In the wake of a controversial campaign targeting suspected drug trafficking vessels, U.S. military personnel are increasingly gripped by anxiety over the legality—and potential personal repercussions—of their involvement. Over the past three months leading up to December 12, 2025, more than 20 boats in the Caribbean and Eastern Pacific have been destroyed by U.S. forces, resulting in over 80 fatalities. The strikes, ordered by the Trump administration, are purportedly aimed at stemming the flow of illicit narcotics into the United States. But beneath the surface, a legal and moral debate is roiling the armed forces, leaving some service members in a state of deep uncertainty and concern.
The administration maintains that these operations are lawful, conducted under the laws of war, and authorized by President Trump under his Article II powers as commander-in-chief and in self-defense. According to NPR, officials have repeatedly insisted that the campaign is both necessary and justified to protect American interests. Yet, this official stance has not quelled the doubts of many legal experts—including former military lawyers—who argue that targeting alleged civilian narcotraffickers without clear evidence of an imminent threat may cross the line into unlawful killings, or even murder.
This sharp divide between the government’s position and the concerns of independent legal minds has left some U.S. military members feeling exposed. The tension is not just theoretical: it’s playing out in real time as service members, from staff officers to at least one drone pilot, reach out to outside organizations for advice and support. The Orders Project, a nonpartisan group that serves as a resource for military personnel with questions about lawful and unlawful orders, has seen a marked surge in calls over the past three months. Frank Rosenblatt, a former military lawyer with the Orders Project, told Beritaja, “We’re receiving a lot more calls in the last three months than we did before.”
Many of those seeking guidance are not the ones directly pulling the trigger. Instead, they are often on the operational planning side—staff officers with legal, intelligence, or targeting expertise—who find themselves caught in the crosshairs of policy and principle. Rosenblatt described the mounting pressure these officers face from higher-ups to give the green light to the strikes. “So much pressure, in some cases, that they’re giving us a call to say, ‘What are my options? I want to do the right thing but I also don’t want to torpedo my career unnecessarily,’” he explained. The Orders Project doesn’t offer blanket judgments on whether an order is lawful or not. Instead, the advice is tailored to the individual’s best interests, ranging from how to document the pressure they’re receiving to what kinds of clarifying questions they can ask to ensure their own legal safety.
Groups like Quaker House and the GI Rights Hotline have also been inundated with inquiries from service members. Steve Woolford, a resource counselor with Quaker House in North Carolina, described the calls as “very concerned” about both the legality and morality of their participation. “It’s hard to be a soldier and make determinations in any situation, but it’s especially hard in a situation like this—where most people don’t see an imminent threat—to be sent to do something that you’re really worried about, could I go to prison for this?” Woolford told NPR. He noted that both service members who contacted Quaker House were put in touch with lawyers for more in-depth guidance.
Woolford added that the concerns voiced went beyond legal exposure; they also touched on profound moral unease. “Both of them also had moral concerns because they are people who are willing to be part of defense but they don’t want to be part of doing something illegal, or I don’t think they feel right killing people outside of the laws of war,” he said. The GI Rights Hotline, which provides confidential counseling to military members, has observed a similar trend. While the number of callers may not yet be large, the fact that such calls are being made at all signals a notable level of confusion and distress within the ranks.
The root of the anxiety lies in the gulf between official assurances and the specter of future accountability. Many service members fear that any consequences for their actions could ultimately be determined by shifting political winds, rather than by a consistent and universally accepted legal standard. As Woolford put it, “Many people have voiced a concern that any future consequences for service members should be based on the law but they worry it may end up being driven by politics instead. And then it just becomes this complicated guessing game of who’s going to be in charge and what are they going to say is right as opposed to maybe the more solid foundation of ‘we have accepted rules we can just go by.’”
Rosenblatt echoed this sentiment, emphasizing the importance of understanding one’s rights and documenting any undue pressure from superiors. “Generically, the advice that we might give might vary from how you can document the pressure you are receiving, to what kind of questions you can ask or clarification you can seek,” he told NPR. The Orders Project has even received calls from at least one drone pilot, highlighting the breadth of concern among those involved in both the planning and execution of the strikes.
For many in uniform, the stakes feel intensely personal. The possibility of facing legal action—possibly even criminal charges—down the road is not just a hypothetical worry. It’s a real and present concern, especially given the lack of consensus among legal experts about the legitimacy of the strikes. The administration’s reliance on Article II powers and the laws of war is being challenged by those who argue that the targets are not legitimate combatants, but rather civilians engaged in criminal activity, which could place the strikes outside the bounds of international law.
The ongoing debate has also exposed the complex interplay between military obedience, legal constraints, and personal conscience. Service members are trained to follow lawful orders, but the ambiguity surrounding these operations has left some questioning where the line is drawn. As Rosenblatt noted, career officers who don’t sign off on the strikes—indicating ‘non-concur’—can find themselves under significant pressure from above. The resulting dilemma is one of professional survival versus ethical and legal responsibility.
While the administration continues to defend the campaign as both effective and necessary, the growing unease within the military suggests that the issue is far from settled. The outcome of this internal conflict may ultimately hinge on whether clear legal guidance emerges, or if, as many fear, decisions about accountability are left to the unpredictable tides of politics.
For now, the story remains one of uncertainty and vigilance. Service members, caught between duty and doubt, are left seeking answers—hoping that the rules they’re sworn to uphold will provide the clarity and protection they need in an increasingly murky conflict.