Keep Factually independent
Whether you agree or disagree with our analysis, these conversations matter for democracy. We don't take money from political groups - even a $5 donation helps us keep it that way.
Have there been any previous incidents of the US bombing boats suspected of drug smuggling?
Executive summary
The United States has recently carried out a sustained campaign of strikes on small vessels it says were smuggling narcotics, beginning in early September and expanding across the Caribbean and into the eastern Pacific; reporting counts vary but roughly 14–20 strikes have killed dozens to around 80 people and destroyed multiple boats (examples: at least 61 killed in 14 strikes, and reporting of up to 20 strikes killing ~80) [1] [2]. Coverage shows this is an unprecedented use of military force against suspected drug-smuggling vessels, and major outlets and watchdogs are raising legal, evidentiary and policy questions about the practice [3] [4].
1. A recent, concentrated series — not a decades‑old routine
Until September, U.S. interdiction of maritime drug trafficking primarily relied on Coast Guard seizures, arrests and partnerships; the strikes that started on Sept. 2 represent a sharp break: multiple lethal military strikes on small boats in international waters over a few months [5] [6]. FactCheck and PBS trace the escalation from isolated actions to at least 14 strikes by mid‑October and a broader tally in later reporting that reaches 19–20 strikes [1] [7].
2. How many strikes and deaths? Different outlets report different totals
News organizations and NGOs report somewhat different counts: FactCheck tallied at least 61 deaths in 14 strikes [1], while CNN and The Independent cite larger tallies — for example, CNN reported 76 killed in 19 strikes destroying 20 boats [7], and The Independent reported about 80 killed in 20 strikes [2]. These differences reflect rolling updates and varying criteria for inclusion; reporting agrees the number is significant and rose quickly after the campaign began [7] [2].
3. U.S. rationale: narco‑trafficking as armed conflict
The Trump administration has framed the strikes as part of an “armed conflict” with drug cartels and labeled some groups “narco‑terrorists,” arguing presidential wartime authority allows lethal force against smuggling vessels [6] [3]. A Department of Justice memo reportedly underpins the legal rationale, but critics say the justification rests on the administration’s assertions [2]. Coverage shows the administration has often described intelligence linking targeted vessels to narcotics but has provided limited public evidence [3] [4].
4. Legal and policy controversy
Legal experts, human‑rights advocates and some lawmakers question whether drug smugglers are lawful military targets and whether the administration properly used force without standard interdiction procedures; outlets note that longstanding bilateral and Coast Guard mechanisms exist to interdict smugglers without lethal force [8] [5]. FactCheck and others report congressional and judicial concerns about presidential war powers and whether the strikes comply with domestic and international law [1] [6].
5. Reporting from affected communities complicates the picture
Investigations by the Associated Press, NPR and others found that people killed in some strikes included low‑paid crewmembers or local fishermen rather than high‑level cartel leaders, and that relatives and neighbors contest the “narco‑terrorist” label for many victims [9] [10]. AP reported more than 60 people killed and provided on‑the‑ground identifications and interviews that challenge the administration’s public narrative [9] [10].
6. Military means and scale of the operations
Reporting describes the use of air assets and ships (including carrier presence) to strike small, often fast boats — a capability shift for the region — and notes critics asking why such powerful platforms were deployed against relatively small craft [7] [3]. Journalists and analysts have highlighted the high cost per strike compared with traditional Coast Guard interdiction and the potential intelligence loss when crews are killed rather than captured [5].
7. International and diplomatic fallout
Latin American leaders and governments have responded variably: some praise action against cartels while others condemn strikes as violations of sovereignty or even “murder” when nationalities of victims are asserted by foreign officials [11] [12]. Reporting emphasizes that strikes have strained relations and prompted debate about escalation and regional security cooperation [12] [13].
8. What sources do and do not say
Available sources provide consistent documentation of an intense, recent U.S. strike campaign and reporting disagreements about counts and legal justification [1] [7]. Available sources do not mention long‑established precedent for U.S. military bombing of suspected smuggling boats prior to this 2025 campaign; instead, they contrast these strikes with decades of non‑lethal Coast Guard interdiction [5] [3].
Conclusion — the short answer to your query: Yes, there have been multiple incidents — concentrated and recent — of U.S. forces striking boats suspected of drug smuggling, but these actions are unusual in U.S. practice, have attracted divergent tallies and intense legal and journalistic scrutiny, and raise open questions about evidence, legality and policy [1] [4].