The recent Pentagon announcement about a military strike against a boat in the eastern Pacific raises important legal and ethical questions regarding the U.S. approach to combating drug trafficking. The strike resulted in the death of four individuals and reignited discussions around the legality of military actions in such contexts. This incident follows an earlier attack on September 2, where lawmakers expressed deep concerns. Congressman Jim Himes called the footage “deeply disturbing,” while others, like Senator Tom Cotton, defended the military’s actions.
At the heart of this debate lies a fundamental shift in how the Trump administration perceives drug trafficking. Traditionally viewed as a criminal issue managed by the Coast Guard, the administration has redefined drug operations as armed conflict, thereby extending wartime authority over these groups. Legal experts question this classification, contending that an unarmed speedboat does not constitute a warship and that those killed on September 2 were not engaged in combat.
The argument put forward by the Trump administration hinges on viewing drug cartels, such as Tren de Aragua, as enemy forces. A memo from the Justice Department supports this view, treating drug profits as military assets. Critics counter that overdose deaths and cartel violence do not meet the threshold of an armed attack. Leaders from Mexico and Colombia have also rejected the U.S. justification for such military actions.
The administration claims that narcotics trafficking is a form of irregular warfare, citing drug cartels as conducting “armed attacks” on the United States. This perspective relies on legal precedents established in the aftermath of 9/11, involving organizations like al-Qaeda and the Islamic State. Yet, critics maintain that drug trafficking organizations do not possess the same military structure or political motives as terrorist groups, arguing they should be considered transnational criminals.
Despite these objections, the Trump administration has designated multiple narcotics trafficking organizations as Foreign Terrorist Organizations and Specially Designated Global Terrorists. The designation strengthens law enforcement’s ability to obstruct these groups financially, significantly limiting their reach within U.S. jurisdiction and enabling greater cooperation with partner nations in combating their activities.
These officially recognized designations enable the U.S. government to engage in counterterrorism operations against these cartels, using military assets in support of law enforcement missions. Although Congress has not yet granted explicit authorization for ongoing military operations, the current designations indicate a transformation in how these cartels are viewed; they are increasingly regarded as terrorist entities under U.S. law.
Moving forward, some lawmakers have suggested that if there are real concerns for the lives involved in these drug trafficking operations, messaging campaigns could be directed at discouraging these activities altogether. Creative slogans could serve to warn potential traffickers of the risks, amplifying the gravity of ignoring U.S. attempts to combat drug trafficking.
As the situation unfolds, the implications of the U.S. military’s approach to narcotics trafficking will undoubtedly continue to provoke significant discourse on the interpretation of legal frameworks and the ethics of using military force in scenarios traditionally seen as law enforcement matters. The current alignment suggests that the United States is prepared to escalate the battle against cartels, redefining a criminal conflict into one of national security.
"*" indicates required fields
