Human rights groups and members of Congress are intensifying scrutiny of the Trump administration’s campaign of bombing suspected drug trafficking boats across the Caribbean and Eastern Pacific. The operations, which have resulted in at least 22 known strikes and at least 87 deaths, are now at the center of escalating legal and moral condemnation. New disclosures about a September 2 attack, including a second strike aimed at killing survivors clinging to debris, have deepened questions about the legality of the entire program.
Amnesty International warned Friday that public debate is too narrowly focused on the September 2 “double tap” strike and risks obscuring what the group describes as a fundamentally unlawful campaign. Daphne Eviatar, director for security and human rights for Amnesty International USA, said that concentrating on one incident would “be a mistake” because “the entire campaign of bombing vessels based on the suspicion that they are carrying illegal narcotics is unlawful.” She said, “All the strikes so far have been illegal under both domestic and international law.” According to Eviatar, “All of them constitute murder because none of the victims, whether or not they were smuggling illegal narcotics, posed an imminent threat to life. Congress must take action now to stop the US military from murdering more people in the Caribbean and Eastern Pacific.”
The campaign has expanded rapidly during Trump’s second term, with military forces targeting vessels suspected of carrying drugs rather than attempting intercepts or arrests. Eviatar noted that law enforcement agencies have long conducted interdictions without resorting to lethal force. She said, “Intercepting purported drug boats is a law enforcement operation, subject to policing standards derived from international human rights law, which holds that all people have the rights to life and a fair trial, and only allows states to use lethal force when an imminent threat to life exists.” She added, “A state intentionally killing someone outside those circumstances is committing an extrajudicial execution, a form of murder, no matter what crime the person is alleged to have committed.”
The September 2 strike has become a focal point because of new details revealed during classified briefings last week. According to the Washington Post, the US military launched a second strike during the operation to kill two men who had survived an initial attack. Rep. Jim Himes of Connecticut, the ranking member of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, viewed video of the strike during the briefing. He described the footage as “one of the most troubling things I’ve seen in my time in public service.”
Himes told reporters that the video showed the military “firing missiles at two men who had survived an initial attack on their vessel and who were floating in the water while clinging to debris.” He said, “You have two individuals in clear distress, without any means of locomotion, with a destroyed vessel, [who] were killed by the United States.” The footage, he said, would appear to any viewer as the US military “attacking shipwrecked sailors.”
New reporting suggests that the administration’s rationale for the strike does not align with earlier public claims. According to CNN, Adm. Frank Bradley told lawmakers that the targeted boat was not heading toward the United States but was “going to link up with another, larger vessel that was bound for Suriname.” While acknowledging the boat was not heading toward the US, Bradley said the strike was justified because the drugs “could have theoretically wound up in the US at some point.”
Additional reporting by NBC News revealed that Bradley told lawmakers that Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth had ordered all eleven men on the September 2 vessel to be killed because “they were on an internal list of narco-terrorists who US intelligence and military officials determined could be lethally targeted.” This order appears to have guided both the initial strike and the second strike on the two survivors in the water.
Despite the rising controversy, Hegseth publicly defended the administration’s policy at an event on Saturday. Speaking at the Ronald Reagan presidential library, he framed the boat bombings as essential to protecting Americans from drugs. “If you’re working for a designated terrorist organization and you bring drugs to this country in a boat, we will find you and we will sink you,” Hegseth said. “Let there be no doubt about it.”
His justification has been undermined by the disclosures about the September 2 vessel’s destination and by the administration’s increasingly speculative logic about potential future drug flows. Legal experts note that whatever contraband the vessel carried, the survivors clinging to debris posed no threat and could not continue any mission.
Some lawmakers worry that public debate has centered too heavily on the double tap aspect without grappling with the structure of the program itself. The Trump administration has so far acknowledged 22 strikes on alleged drug boats, killing at least 87 people. Although officials often characterize the victims as terrorists or cartel operatives, no public evidence has been presented to substantiate individual designations.
Eviatar reiterated that focusing on one incident misses the essential problem. She said that “the entire boat bombing campaign has been illegal under both domestic and international law.” She argued that the administration has turned a law enforcement mission into an armed conflict framework without legal justification, and that lethal force has been used in circumstances where human rights law requires arrests or nonlethal interdiction.
Himes has urged the administration to release the video so the public can see what occurred. He said, “Any American who sees the video that I saw will see its military attacking shipwrecked sailors,” and noted that the men “were not in position to continue their mission in any way.”
Criticism continues to grow as more details reach lawmakers and human rights groups. The United Nations has previously warned that those ordering and carrying out such strikes could be prosecuted for homicide. The new revelations about targeted killing orders, speculative justifications, and follow up attacks on survivors are likely to intensify calls for congressional oversight.
Human rights advocates argue that the issue is not only one strike but a policy that authorizes mass killing in situations where international law requires restraint. With more classified briefs expected, the scope and legality of the boat bombing campaign may become one of the most significant human rights controversies of Trump’s second term.
COMMENTS