On Wednesday, the U.S. military launched an offensive against a boat suspected of drug smuggling in the eastern Pacific Ocean, resulting in the deaths of two men. This operation forms part of a broader campaign by the Trump administration to combat alleged drug traffickers in Latin America, which has been underway for several months.
This latest strike marks the fifth such incident in approximately a week, and it has increased the total number of casualties from U.S. military boat strikes to at least 207 since the campaign began targeting so-called “narcoterrorists” in early September.
The U.S. Southern Command, which oversees military operations in the region, asserted that the targeted vessel was navigating established smuggling routes. However, they did not provide evidence to confirm the presence of drugs on the boat. A video posted on X depicted a boat speeding across the water before erupting into flames.
According to the post on X, the strike was ordered by Gen. Francis L. Donovan, the chief U.S. military officer in Latin America. Notably, Donovan recently engaged in discussions with Cuban military officials near the U.S. Naval Station Guantanamo Bay.
President Donald Trump has characterized the situation as an “armed conflict” with Latin American cartels and defended the military actions as a critical measure to curb the influx of drugs into the United States, which in turn fuels the deadly opioid crisis. Despite this, the administration has been criticized for not providing substantial proof to back its claims of targeting “narcoterrorists.”
Opponents of these military actions have raised concerns about their legality and overall effectiveness. They argue that the main source of fentanyl—responsible for many overdose deaths in the U.S.—is not these maritime routes but rather overland trafficking from Mexico, where the drug is manufactured using 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 two survivors were waving overhead before they were killed, according to two sources familiar with a video that was shown to lawmakers.
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.
To date, only three people are known to have survived strikes and then been rescued. Two were rescued from a “narco sub” accused of carrying drugs in October and later returned to their home countries of Ecuador and Colombia.
In March, the U.S. Coast Guard said it recovered a survivor of a strike that killed two others and transferred the survivor to Costa Rican authorities.
