A bold move by the U.S. military raises legal and ethical questions as two vessels are destroyed in the Eastern Pacific, claiming the lives of five alleged narco-terrorists.
Story Snapshot
- U.S. military strikes destroy two vessels in the Eastern Pacific, killing five.
- The vessels were labeled as narco-terrorist drug-trafficking boats by U.S. Southern Command.
- This marks the 28th strike in a maritime airstrike campaign under President Trump.
- Critics raise concerns about extrajudicial killings and international law violations.
U.S. Maritime Campaign Targets Drug Traffickers
On December 18, 2025, U.S. Southern Command executed two lethal strikes against small vessels in international waters of the Eastern Pacific. These vessels were identified by U.S authorities as being operated by Designated Terrorist Organizations involved in drug trafficking. This military action resulted in the deaths of five individuals aboard these vessels. The strikes are part of a larger campaign initiated under the Trump administration, aiming to curb drug trafficking from Latin America.
The campaign began in mid-August 2025, with the deployment of Navy warships to the Caribbean. It expanded to the Eastern Pacific in October, utilizing military force to target narco-subs and fast boats known for smuggling. President Trump and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth have publicly justified these actions as necessary to combat narco-terrorism, framing them as a national security imperative. However, these strikes have drawn criticism from international bodies, including the UN, which warns of potential breaches of international law.
Watch:
International and Domestic Responses
The international community has expressed significant concern over the U.S.’s use of military force on the high seas. UN human-rights experts have labeled these actions as potential extrajudicial executions, urging the U.S. to halt its campaign and calling for an investigation into the legality of these operations. Despite these calls, the U.S. continues its assertive posture, emphasizing the intelligence-driven nature of its operations and asserting their legality under international law.
Domestically, the U.S. Senate defeated a resolution that would require congressional approval for further strikes, highlighting a divide in political circles regarding the expansion of executive military powers. The Trump administration maintains that these operations are critical to protecting American lives by disrupting drug flows into the U.S., although critics argue that such actions may set a dangerous precedent for international maritime conduct.
Long-Term Implications for Global Maritime Law
The continuation of these strikes could have profound implications for international maritime law. By exercising lethal force against non-state actors in international waters, the U.S. might be contributing to a new precedent where military force is normalized as a tool against alleged criminals at sea. This challenges traditional norms that distinguish between law enforcement and military operations, potentially influencing future international policies and the application of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS).
As the campaign progresses, it remains essential for the U.S. to address the legal and ethical concerns raised by these actions. Transparency and adherence to international standards will be crucial in navigating the complex geopolitical landscape and maintaining the integrity of international maritime law.
Sources:
2025 United States military strikes on alleged drug traffickers
