'License to kill': Experts warn on legality of US anti-drug strikes
The strikes raise tensions with Venezuela and have prompted pushback from lawmakers concerned about due process and international law violations.
President Donald Trump's administration has not offered a credible legal justification for US strikes targeting alleged drug smugglers, experts say, warning that he appears to be claiming an unlawful "license to kill."
The US military has destroyed at least two boats carrying a combined 14 people who were allegedly transporting drugs across the Caribbean this month, with Trump posting videos of the strikes on his Truth Social platform.
Typical practice would be to interdict a boat, detain its crew and seize its cargo. But Trump has opted to use deadly force instead, saying the traffickers are "terrorists" who threaten US national security and interests and making clear the strikes are part of a continuing campaign.
Trump "seems to be asserting a license to kill outside the law, because they haven't shown that this is legal, and they haven't really even tried to seriously make an argument on that front," said Brian Finucane, senior adviser for the International Crisis Group's US Program.
The strikes are "remarkable and unprecedented," said Finucane, who previously advised the US government on legal issues related to counterterrorism and the use of military force.
He noted that they differ from strikes targeting militants during the "War on Terror," as that conflict began with the 9/11 attacks on the United States, and was also waged against "organized armed groups" with “military style hierarchies.”
- No 'coherent legal argument' -
Trump has justified taking military action by saying "violent drug trafficking cartels POSE A THREAT to U.S. National Security, Foreign Policy, and vital U.S. Interests."
Finucane said they are "throwing out these legal terms," but "they're not actually using them to make a coherent legal argument."
Trump confirmed a new US strike on a suspected drug trafficking boat from Venezuela on Monday that killed three people, then said the following day that Washington had "knocked off" three boats in total, without elaborating.
That came after US forces earlier this month blew up a boat with 11 people onboard, which Washington claimed was operated by the Venezuelan gang Tren de Aragua.
The strikes have contributed to soaring tensions between the United States and Venezuela, which were already heightened over the deployment of American warships in the region that Washington says are to combat trafficking but which Caracas views as a threat.
Some US lawmakers -- almost all Democrats -- have pushed back against the Trump administration over the strikes.
"There is no legal authority that lets the President kill people in international waters based on accusations with no proof or due process," Democratic US Representative Don Beyer said in a post on X.
- 'Manipulation of law' -
Senator Rand Paul, a Republican, clashed with Vice President JD Vance after the first strike earlier this month, saying it is "despicable and thoughtless" to "glorify killing someone without a trial."
And more than two dozen senators sent a letter to Trump asking for answers on the first strike, saying his report to Congress on it "provided no legitimate legal justification and was scant in details regarding the legal or substantive basis for this or any future strikes."
United Nations rights experts have condemned the killing of the alleged traffickers, saying that "international law does not allow governments to simply murder alleged drug traffickers."
"Under international law, all countries must respect the right to life, including when acting on the high seas or in foreign territory," said the experts, including the special rapporteurs on extrajudicial executions and on protecting human rights while countering terrorism.
Mary Ellen O'Connell, a professor at the University of Notre Dame, said "the small speed boats allegedly carrying drugs for a criminal gang meet none of the conditions for lawful self-defense."
"Without a justification under the law of self-defense, the human right to life prohibits intentional killing of people with military force," said O'Connell, an expert in international law on the use of force, international dispute resolution, and international legal theory.
"It is time to end the manipulation of law to license killing. The human right to life requires following peacetime law unless the real conditions of actual hostilities exist," she said.
