The Trump administration’s decision to utilize military force against Latin American drug trafficking networks has escalated from a controversial policy shift into a potential constitutional crisis. Following recent revelations of “double-tap” strikes against shipwrecked survivors and alleged directives to “kill them all,” the line between law enforcement and armed conflict has been obliterated. This militarized approach to counter-narcotics not only threatens to erode the legal frameworks governing U.S. military conduct but also sets a dangerous international precedent for the use of lethal force.1
From Interdiction to Summary Execution
For decades, the United States addressed maritime drug trafficking through a law enforcement model, relying on the U.S. Coast Guard to interdict, board, and arrest suspects.2 That paradigm shattered in late 2025 with the launch of a lethal air campaign against the Venezuelan syndicate Tren de Aragua.3 The administration has justified these missile strikes by designating the cartel as a “foreign terrorist organization” and claiming the influx of narcotics constitutes an “armed attack” on the United States.4
This legal reclassification laid the groundwork for the September 2 incident, where U.S. forces reportedly struck a vessel in the Caribbean, killing 11 people. However, the operational reality appears far grimmer than a standard military engagement. Reports indicate that after the initial strike left survivors clinging to debris, a second “double-tap” strike was ordered to ensure no witnesses remained.5 The Washington Post has alleged that this action stemmed from a verbal directive by Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth to “kill everybody,” a command that flatly violates the Law of Armed Conflict (LOAC) regarding hors de combat survivors.
The Fallacy of ‘Self-Defense’ Against Cartels
The administration’s legal defense rests on the assertion that drug trafficking is tantamount to chemical warfare, thus triggering the Article 51 right to self-defense under the UN Charter. Legal scholars, however, largely reject this equivalence. Experts at the Perry World House argue that equating a commercial criminal enterprise—however violent—with a state-level military threat contravenes the fundamental UN prohibition on the use of force.
Unlike al-Qaeda or ISIS, which sought to control territory and overthrow governments through paramilitary violence, Tren de Aragua operates primarily for profit. The “armed conflict” framework requires a level of organized hostility and intensity that sporadic drug smuggling does not meet.6 By forcing a “square peg into a round hole,” the White House is attempting to bypass the constitutional safeguards of due process.7 As noted in a recent analysis by Just Security, because no state of armed conflict legally exists, these strikes likely constitute extrajudicial killings under international human rights law.
Scapegoating and the Erosion of Military Ethos
The scandal has also exposed deep fissures within the Pentagon’s chain of command.8 In an unprecedented move, the administration has publicly shifted responsibility for the September 2 “double-tap” strike onto Admiral Frank Bradley, the operational commander.9 This attempt to insulate political leadership from potential war crimes charges has sent shockwaves through the officer corps.
When civilian leadership issues ambiguous or illegal directives like “kill them all,” and then abandons military commanders to face the legal fallout, it corrodes the foundational trust of civil-military relations. Intelligence sharing with key allies has already begun to fracture, as partner nations fear becoming complicit in unlawful military operations. The result is a military apparatus being asked to act as judge, jury, and executioner, undermining the professional ethos that distinguishes a disciplined armed force from the very criminal groups they fight.
A Dangerous International Precedent
The implications of this policy extend far beyond the Caribbean. By asserting that the “indirect” threat of narcotics justifies preemptive lethal strikes, the United States is crafting a permissive legal theory that adversaries could easily weaponize.10 If Washington claims the right to bomb foreign vessels because they carry illicit goods, other nations could employ identical logic to target perceived threats to their own “national health” or stability.
Human rights organizations have issued stark warnings about this slippery slope.11 The UN High Commissioner for Human Rights recently condemned the campaign, noting that lethal force is only permissible as a last resort against an imminent threat to life—a standard that a boatload of drugs in international waters fails to meet. The “War on Cartels” risks normalizing a state of perpetual, borderless conflict where the definition of “enemy combatant” is expanded to include anyone involved in criminal commerce.
Conclusion: Restoring the Rule of Law
The current trajectory suggests the U.S. is not merely bending the law but breaking it.12 To address the drug crisis effectively, the government must return to a framework that prioritizes intelligence-driven interdiction and judicial prosecution. Abandoning law enforcement protocols in favor of missile strikes offers a politically convenient illusion of strength but delivers little strategic value while incurring massive legal and moral costs. A course correction is urgent before the “double-tap” becomes standard operating procedure, permanently staining the reputation of the U.S. military.
Original analysis inspired by Geoffrey Corn and Ken Watkin from War on the Rocks. Additional research and verification conducted through multiple sources.
