a statement reaffirming the region as a “zone of peace” and emphasizing international cooperation and law in fighting drugs (The Washington Post). In contrast, Trinidad and Tobago’s Prime Minister Kamla Persad-Bissessar “reserved its position” on this statement and has been a “strident backer” of the U.S. strikes, stating she has “no sympathy for traffickers; the U.S. military should kill them all violently” (The Washington Post).
The Newsie Project uses AI to summarize, compare, and contrast the reporting of the major US and world online news sources.
This is an evolving project. Tools, approaches, and output formats will change over time. The Newsie Project does not attempt to provide a definitive capsule of any news story. While the incidence of errors in these summaries is low, and I attempt to spot-check details, AI tools can hallucinate. Please click through and read the articles for details (some may be paywalled).