The U.S. military struck an alleged drug-smuggling vessel in the Caribbean Sea on Monday, killing three people, according to U.S. Southern Command. The strike is part of the Trump administration’s months-long campaign targeting what it calls “narcoterrorists” in small vessels along known smuggling routes, a campaign that has resulted in at least 151 deaths since early September.
The strikes have drawn intense scrutiny over the Trump administration’s claims about the threat, the evidence supporting military action, and the legal and humanitarian implications of the campaign. Critics have questioned both the legality and effectiveness of the strikes, while debate continues over a January incident in which the military killed survivors of the initial boat attack in a follow-up strike.
The Strike
U.S. Southern Command said the vessel struck on Monday was engaged in drug trafficking. “Intelligence confirmed the vessel was transiting along known narco-trafficking routes in the Caribbean and was engaged in narco-trafficking operations,” Southern Command stated in a post on X. “Three male narco-terrorists were killed during this action.”
The military posted a video on X showing the small boat with outboard engines being destroyed. It did not release additional evidence that the vessel was ferrying drugs or documentation supporting the intelligence assessment.
The Campaign
The strike on Monday was one of more than 40 known strikes in the Trump administration’s campaign against alleged narcoterrorists in small boats. The campaign, which began in early September, has resulted in at least 151 deaths according to U.S. military statements.
President Donald Trump has said the United States is in “armed conflict” with cartels in Latin America. He has justified the strikes as a necessary escalation to stem the flow of drugs into the country.
“We have a responsibility to combat these narco-terrorists and protect American lives,” Trump said in separate remarks about the campaign.
The Evidence Question
The Trump administration has offered little public evidence to support its claims that those killed in the strikes were narcoterrorists or actively engaged in drug trafficking. As with most military statements on the strikes, U.S. Southern Command cited intelligence but did not release documentation or specific evidence.
Critics have questioned both the legality and effectiveness of the strikes. They note that the majority of fentanyl—the synthetic opioid responsible for many fatal overdoses in the United States—is typically trafficked over land from Mexico, where it is produced with chemicals imported from China and India. The boat-based strikes target only a portion of overall trafficking flows.
“These strikes are not addressing the primary routes by which the drugs that are killing Americans actually arrive in the country,” according to critics of the campaign.
The Survivor Killing Controversy
In January, it emerged that the U.S. military had killed survivors of its first boat attack in a follow-up strike. The incident sparked sharp disagreement about the legality of the operation.
The Trump administration and many Republican lawmakers said the action was legal and necessary under the laws of armed conflict.
Democratic lawmakers and legal experts disputed that position, saying the killings were murder, if not a war crime.
Families of people killed in the boat strikes have filed lawsuits against the Trump administration, challenging the strikes’ legality and seeking damages.