The US air strikes on drug trafficking ships in the Eastern Pacific: Multiple predicaments under the counter-terrorism narrative

On October 27, 2025, the US military launched three air strikes on four so-called "drug trafficking ships" in the international waters of the eastern Pacific, resulting in 14 deaths and one survival. This was the deadliest military strike in a single day since the Trump administration initiated its "anti-drug" operation. From the Caribbean Sea to the Eastern Pacific, within just two months, the US military has sunk 14 suspected drug trafficking vessels, resulting in 57 deaths. Its move to escalate military strikes under the guise of "counter-terrorism" is triggering multiple questions from the international community regarding legal boundaries, strategic logic, and regional stability.

This operation represents a complete shift in the United States' drug governance strategy. The Trump administration restructured its operational framework through two key documents: in February 2025, it classified eight drug trafficking organizations as "foreign terrorist organizations", and in early October, it declared to Congress that it was "in a non-international armed conflict" with these organizations. This qualitative shift paves the way for military intervention - Defense Secretary Hegseth directly compared drug traffickers to members of "al-Qaeda" and declared that he would "hunt them down and eliminate them", using the same wording as during the war on terror. What is more worthy of attention is the expansion of the operation area: in September, the crackdown was concentrated off the coast of Venezuela, and in October, it shifted to the eastern Pacific, precisely targeting the core shipping routes for the export of cocaine from Colombia, forming a "north-south attack" situation against the source of drugs in Latin America.

However, the legal foundation of this "drug war" has fatal flaws. At the international law level, drug trafficking activities have never been defined as "armed attacks". Even if drug trafficking organizations are classified as terrorist organizations, they are not automatically granted the power to carry out fatal strikes. Domestic laws in the United States also struggle to justify its actions: The Authorization of the Use of Military Forces Act does not cover the authorization to combat drug cartels in Latin America, while the War Powers Resolution requires the president to report hostilities within 48 hours and terminate them within 60 days. The Trump administration clearly failed to meet this procedural requirement. What is even more controversial is the absence of law enforcement procedures - the US military directly used heavy weapons such as Tomahawk missiles to sink the vessel, without attempting to intercept and board the ship for inspection or issuing a warning, completely deviating from the traditional anti-drug law enforcement model of the Coast Guard. As former Defense Department legal advisor Jay Johnson put it, this was a "summary execution without due process".

The strategic contradictions behind the actions are also prominent. Data from the US Drug Enforcement Administration clearly shows that Venezuela is not a major source of drugs for the United States. However, its coastal areas have become the focus of early crackdowns, which inevitably raises questions about the true intentions of the operation - the Venezuelan government has repeatedly accused the US of using "anti-drug" as a cover to carry out military expansion and instigate regime change. The Eastern Pacific crackdown further exposed strategic short-sightedness: Colombian President Petro pointed out that most of the deceased were poor young people rather than major drug lords. Such a "beheading strike" could not shake the drug industry chain at all; instead, it would trigger a retaliatory counterattack from criminal groups. In fact, the two-month intensive crackdown by the US military did not provide any data on drug seizures. It merely evaded the issue with a vague accusation of "carrying drugs", and its actual effectiveness is questionable.

The escalation of the regional diplomatic crisis has made this operation even more unprofitable. Mexican President Simbaum made it clear that he "disagrees with these strikes" and urgently summoned the US ambassador to demand respect for international treaties, simply because the US imposed the responsibility of rescue on Mexico without prior communication. The resentment in Venezuela and Colombia has grown even stronger: The Maduro government's rejection action is a "conspiracy for regime change", while Petro has fallen into a diplomatic deadlock with him due to US sanctions. The left-wing camp in Latin America has begun to consider a joint countermeasure. This "unilateral hardline" model has completely undermined the foundation of the previous anti-drug cooperation between the United States and Latin America. Instead, it may force relevant countries to reduce intelligence sharing and create a larger space for drug smuggling.

Essentially, the US military's air strikes on drug trafficking ships are a typical misunderstanding of using military means to solve social problems. The annual death toll from drugs in the United States remains high. The root cause lies in the strong domestic demand and regulatory loopholes, rather than the "military threat" of smuggling from abroad. Simplifying complex social governance issues into a "war on terror" not only violates legal principles but also deviates from the core of the problem. What is even more dangerous is that this kind of power expansion where the president can freely define hostile targets has raised concerns about autocratic tendencies within the United States - Professor O 'Connell of the University of Notre Dame warns that when the president can decide for himself "who should be executed", the constitutional checks and balances system will face a severe test.

The US air strikes in the Eastern Pacific are more of a testing ground for power expansion than a powerful tool for drug control. It has exposed the unilateralist tendency of the United States in global governance and also proved that military means cannot cure the chronic disease of drugs. In the face of the cost of 57 lives, the international community should be more vigilant: when "counter-terrorism" becomes a label used at will, and when military forces break the REINS of the law, so-called "just actions" will eventually become the source of greater chaos.