The United States has opened a new front in its campaign against Latin American drug cartels, conducting two lethal military strikes on vessels in the eastern Pacific Ocean this week. These attacks, which killed five people, represent a significant expansion of President Donald Trump’s approach to combating narcotics trafficking—and have ignited a firestorm of debate in Washington and across South America about the legality, effectiveness, and broader consequences of this strategy.
According to reporting from the Associated Press and ABC News, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth announced Wednesday that the U.S. military had carried out its ninth strike since early September, targeting an alleged drug-carrying vessel in international waters of the eastern Pacific. The strike killed three men aboard. Just a day earlier, another strike in the same region killed two more. Hegseth shared videos of both operations on social media, showing small boats laden with brown packages erupting in flames after missile impacts. "These strikes will continue, day after day," Hegseth wrote, vowing that "there will be no refuge or forgiveness—only justice." He described the cartels as "the al Qaeda of our hemisphere," underscoring the administration’s framing of the campaign as a war on narco-terrorism.
The latest actions mark a dramatic shift in geography. Until this week, all previous U.S. military strikes had been conducted in the Caribbean Sea. The move into the Pacific targets key cocaine smuggling routes off the coasts of Colombia, Peru, and Ecuador—countries that, as the Associated Press notes, are among the world’s top cocaine producers. The Pacific is the primary corridor for maritime cocaine trafficking, with Ecuador’s ports and shipping containers often exploited by smugglers.
Since early September, at least 37 people have been killed in these U.S. strikes on alleged drug boats, according to government accounts cited by ABC News. Only two people are known to have survived; both were returned to their home countries, Ecuador and Colombia. Ecuadorian officials later released their citizen, citing a lack of evidence that he had committed any crime.
President Trump has repeatedly defended the strikes as both effective and necessary. In remarks from the Oval Office on Wednesday, he insisted, "We have legal authority. We’re allowed to do that." He argued that the operations have reduced the number of drug boats attempting to reach the U.S., and warned smugglers would now try land routes instead. "And we will hit them very hard when they come in by land and they haven't experienced that yet," Trump said, hinting at the possibility of future strikes on land targets. He told reporters that if such strikes were to occur, the administration would "probably go back to Congress and explain exactly what we’re doing when we come to the land," but asserted, "We don’t have to do that." Trump justified the campaign by labeling the drug cartels as "unlawful combatants," invoking the same legal authority used for actions against terrorist groups like al-Qaeda after 9/11.
Secretary of State Marco Rubio echoed Trump’s stance, stating, "If people want to stop seeing drug boats blow up, stop sending drugs to the United States." Trump further claimed that every strike saves thousands of American lives, saying, "the only way you can’t feel bad about it ... is that you realize that every time you see that happen, you’re saving 25,000 lives." The administration has argued that narcotics—including fentanyl and cocaine—carried by these vessels are fueling the U.S. overdose crisis.
But the strikes have sparked deep concern in Congress and among international observers. Lawmakers from both parties have questioned the president’s unilateral use of military force without explicit Congressional authorization. Senator Richard Blumenthal, a Democratic member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, expressed alarm, saying, "Expanding the geography simply expands the lawlessness and the recklessness in the use of the American military without seeming legal or practical justification." Blumenthal argued that interdiction and interrogation, not lethal force, should be the focus, especially since those killed may be low-level actors in the drug trade.
Republican Senator John Kennedy, however, defended the administration’s legal rationale after conferring with Rubio, saying, "He has researched the legal ramifications carefully and he believes we’re on solid ground in attacking these narcoterrorists. I trust his judgment." The Republican-controlled Senate recently voted down a Democratic-sponsored war powers resolution that would have required the president to seek Congressional approval before further strikes.
Outside the U.S., the strikes have inflamed already tense relations with South American leaders. Venezuela’s representative to the United Nations, Samuel Reinaldo Moncada, decried the campaign as an international crime and appealed to the UN Security Council to intervene. Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro, who faces U.S. narcoterrorism charges and a $50 million bounty offered by Trump, has accused the U.S. of violating international law and sovereignty. Colombian President Gustavo Petro, another vocal critic, has claimed that some victims of the strikes were innocent fishermen, not traffickers, and has threatened legal action against U.S. officials for murder and violations of Colombian territory.
Human rights organizations and United Nations experts have also condemned the strikes. In a joint letter, three UN officials described the campaign as a breach of the UN Charter, writing, "The use of lethal force in international waters without proper legal basis violates the international law of the sea and amounts to extrajudicial execution." They warned against repeating the long history of external interventions in Latin America. Brian Finucane of the International Crisis Group weighed in, noting, "There’s a world of difference between these (alleged) unspecified narcos and al Qaeda. No armed attack on U.S. like 9/11. No armed conflict. Just the U.S. government engaged in lawless premeditated killing."
Supporters of the administration argue that the cartels’ role in fueling overdose deaths in the U.S. justifies extraordinary measures, and that the strikes serve as a deterrent. Critics, however, question the effectiveness of targeting maritime routes, pointing out that most drugs—especially fentanyl—enter the U.S. over land through official ports of entry. They also highlight the lack of transparency and evidence provided for the designation of targets as "terrorists" or "narco-terrorists."
The Trump administration has so far sidestepped prosecuting any survivors of the strikes, returning them to their countries of origin. This move has raised further legal questions, as local authorities, like those in Ecuador, have released the individuals for lack of evidence.
As the U.S. military continues its campaign, the debate over its legality, morality, and strategic wisdom shows no signs of abating. The strikes have not only escalated tensions with key Latin American governments but have also reignited questions about the limits of presidential power and the future of America’s war on drugs. With talk of potential land strikes and growing international scrutiny, the course of this campaign—and its consequences—remain uncertain.
For now, the U.S. shows no sign of backing down from its new, more aggressive approach to fighting the drug trade at sea, even as critics at home and abroad warn of the dangers ahead.