In September 2025, the U.S. military conducted a strike on a vessel in the Caribbean, resulting in the deaths of 11 individuals suspected of drug trafficking. Following this initial strike, a second attack targeted survivors attempting to return to the boat, raising serious legal questions about the justification for such actions. Admiral Frank M. Bradley, commander of U.S. Special Operations Command, indicated in a classified briefing that the survivors were considered legitimate military targets due to their ongoing involvement in drug trafficking. This assertion has prompted bipartisan scrutiny from Congress regarding the legality of these military operations.

The Pentagon has faced criticism for its approach, particularly after reports emerged that the military targeted the same boat twice, resulting in the deaths of individuals who were already incapacitated. Legal experts argue that this could constitute a war crime under both U.S. and international law, as military guidelines prohibit attacks on wounded or shipwrecked individuals. Critics contend that the president lacks the authority to order military actions against alleged drug traffickers without congressional approval, as such operations have historically been treated as law enforcement rather than military engagements.

The Trump administration has adopted an aggressive stance against drug trafficking, equating suspected traffickers with terrorists, which has drawn criticism from legal scholars. Since September, the U.S. military has conducted over 20 strikes against vessels identified as drug trafficking operations, resulting in more than 80 fatalities. This escalation has raised ethical concerns about the conduct of military operations in Latin America and the prioritization of lethal outcomes over humanitarian considerations.

Congressional investigations into the September strikes are ongoing, with Admiral Bradley expected to provide further insights into the decision-making processes behind these military actions. The ambiguity surrounding the orders given by Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth has also come under scrutiny, as lawmakers seek clarity on the legal justifications for these operations. The situation highlights the need for a reassessment of military engagement rules, particularly in contexts that blur the lines between law enforcement and military action.