A U.S. military strike in the eastern Pacific Ocean on Tuesday targeted a vessel suspected of drug smuggling, resulting in one fatality and two survivors. This incident marks a continuation of the Trump administration’s months-long campaign against alleged traffickers in Latin America.
The recent strike escalates the death toll from U.S. military boat attacks to at least 208 individuals since the Trump administration initiated its offensive against what it terms “narcoterrorists” in early September.
Consistent with previous statements regarding operations in the eastern Pacific and Caribbean Sea, U.S. Southern Command asserted the target was alleged drug traffickers operating on established smuggling routes. However, the military offered no evidence to substantiate claims that the vessel was transporting illicit drugs. Footage shared on X depicted a boat in motion before being struck and engulfed in flames.
Southern Command said it “immediately notified U.S. Coast Guard to activate the Search and Rescue system for the survivors.”
President Donald Trump has said the U.S. is in “armed conflict” with cartels in Latin America and has justified the attacks as a necessary escalation to stem the flow of drugs into the United States and fatal overdoses claiming American lives. But his administration has offered little evidence to support its claims of killing “narcoterrorists.”
Critics have questioned the overall legality of the boat strikes as well as their effectiveness, in part because the fentanyl behind many fatal overdoses is typically trafficked to the U.S. over land from Mexico, where it is produced with chemicals imported from China and India.
The strikes have drawn intense scrutiny from some Democratic lawmakers and military legal scholars. The U.S. military’s first strike in early September drew particular concern from some lawmakers and those who study military law.
Two men on the boat initially survived the attack that killed nine others, and they were clinging to the wreckage when the vessel was struck again, killing them. The White House confirmed the follow-up strike, insisting it was done “in self-defense” to ensure the boat was destroyed and in accordance with the laws of armed conflict.
But some legal scholars said a second strike killing survivors would have been illegal under any circumstance, armed conflict or not.
The Pentagon’s watchdog said in May that it plans to look into whether the U.S. military followed an established targeting framework when carrying out the strikes.
However, the evaluation is focused specifically on what’s known as the six-phase Joint Targeting Cycle and not on the legality of the strikes, the inspector general’s office said.
