Since early September the Trump administration has authorized the United States military to start conducting military strikes to kill presumed narcotics traffickers in the Caribbean and Eastern Pacific oceans. As of December thirty first, 115 people have been killed in separate strikes. However, the question lingers: under what legal authority can these strikes in international waters occur?
The Trump administration has justified these strikes domestically by invoking the 1798 Alien Enemies Act and the 1973 War Powers Act. These acts specify the power the president has as commander-in-chief. The Alien Enemies Act grants the president power against foreign nationals in a state of war, and the 1973 War Powers Act grants the president authority in a 60 day window to conduct military operations without the approval of Congress. After labeling eight Latin American organized crime groups as foreign terrorist organizations last February, Trump has given himself his own reasoning conduct these strikes. What is unique about Trump’s argument is he is arguing that the US is currently involved in an armed conflict with cartels he has labeled as terrorist groups. Trump cites the 2001 authorization by Congress, the “Authorization for Use of Military Force,” in the wake of September 11th attacks, which gives the president authorization to target terrorist groups posing “an unusual and extraordinary threat to national security.” On the other hand, the Biden administration authorised strikes on Houthi terrorists in Yemen in 2024 under the same resolution as Trump. However, unlike the terrorist groups targeted under the September 11th Authorization, the cartels have never directly targeted American citizens especially on US soil. Trump’s strikes against cartels therefore fall outside the September 11th Authorization, which was meant to protect Americans from future attacks. Additionally, The September 11th authorization explicitly states that the jurisdiction granted falls over “international terrorism against the United States.” A definition cartels simply do not meet. While cartels are violent groups trafficking drugs and people in the US, almost all cartel related violence occurs south of the American border. Although migrants along the US southern border are often victims of cartel violence, and more than 300,000 homicides in Mexico have been linked to cartels since 2006, cartels have so far demonstrated no intention of committing in the US. Trump is stretching the use of Congress’ authorizations at best and ignoring Congress at worst.
In September of 2025, Trump described cartels to the United Nations as “organizations [that] torture, maim, mutilate and murder with impunity.” Cartels see the US as a market and have never done anything to overtly attack or cause terror in the US. Additionally, the War Powers Act should act as a limiting factor on the legality of continued strikes, since it directly requires the president to cease hostilities within 60 days unless Congress provides authorization. The Trump Administration has ignored this, as the hundred day mark is upcoming and has passed on December eleventh. Nevertheless, there remains no legal basis for Trump to carry out these strikes against cartels from within the US.
Regarding the crimes’ legality on an international level, the International Court of Justice (ICJ), which the United States left as a signatory in 1984, ruled in Armed Activities on the Territory of the Congo v. Uganda in 2005, that “narcotics trafficking, however destructive, does not meet the…threshold for an armed attack.” Furthermore, the International Committee of the Red Cross states that “hostilities must reach a level of violence that is sufficiently intense to be considered a noninternational armed conflict, which does not include ‘banditry, unorganized and short-lived insurrections, or terrorist activities’”. Finally, Common Article Three of the Geneva Convention, to which the US is a signatory, prohibits “violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds” against individuals who are not engaged in an international conflict. William Burke-White, a professor of law at Penn Carey Law and faculty fellow at the University of Pennsylvania Perry World House, argued in an interview stating “Under the rule of military necessity…only the degree of force needed to secure a concrete and direct military objective is permitted.” Burke-White also points out how in the ICJ Advisory Opinion on the Wall (2004), the Court made clear that excessive attacks causing disproportionate civilian damage are clearly prohibited. Thus, there is no precedent or justification in international law for these strikes. These boats posed no immediate threat requiring military force to the US. Trump chose to ignore international law and illegally kill traffickers, especially when other options such as interdiction, where the Coast Guard or Navy physically intercept boats and search them, were available.
Matt Waxman, an adjunct senior fellow for law and foreign policy and Liviu Librescu Professor of Law at Columbia University spoke in an interview about potential consequences of operating without much legal basis. Arguing, “the United States is undermining some of its strategic interests” and that “this dismissive approach to international law is a real opening for…China, to make some diplomatic inroads by painting…United States as the predatory [partner]”. Further strikes, with little to no justification, will just isolate the United States further on the international community. Latin America and the Caribbean accounted for 22 percent of the US’s trade volume in 2022, with the US having a trade deficit with these countries. Latin American countries are vital for the US’s trade. Illegal strikes in their backyard could hurt this relationship and worse drive these countries to other countries.
In the near future, Trump will face domestic challenges as members from both sides of the aisle in Congress have opened questions to the end goal of these strikes, especially after claims of a “double tap” strike where injured members were targeted twice after rendered immobile by the first strike. The Stimson Center, a nonprofit international think tank, warned the instability from these strikes would hurt the US’s strategic interests in the region. These strikes may possibly unite Latin America behind Venezuela if Venezuela can position itself as the victim of American aggression. Furthermore, these strikes could disrupt shipping in the Caribbean, which may drive up oil prices from Venezuelan exports. No strategic or propagandic victory exists from these strikes for Trump or US interests. Instead, they only serve as a further example of America’s growing isolation on the international stage.
Therefore, no legal justification exists for Trump’s military strikes against cartel boats in the Caribbean and Eastern Pacific. Domestically, Trump is stretching decades-old authorizations beyond their original scope to target cartels. Internationally, it is clear that noncombatants are protected from deadly military aggression. These military strikes serve as more reason for the United States to isolate itself on the international stage.
Image source: open verse