Boat strikes: US drafts legal shield for troops

The administration of US President Donald Trump has drafted a legal opinion asserting that American military personnel involved in lethal maritime strikes in Latin America are immune from prosecution, according to reports by The Washington Post and Reuters.

The opinion, prepared by the Department of Justice's Office of Legal Counsel (OLC), was delivered to the White House as scrutiny mounts over a rapidly expanding campaign targeting alleged drug traffickers at sea.

Since the first strike in early September, US forces have conducted at least 20 similar operations in the Caribbean and the Pacific, resulting in the deaths of at least 76 people. Fifteen of those strikes occurred in the past month alone, according to The Atlantic. Initially, each incident drew widespread attention, but analysts say the administration has relied on repetition to normalise a policy that remains legally and ethically contested.

The Pentagon has offered limited public evidence to justify the killings, typically citing unspecified "intelligence." Critics argue that the government's broader track record of misleading statements makes these claims difficult to accept at face value.

"If you keep trafficking deadly drugs — we will kill you," Fox News host and former Army officer Pete Hegseth declared on X last week, echoing the administration's rhetoric. But legal experts say that those targeted have not been charged or convicted in any court. Their deaths, they argue, amount to extrajudicial killings. Rachel VanLandingham, a law professor and retired Air Force judge advocate, told CNN that in ordinary legal terms, such acts are best described as "murder."

Moreover, even if suspects had been lawfully convicted, no federal statute authorises the death penalty for drug trafficking alone. President Trump has previously advocated capital punishment for drug dealers but has also used presidential clemency to pardon offenders convicted of the same crime.

To defend the program, White House officials contend that those killed are "unlawful combatants," and that military involvement is justified because drug shipments pose a national security threat. At the same time, they argue Congress cannot intervene under the War Powers Act because the drone strikes do not constitute "hostilities" — as no US personnel are at risk.

This logic has raised alarms among legal scholars. "What they're saying is anytime the president uses drones or any standoff weapon against someone who cannot shoot back, it's not hostilities," former State Department legal adviser Brian Finucane told The Washington Post.

Signs of internal dissent have also surfaced. Admiral Alvin Holsey, who headed the US Southern Command overseeing the operations, abruptly resigned last month less than a year into the assignment. Though Holsey has not spoken publicly, The New York Times reported he privately raised concerns about the legality of the strikes. Reuters revealed that personnel involved in Latin America operations have recently been required to sign unusually restrictive nondisclosure agreements. Meanwhile, CNN reported that British officials have halted intelligence sharing with Washington on suspected Caribbean drug trafficking because they believe the US strikes violate international law.

Analysts say the campaign may be less about narcotics and more about regional power projection. The administration has repeatedly cited fentanyl as a justification for deploying military assets to the Caribbean, despite the fact that the US Coast Guard rarely encounters the drug in those waters. Instead, reporting by The Atlantic suggests the maritime strikes may be part of a broader effort to pressure or potentially destabilise the government of Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro.

The emerging picture — escalating lethal force, a rushed legal shield, internal military unease, and eroding allied cooperation — points to a policy that is anything but routine. As questions multiply, so too do warnings that the legal and strategic foundations of the strikes are increasingly untenable.