In a move that has sent shockwaves through Washington and capitals across Latin America, the Trump administration has quietly produced a classified legal opinion justifying lethal strikes against a secret and expansive list of drug cartels and suspected traffickers. According to multiple reports from CNN and corroborated by Reuters, the Department of Justice’s Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) drafted the document, which asserts that the president has the authority to order deadly attacks because these cartels pose an “imminent threat” to Americans.
This legal opinion, which surfaced in media reports on October 6, 2025, underpins a significant escalation in the United States’ campaign against organized crime in the region. It forms the backbone of a broader strategy that includes expanding the CIA’s powers for lethal strikes and covert operations throughout Latin America. The details, shrouded in secrecy, have ignited a fierce debate in legal, political, and military circles over the scope and legality of the administration’s approach.
The OLC’s classified opinion, as described by sources familiar with its contents, marks a sharp departure from decades of U.S. policy. Historically, drug trafficking has been treated as a crime, with suspects afforded due process and apprehended by agencies such as the Coast Guard. The new doctrine, however, equates alleged traffickers with “enemy combatants,” making them subject to summary execution without judicial review. As Sarah Harrison, a former associate general counsel at the Defense Department and now a senior analyst at the Crisis Group, told CNN, “If the OLC opinion authorizing 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 authorized after the attacks on 9/11.”
The scope of the new policy is vast—and largely hidden from public scrutiny. The list of cartels and suspected traffickers targeted by the administration goes beyond those groups publicly designated as terrorist organizations. Legal experts consulted by CNN warn that this opens the door to a full-scale, open-ended war against a secret roster of organizations, with little oversight and no judicial recourse for those targeted. “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 explained.
Evidence of the policy’s implementation is already emerging. At least four U.S. military attacks against vessels in the Caribbean have been confirmed, with fatalities among individuals the government claims were affiliated with cartels now designated as terrorist organizations. The most recent strike, conducted just last week, resulted in four deaths, as Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth announced on social media. In a particularly striking incident, Southern Command sank three vessels coming from Venezuela, with one attack causing 11 deaths attributed by Washington to the Tren de Aragua group.
The United States has also undertaken its largest military mobilization in the Caribbean since the 1980s, deploying more than 15 warships, nuclear submarines, F-35 fighter jets, and approximately 7,000 personnel in Puerto Rico. According to Pentagon sources, these operations are part of a campaign to halt the flow of narcotics by sea, which is now shifting focus to land routes in Venezuela. Options on the table include the use of armed drones to strike at cartel leaders and drug labs on Venezuelan territory, though President Trump has yet to give final authorization for such actions.
The CIA, meanwhile, is reviewing and expanding its own authorities for lethal force, flying armed surveillance drones over Mexico and working under an updated presidential “finding” that dates back to the 1980s. This expansion of covert action powers has sparked debate within the intelligence community, especially given the presence of U.S. citizens and green card holders in Latin America who could be harmed and might have legal standing to sue the U.S. government.
Inside the Pentagon, the new approach has not gone unchallenged. Military lawyers, including specialists in international law and members of the judge advocate general’s (JAG) corps, have expressed concerns about the legality of the strikes. Several current and former JAGs told CNN that the attacks do not appear to be lawful under traditional interpretations of U.S. and international law. Yet, as one current JAG put it, “The way forward is just to eat it and put your head down and act in accordance with [Secretary of Defense] Hegseth’s new policies. No JAG is trying to rock the boat or get noticed.”
The Department of Defense has attempted to provide legal cover for the strikes, sending a memo to Congress last week that adopts the OLC’s reasoning. The memo states that the U.S. is in “armed conflict” with the cartels and that their operators are “illegal combatants.” Lawmakers, however, remain unsatisfied. They have repeatedly requested copies of the legal analysis from both the DOJ and the Pentagon—most recently last week—but have been met with silence. The Justice Department has not responded to media requests for comment.
Attorney General Pam Bondi is scheduled to testify before Congress on October 8, 2025, where she is expected to face pointed questions about the legal justification for the administration’s actions. The stakes are high, as critics argue that the OLC opinion grants the president sweeping powers to wage war without meaningful oversight or transparency. Supporters inside the administration, on the other hand, insist that the extraordinary violence and paramilitary capabilities of drug cartels pose a direct threat to U.S. national security, justifying robust military action.
International reaction has been swift and sharp. Venezuela, a key focus of the U.S. campaign, has condemned the strikes as acts of aggression. President Nicolás Maduro has issued a decree of “external shock,” granting himself extraordinary powers to mobilize troops and restrict rights in the event of further attacks. Caracas has vowed to defend its sovereignty and has characterized the U.S. actions as a violation of international law.
The controversy over the DOJ’s classified opinion and the Trump administration’s aggressive new posture against drug cartels raises profound questions about the balance of power, the rule of law, and the future of U.S. engagement in Latin America. As the debate rages on in Washington and beyond, one thing is clear: the boundaries of the war on drugs—and the powers of the presidency—are being redrawn in ways that could have lasting consequences for American democracy and global security.
