Under what legal authorities has the U.S. military or Coast Guard used lethal force against suspected drug vessels in recent decades?
This fact-check may be outdated. Consider refreshing it to get the most current information.
Executive summary
For decades U.S. maritime counternarcotics posture rested on law‑enforcement statutes that empower the Coast Guard to stop, board, seize and arrest suspected drug traffickers at sea—using non‑lethal measures and disabling fire as necessary—rather than preemptive killing (46 U.S.C. ch.705; Coast Guard practice) [1] [2] [3]. Beginning in 2025, however, the U.S. military carried out several lethal strikes against suspected drug boats in international waters and the administration invoked an array of authorities—Foreign Terrorist Organization labels, presidential commander‑in‑chief powers and self‑defense/AUMF framing—producing legal claims and sharp contestation from scholars, human‑rights experts and some lawmakers [4] [5] [6] [7].
1. Historical baseline: law‑enforcement authorities and Coast Guard primacy
U.S. counternarcotics at sea has long been organized around statutes like the Maritime Drug Law Enforcement Act (MDLEA) that authorize interdiction, boarding, search, seizure and criminal prosecutions—authorities exercised primarily by the Coast Guard, which uniquely combines military Title 14 duties with law enforcement powers—while the Navy and military services traditionally play a supporting surveillance and interdiction role rather than using lethal force to destroy suspected traffickers’ vessels (46 U.S.C. ch.705; [1]; [10]; p1_s8).
2. Standard use of force in interdiction: warning shots and disabling fire, not missiles
Operational practice and legal guidance have emphasized escalation ladders: warning shots across the bow, disabling fire to target engines or steering, and boarding—measures meant to compel compliance while minimizing lethal outcomes—because international maritime law and counternarcotics conventions contemplate boarding and seizure, not routine use of deadly force against stateless or foreign‑flagged suspect craft [2] [8] [9].
3. The 2025–2025 rupture: military strikes and the authorities invoked
In 2025 the U.S. military conducted multiple lethal strikes on alleged drug boats in the Caribbean; the administration defended those operations by pointing to FTO designations and assertions of self‑defense, presidential war powers and internal legal reviews (including Office of Legal Counsel analyses), and in practice invoked a wartime framing that treated some cartels or gangs as security threats warranting military targeting rather than law‑enforcement interdiction [4] [10] [5] [7].
4. Legal lines officials cite — and why experts push back
Supporters point to presidential Article II authority and to analogies with AUMF‑style targeting of nonstate actors, and to internal OLC and DoD legal memos that purportedly assessed imminent threat and compliance with the law of armed conflict [6] [10]. Critics reject that leap: they note FTO labels and MDLEA do not themselves authorize lethal military strikes, international law permits lethal force only under narrow self‑defense or armed‑conflict predicates, and longstanding statutes envision arrests and prosecutions rather than missile strikes—making the administration’s legal posture highly contested [2] [8] [7] [9].
5. Accountability, process and the political backlash
Reporting and commentary record that some strikes were preceded by internal legal reviews, yet questions persisted about target identification, imminence of threat, and the propriety of killing survivors; congressional efforts to curb the campaign failed in some instances, while UN experts and human‑rights authorities described such strikes as potentially extrajudicial and urged legal justification be produced [10] [11] [5] [4].
6. Bottom line: authorities used — and the legal reality
Practically, lethal force against drug vessels in recent decades was rare and typically limited to Coast Guard escalation measures under MDLEA and related statutes (non‑lethal disabling fire and boarding) [1] [2]; the notable exception since 2025 is the U.S. military’s use of direct lethal strikes justified by a combination of presidential war powers, AUMF/self‑defense arguments, and FTO‑style labeling backed by internal legal opinions—an approach that many legal scholars, international lawyers and rights monitors say stretches or conflicts with established law [4] [10] [7] [9].