The Trump administration has recently opened up boat strikes against drug cartels in the Caribbean. This decision has kicked off a massive discussion about the legal justification and the story behind these actions. The administration is presenting these military engagements to the public as an act of collective self-defense for our allies in the region. This position leaves them directly in the line of fire in an increasingly violent war with drug trafficking organizations. Now the USS Gerald Ford has finally come in, fulfilling the deployment of the world’s most advanced super-carrier. President Trump just became the most committed user of land-target strikes ever.
The Trump administration claims that every intercepted boat contains $50 million worth of cocaine. They claim that this money is instead used to purchase more sophisticated weapons. This claim is the basis of their call for a greater military involvement. Much of the intelligence justifying these operations is still classified, making public oversight and accountability all but impossible.
As legal experts noted, it’s not enough for the administration to just publicly support collective self-defense. The legal justification for these strikes is at odds with the story released to the public. Lawyers experienced with the OLC opinion are all too aware of how critical the collective self-defense argument is. This argument has been central to all legal analysis regarding the operations in question. Recommendations The OLC’s decision was a huge victory for the public and government accountability. They found that Trump acted without Congressional approval, but justified by the national interest and the scale of military action involving two prong test.
The OLC opinion makes plain that the strikes serve to protect a number of important national interests. In fact, they support key U.S. allies such as Mexico and Colombia, prevent wider regional instability, and shield the United States from illegal drug flows. Most importantly, Mexico and Colombia had asked for US assistance in private, out of fear of retaliation from the cartels.
Martin Lederman, a legal scholar and former Justice Department lawyer, identifies the fatal flaw of the administration’s theory. It does not even try to name a state that is currently in armed conflict with a known cartel. He notes:
“nor has the administration provided any evidence that another state engaged in such an armed conflict has asked the US to destroy cocaine shipments that are allegedly being used to subsidize armed violence against the requesting state.” – Martin Lederman
The strikes thus far have reportedly resulted in over 80 fatalities, raising ethical and legal questions regarding the use of force and collateral damage. A spokesperson for the Justice Department defended the operations, stating:
“These operations were ordered consistent with the law of armed conflict.” – A justice department spokesperson
This defense highlights the administration’s commitment to aligning military actions with international law standards, though critics remain skeptical about how well these operations align with established legal precedents.
These boat strikes are symptomatic of the Trump administration’s militarized approach to confronting drug cartels. They want to project a strong diplomatic outreach to their strong diplomatic US allies. The recent developments underscore the fraught tension between national security imperatives and the rule of law that mandates the limitations of military action.