Are Trump’s Lethal Attacks on Drug Boats Legal?

Summary

---

WSJ What’s News – Are Trump’s Lethal Attacks on Drug Boats Legal?

Date: September 28, 2025 | Host: Caitlin McCabe

---

Episode Overview

This episode investigates the Trump administration’s recent policy of using lethal military force against suspected drug-smuggling boats in international waters near Venezuela. Host Caitlin McCabe consults national security reporter Vera Bergengruen and legal correspondent Jess Bravin to unpack the legality, regional and international response, and the broader significance of these attacks.

---

Key Discussion Points & Insights

1. Trump Administration's Shift in Counter-Narcotics Policy

• Designation of Cartels as Terrorist Groups:
  Upon taking office, President Trump signed an executive order labeling international drug cartels as Foreign Terrorist Organizations (FTOs), allowing for military treatment of suspected traffickers.

  • "President Trump came into office making fairly clear that he was going to be very focused on the Western Hemisphere and ... combating drug trafficking."
    — Vera Bergengruen [01:55]

• Escalated Military Presence:
  The administration increased military deployments—warships, aircraft, and personnel—in the Caribbean, a scale not seen since the 1980s.

  • "We started to see a very different kind of buildup there ... quite unprecedented military buildup in the Caribbean."
    — Vera Bergengruen [01:55]

2. The Strikes: Execution and Secrecy

• Lack of Transparency:
  Information about the targeted boats has been sparse: no briefings on locations, identities of those killed, or concrete evidence of drugs.

  • "The Pentagon hasn't really done a briefing ... Trump officials have said that these boats are heading to the U.S., but ... it's not quite clear where the drugs were going."
    — Vera Bergengruen [02:56]

• Unclear Evidence:
  The administration circulated aerial footage showing strikes but little else; Dominican authorities reportedly found cocaine but details remain limited.

  • "They released images of these packages. But even so, a lot of people say that's not enough information ... without really releasing much evidence."
    — Vera Bergengruen [02:56]

3. Regional and International Response

• Varied Reactions in the Region:
  Some Caribbean nations (Dominican Republic, Trinidad) have supported the US actions; Colombia and others have condemned them as "excessive and destabilizing," raising concerns over extrajudicial killings.

  • "We've seen Colombia ... call it excessive and destabilizing, and ... basically extrajudicial killings that are outside of international law."
    — Vera Bergengruen [04:24]

• Political Theater and Venezuelan Narratives:
  Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro leverages the strikes to rally support domestically, fueling anti-US sentiment and bolstering his grip on power.

  • "This kind of invasion narrative is helping somebody who's quite an unpopular president."
    — Vera Bergengruen [04:24]
  • "Political theater, that's something I wanted to touch on for both sides..."
    — Caitlin McCabe [05:23]

4. Legal Foundations and Questions

• New Justification via Terrorist Label:
  The administration argues that, since drug cartels are now "terrorists," the military may lawfully target them in international waters, treating drug smuggling as a military threat rather than a criminal issue.

  • "He justifies these attacks as going after a military target. ... A change from how ... every other country has handled ... drug smuggling before as a criminal matter."
    — Jess Bravin [08:30]

• A Post-9/11 Legal Framework:
  The tactic echoes the expanded executive powers post-9/11 and the willingness to reinterpret domestic and international law to allow new forms of military action.

  • "After 9/11, the Bush administration decided to reinterpret international law ... to let it do a lot more stuff that would have been illegal under the understanding of international law and US law that preceded 9/11."
    — Jess Bravin [09:20]

• Internal Legal Dissent:
  Not all US officials agree; military lawyers (JAGs) and some Defense Department staff argue that cartels do not meet the accepted definition of terrorist groups and raise concerns over due process.

  • "A terrorist organization has been understood to be an entity with a political objective. ... Drug cartels aren't really in the politics game other than to support their commercial interests."
    — Jess Bravin [10:48]

• 'Workaround' of Legal Hurdles:
  With US courts blocking the death penalty for non-homicidal drug smugglers, military attacks outside US jurisdiction bypass existing legal protections.

  • "In a sense, he has found a workaround ... If he kills [drug smugglers] before they enter the United States, that's outside the jurisdiction..."
    — Jess Bravin [11:24]

5. Global Legal Recourses and Limits

• Weak Enforcement Against the US:
  Venezuela could file complaints with international bodies, but enforcement—especially against a US administration—is negligible.
  • "The most that Venezuela ... could do would be to try to get some kind of international legal consensus disagreeing with the United States."
    — Jess Bravin [12:25]
  • "The only legal enforcement army ... is the United Nations Security Council ... but the United States and ... allies have veto power."
    — Jess Bravin [12:25]

6. Future Outlook

• Normalization of Lethal Force:
  As strikes continue, repetition may transform controversial attacks into the "new normal."
  • "The more you have, the more acceptable it becomes. ... If there's a few every month, and that just becomes part of the new normal."
    — Jess Bravin [13:22]

---

Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments

• "Every indication we've had so far from the Trump administration, it seems like they are planning to not necessarily slow down these attacks."
  — Caitlin McCabe [06:16]

• "This president likes to find military solutions to what have been seen traditionally as civilian problems."
  — Jess Bravin [09:20]

• "We've had three [strikes] already ... but the more you have, the more acceptable it becomes."
  — Jess Bravin [13:22]

---

Important Segment Timestamps

• [01:55] – Vera Bergengruen on Trump’s new designation of cartels and military escalation
• [02:56] – Lack of transparency and evidence regarding the attacks
• [04:24] – Regional reactions: support and condemnation
• [05:39] – Discussion on political theater and escalation
• [06:30] – Trump administration’s signals about the future of the strikes
• [08:30] – Jess Bravin explains the legal justification and its novelty
• [09:20] – Post-9/11 legal precedents and controversies
• [10:48] – Definition of terrorism and internal legal dissent
• [12:25] – International legal options and their limitations
• [13:22] – Normalization of repeated attacks

---

Conclusion

This episode presents a critical look at President Trump’s aggressive approach to drug interdiction at sea, highlighting both the legal murkiness and the international debate it has generated. While some nations back the US for their own interests, others see a dangerous precedent in lethal, largely unaccountable force, all amid a context where concrete evidence and due process appear sidelined. The show closes noting continued operations are likely and calls attention to the risk of normalizing what was once deemed extraordinary.

---

Transcript

[Caitlin McCabe]

The US Forest Service is improving wildfire.

[Jess Bravin]

Prediction models with Google AI. This is a new era of American innovation.

[Caitlin McCabe]

Find out more at G Co AmericanInnovation. Hey, what's news, listeners? It's Sunday, September 28th. I'm Caitlin McCabe for the Wall Street Journal, and this is what's News Sunday, the show where we tackle the big questions about the biggest stories in the news by reaching out to our colleagues, the newsroom to help explain what's happening in our world. On the show this week, we're taking a look at the Trump administration's use of military force on boats in international waters, which is starting to happen with more frequency. There's one big problem, though. Some officials aren't so sure that the strikes are even legal or whether the people targeted are actually smuggling narcotics at all. Stay tuned as we explore that big question and more. About eight months ago, on the same day he was sworn into office, President Trump signed an executive order that set the stage for him to designate international cartels as terrorist organizations. Since then, the White House has ratcheted up its pressure against these drug groups, culminating in a trio of lethal military strikes against boats this month that have killed more than a dozen people. And the Trump administration has indicated it doesn't intend to pump the brakes on such attacks anytime soon. But what is the Trump administration's end goal here? Joining me now is Vera Bergengrun, who covers national security for the Journal and has been covering these boat strikes since they began. Vera, the US has long been cracking down on drug trafficking from South America. Can you update us on how those priorities have changed since Trump took office in January?

[Vera Bergengruen]

President Trump came into office making fairly clear that he was going to be very focused on the Western Hemisphere and very focused specifically on combating drug trafficking, which was one of his main priorities during the campaign. And one of the very first things he did when he got into the White House again was designate drug cartels as foreign terrorist organizations, or FTOs. What that means is you can treat all of these drug cartels as terrorists. A couple of weeks ago, we started seeing a very different kind of buildup there. A was the US Started to send warships, they started sending airplanes to Puerto Rico, and they started doing a quite unprecedented military buildup in the Caribbean, pretty close to Venezuela, that they said was intended to deter drug trafficking, but we hadn't really seen that before. The last time we saw any kind of kinetic force used in that part of the world was in Panama in the 80s.

[Caitlin McCabe]

Fast forward to September. We've had a trio of Attacks within pretty quick succession. Vera, what do we know about the boats that have been attacked? Were there drugs on board, and do we know that they were heading for.

[Vera Bergengruen]

The US in some ways, we actually know quite little. The Pentagon hasn't really done a briefing. The Trump administration has released these kind of grainy videos from the air that show these boats speeding north from Venezuela towards the Caribbean. And then you see this massive fireball coming out of these boats until they stop moving. Trump officials have said that these boats are heading to the U.S. but everything we've seen is that these really quite small drug boats are transiting the Caribbean, from Venezuela to the Caribbean Islands, and it's not quite clear where the drugs were going from there. They didn't say where the boats were attacked. They didn't say who was on board, their identities, their nationalities. They didn't say at the time or provide any evidence of the drugs that were on board. The president did say that he had seen evidence of drugs floating in the water. He mentioned cocaine and fentanyl. A couple of days ago, the Dominican Republic said that they had found hundreds of packages of cocaine floating near the site of the strike. And we got a little bit more information from them, and they released images of these packages. But even so, a lot of people say that's not enough information in order to actually be at this point killing more than a dozen suspected drug traffickers without really releasing much evidence about who they were and whether they were actually transporting drugs.

[Caitlin McCabe]

I want to shift gears a little bit about how this is being received internationally. How are leaders responding to this approach?

[Vera Bergengruen]

We've seen some countries in the region, in the Caribbean be supportive. We've seen the Dominican Republic and Trinidad and some other small countries who think it's to their advantage to be publicly supporting the Trump administration kind of say that they support this. But we've seen Colombia and some others really speak out against it. They've called it excessive and destabilizing, and they've called them basically extrajudicial killings that are outside of international law. And, of course, they're also worried that whatever happens to Venezuela, it's going to really destabilize the entire region. As for Venezuela itself, you've got President Maduro, who has been saying for years that the US Is after him, that they're trying to unseat him. So we have seen him in some ways benefit from this theater, from images that we've seen, because he's rallying Venezuelans. He's asking them to enlist in a draft. We've seen videos of grandmothers who are learning how to use firearms. And this kind of invasion narrative is helping somebody who's quite an unpopular president.

[Caitlin McCabe]

Yeah, political theater, that's something that I wanted to touch on on really both sides here, the US And Venezuela. How much of it is this political theater versus a much more significant and possibly protracted start to conflict in the region?

[Vera Bergengruen]

So far, it's fairly evident that the theater is definitely the end goal. We're not really seeing, as far as we know, many strikes happening in secret the way that we've often seen them sometimes in the Middle East. In this case, almost every strike has been publicized. The videos are immediately posted. They are distributed very widely by the White House. And it's supposed to be this massive show of force, in some cases almost disproportionate show of force against these tiny drug boats carrying three or four people at the same time. It definitely is a real escalation and it's a very real military buildup of resources and assets in the region that we have not seen in decades.

[Caitlin McCabe]

Every indication we've had so far from the Trump administration, it seems like they are planning to not necessarily slow down these attacks. Do you have any insight into what more we might be able to expect on this front?

[Vera Bergengruen]

That's definitely true. FBI Director Vikash Patel, Defense Secretary Pete Hexseth, Secretary of State Marco Rubio, they are all saying this is an ongoing operation. We are going to keep targeting boats as long as it takes. So everything the Trump administration has said indicates they intend for this to be a very long term operation where they're really going to keep targeting drug traffickers until they see a very significant decline in the number of drugs crossing into the U.S. of course, that's where the legal issue comes into play. And it's unclear whether the Trump administration will be able to do this under the authorities they're currently using.

[Caitlin McCabe]

That's national security reporter Vera Bergengruen. Vera, thanks for joining us today.

[Vera Bergengruen]

Thanks so much.

[Caitlin McCabe]

Coming up, we'll unpack a few more questions, including whether these boat strikes are even legal and whether there is a risk that Venezuela or other countries could respond. We'll answer those and more just after the break.

[Commercial Announcer]

At the heart of Blackrock Coffee Bar is more than coffee. It's the people who bring it to life. Our baristas are the soul of every interaction. Storytellers, connectors and quiet everyday heroes. Founded by family and rooted in hospitality, we built a place where coffee fuels connection. Today, we're pouring coffee, serving signature fuel, energy drinks and crafting memorable moments across seven states and growing. Join us as we fuel Even more stories. BlackRock Coffee Bar proudly NASDAQ listed.

[Caitlin McCabe]

Now that we've laid out what the Trump administration has been doing to combat drug smuggling from Venezuela, it's time to address a lingering question. Are military strikes on these types of boats legal? Joining me now is Journal Legal correspondent Jess Bravin. Jess, this crackdown is quite the escalation compared to the way the US Used to do things. What is the legal basis that the Trump administration is using to justify these attacks?

[Jess Bravin]

The president declared these cartels terrorist organizations and therefore they're national security threat and they're in international water. So he justifies these attacks as going after a military target. That's the rationale. It's something we haven't seen before. And it's also a change from the way that the United States and basically every other country has handled international drug smuggling before as a criminal matter. In the past, we have used military force against suspected drug boats, but that was to confiscate them, to interdict them, bring them to a US Port, arrest the people there, not to essentially destroy them and kill them from a distance.

[Caitlin McCabe]

And it seems like this is part of this post 911 playbook that the Trump administration is using here. Can you talk a little bit more about these tactics and what they're reminiscent of?

[Jess Bravin]

After 9 11, the Bush administration decided to reinterpret international law and reinterpret its legal obligations, to let it do a lot more stuff, a lot more stuff that would have been illegal under the understanding of international law and US law that preceded 9 11. And what we saw there was a lot of pushback within the Pentagon, within the State Department, within the US Government, with lawyers saying, hey, this is legally questionable, if not outright illegal. The Trump administration knows that history and they've taken some actions to prevent it. For one, the defense secretary has complained about JAGs or judge advocates. That's the term for a military uniformed lawyer, being too legalistic and being too restrictive implicitly of what he can do. And we also know that this president likes to find military solutions to what have been seen traditionally as civilian problems. We've seen the deployment of the National Guard and the Marines to American cities over the objection of local officials. And here we see the use of lethal force against drug smugglers. And drug smuggling has been for decades and decades a huge problem around the world and in this country. But it has been seen as a criminal law issue, not one that's a military threat.

[Caitlin McCabe]

I want to get to the big question that I think has dominated the conversation in these past few weeks. How is this being received at home? It seems like some military lawyers and other Defense Department officials are raising concerns about the legality of these strikes. Is that right?

[Jess Bravin]

Well, they are. One reason is that a terrorist organization has been understood to be an entity with a political objective. It's trying to terrorize civilian population or leadership to make it change a policy. Drug cartels aren't really in the politics game other than to support their commercial interests. So that's one issue. Another issue is that a lot of officials have lost their jobs because they've been seen as not being sufficiently supportive of what the administration wants to do. So the degree to which there is pushback is unclear, but there's at least some now. On the other hand, though, keep in mind that there is a bigger picture here. The president has also said he believes that the death penalty should be expanded to include drug smuggling. The United States Supreme Court, under its current doctrine, wouldn't allow that. Capital punishment is only authorized for homicide. In other words, for directly killing somebody, bringing in a product that could be lethal to a number of people. That wouldn't qualify under the current doctrine of the U.S. supreme Court. So in a sense, he has found a workaround from the domestic legal system where he can't put drug smugglers to death. But if he kills him before they enter the United States, that's outside the jurisdiction of the U.S. supreme Court and its constitutional holdings.

[Caitlin McCabe]

One extension of this story is, of course, how international leaders are responding. We've clearly seen the most forceful response from Venezuela and Nicolas Maduro there. He's come out quite vehemently and condemned these strikes. Does a country like Venezuela have legal grounds to respond?

[Jess Bravin]

There are certain international bodies where complaints can be filed. There's an inter American Commission on Human Rights which you United States is a member of. Potentially Venezuela could file a complaint there and that body would hold hearings. But that body can't do anything to the United States other than simply issue an opinion about what transpired. The most that Venezuela or any country could do would be to try to get some kind of international legal consensus disagreeing with the United States position. And the United States historically has not really given a great deal of weight to scolding from international bodies. The only legal enforcement army that I can think of is the United Nations Security Council, where it can authorize measures against miscreant states. But the United States and two of its allies have veto power on the Security Council, so forget it.

[Caitlin McCabe]

So suffice to say, it's possible we could see more boat strikes here.

[Jess Bravin]

For sure, we've had three already and there have been questions raised about them, but the more you have, the more acceptable it becomes. First one might have been quite a stunning event if there's a few every month, and that just becomes part of the new normal.

[Caitlin McCabe]

So it definitely seems like this is a space to watch. Thanks for joining us, Jess.

[Jess Bravin]

Kaitlyn, anytime.

[Caitlin McCabe]

That's Jess Brabin, legal correspondent for the Wall Street Journal. And that's it for what's new Sunday for September 28th. Today's show is produced by Zoe Culkin with supervising producer Sandra Kilhoff and Deputy Editor Chris Sinsley. I'm Caitlin McCabe and we'll be back tomorrow morning with a brand new show. Until then, thanks for listening.

[Jess Bravin]

Foreign.

[Commercial Announcer]

Schwab is now powered by Ameritrade Unlocking the power of thinkorswim the award winning trading platforms loaded with features that let you dive deeper into the market. Visualize your trades in a new light on thinkorswim desktop with robust charting and analysis tools all while you uncover new opportunities with up to the minute market news and insights. ThinkOrSwim is available on desktop, web and mobile to meet you where you are. It's built by the trading obsessed to help you trade brilliantly. Learn [e-mail] trading.