What evidence supports claims that Trump ordered killings of people in boats on the high seas and were they illegal?
Executive summary
Available reporting shows the Trump administration ordered a sustained campaign of strikes on small vessels at sea beginning in September 2025 that U.S. officials say were aimed at narcotics traffickers; independent tallies put the death toll at roughly 70–83 people in 20–21 strikes [1] [2] [3]. Legal and journalistic sources report Justice Department and Defense lawyers framed the attacks as lawful self‑defense or as part of an armed conflict, while other officials, foreign leaders and rights groups dispute the facts and legality and say evidence publicly released is sparse [4] [5] [6] [7].
1. What happened: a U.S. campaign of sea strikes and the death toll
Reporting across outlets documents that since early September the U.S. military has struck dozens of small vessels in the Caribbean and eastern Pacific, with counts ranging from “more than 70” to “at least 83” killed in roughly 20–21 strikes and only a handful of survivors identified; media outlets including NPR, The New York Times and a compiled Wikipedia entry summarize those tallies [2] [8] [1]. The White House and Pentagon publicly characterized the targets as drug‑smuggling vessels linked to groups like Tren de Aragua; administration statements credit President Trump with directing some strikes [1] [9].
2. Evidence the administration cites that Trump “ordered” killings
Multiple outlets report the strikes were carried out “at the direction of President Trump” or with White House involvement, and the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel produced a memo endorsing the program; The New York Times and The Guardian recount that the OLC memo and other internal analyses framed the campaign legally and relied on White House claims about cartels [5] [4]. Legal commentary, including an Alschuler analysis, recounts Trump’s public announcements and administration briefings that linked him directly to authorizing strikes described as aimed at narcotics networks [10].
3. What evidence is publicly available about who was killed and why
Independent reporting and on‑the‑ground investigations show gaps: some media found bodies and spoke with families of fishermen who say the dead were civilians, and Colombian and Venezuelan officials have disputed U.S. accounts for specific strikes [11] [7] [1]. The administration has asserted intelligence linked certain vessels to traffickers and has characterized many casualties as “narco‑terrorists,” but critics note the government has not publicly released detailed evidence identifying the deceased or explaining why capture was not attempted [7] [11] [4].
4. The administration’s legal rationales as reported
Officials and the OLC memo reportedly framed strikes as lawful because they targeted drug shipments and actors that the administration said posed an armed threat or were part of a broader armed conflict; The Guardian reports DOJ analysis treats deaths aboard as enemy casualties or collateral damage rather than murder, and the New York Times describes an OLC memo that endorsed extrajudicial killings as lawful under the administration’s framing [4] [5]. The Pentagon and White House have presented the operations as defensive measures protecting the homeland from narco‑violence [8].
5. Counterarguments on legality from journalists, lawyers and foreign leaders
Multiple outlets record that former government lawyers inside agencies raised skeptical legal views which were allegedly sidestepped, and scholars argue domestic and international criminal statutes could apply—e.g., U.S. federal murder statutes, conspiracy laws, and high‑seas jurisdiction—if the killings are unlawful; Verdict/Justia and The Washington Post summarize those legal challenges [10] [6]. Foreign leaders such as Colombia’s president publicly rejected U.S. accounts of certain strikes and accused the U.S. of killing civilians [10] [2] [11].
6. What’s unsettled and what sources don’t provide
Available sources document the strikes, public statements linking Trump to authorization, and disputes about civilian harm and legal reasoning, but they do not publish the full underlying intelligence, specific identifications of most victims, or the complete OLC memo text in public reporting—meaning independent verification of every administration claim is limited in the cited reporting [5] [7] [11]. Where outlets report internal legal dissent, the exact contents of interagency deliberations or classified evidence are not disclosed in the articles cited [6] [4].
7. Bottom line for readers: evidence vs. contested legality
There is solid reporting that the Trump administration ordered and carried out lethal strikes on boats at sea and that Justice Department lawyers produced memoranda to justify them [1] [5]. Whether those killings were lawful remains contested: the administration and DOJ memo assert legal grounds (self‑defense/armed conflict framing), but critics—journalists, foreign officials, and legal analysts—say public evidence is limited and raise plausible arguments that the strikes could violate U.S. and international law [4] [6] [10]. Available reporting does not settle all legal questions because key evidence and some legal analyses remain unpublished in the cited sources [5] [7].