Which US agencies and commanders approved or executed maritime strikes on suspected drug trafficking vessels under the Trump administration?
Executive summary
Available reporting shows the strikes were ordered at the top of the Trump administration and publicly tied to President Donald Trump and his appointees, with Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth frequently announcing or taking responsibility for operations; the administration described the campaign as targeting vessels “operated by Designated Terrorist Organizations” and said the strikes began in early September 2025 and expanded across the Caribbean and Eastern Pacific [1] [2] [3]. Multiple outlets say the White House pushed the military campaign despite legal and internal government objections and the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel later produced classified advice limiting liability for U.S. forces [4] [5].
1. Who publicly claimed authority: Trump and his “Secretary of War” framing
President Trump repeatedly posted that strikes were carried out “on my orders” and described the Defense official who executed actions as the “Secretary of War,” framing the campaign as a White House-directed kinetic effort against vessels allegedly trafficking narcotics [6] [1]. Trump’s social-media announcements named specific strikes and, in some messages, attributed operational direction to his senior aides while characterizing targets as “narco-terrorists” or linked to “Designated Terrorist Organizations” [7] [8].
2. The visible executor: Secretary Pete Hegseth and Pentagon statements
Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth was the public face of the military operations, posting statements and videos asserting U.S. forces had conducted lethal kinetic strikes on vessels and announcing the campaign name “Operation SOUTHERN SPEAR” in at least one instance; Pentagon communications and Hegseth’s social posts described multiple strikes as conducted “at the direction of President Trump” and reported casualty figures [2] [9] [10].
3. Military chains and theater command references: USSOUTHCOM and carrier presence
Reporting ties the operations to the U.S. Southern Command (USSOUTHCOM) area of responsibility and notes a significant U.S. maritime buildup — including carrier strike assets — positioned to strike vessels in the Caribbean and Eastern Pacific; Pentagon and administration materials described missions as conducted within USSOUTHCOM’s geographic remit [6] [9] [8].
4. Interagency legal debate and executive legal posture
Journalistic investigations report that White House leaders “sidestepped” skeptical lawyers across national security agencies as they pursued the strikes, and that the administration relied on Article II authority and War Powers reporting to Congress in at least one notification; a classified Justice Department Office of Legal Counsel memo reportedly concluded U.S. personnel would not be liable for participating in the strikes [4] [11] [5].
5. How the administration justified action: narco‑terrorism, armed conflict claims
The administration framed cartels and groups moving drugs by sea as “unlawful combatants” or as part of a non‑international armed conflict, asserting that narcotics flows constituted a threat justifying military force and citing intelligence that vessels were on known narco‑trafficking routes and carrying narcotics [8] [11] [3]. Some leaked or reported memos are said to characterize the U.S. as in armed conflict with drug cartels for legal purposes [12].
6. Pushback, uncertainty and evidentiary questions
Multiple outlets and international figures questioned the evidence the administration publicly provided; critics noted sparse details on how boats were linked to trafficking or terrorist designation, and legal experts cited potential violations of international law and maritime norms [8] [12]. Venezuela and regional governments protested; reporting also documented internal congressional unease and failed resolutions seeking oversight [8] [12].
7. What the reporting does not establish clearly
Available sources do not specify every operational actor (e.g., whether CIA paramilitary units or particular special operations task forces executed specific strikes) beyond the Pentagon and USSOUTHCOM public framing; detailed on-the-ground command-and-control chains and classified operational authorities are not disclosed in current reporting (not found in current reporting). Likewise, sources do not provide full forensic evidence tying each struck vessel to narcotics shipments in publicly releasable form [8] [3].
8. Why this matters: law, precedent and accountability
The combination of presidential public direction, a named defense secretary announcing strikes, USSOUTHCOM operational context, and contested legal advice creates a precedent for using U.S. military force against suspected traffickers at sea — a move that raises questions about executive authority, war powers, international law, and oversight, all of which were raised by journalists and legal experts cited in reporting [11] [4] [12].
Sources cited in this analysis include PBS, AP, BBC, The Washington Post, CBS, Fox News and others summarized in the provided reporting [8] [13] [6] [4] [3] [2] [11] [5] [12].