Fact check: What are the specific war crimes alleged against Trump during his second term?

1. Bold Claim: Bombing Boats in International Waters — What Reporters Say

Reporting across September 2025 describes a pattern of U.S. military strikes on boats in the Caribbean and off Venezuela alleged to be involved in drug smuggling. Journalists report multiple airstrikes and at least one order “to bomb another boat” after prior actions, with administration officials framing the operations as an intensified military campaign against narco-trafficking and a doctrine treating cartels as foreign threats ^{[1] [3] [6]}. These accounts emphasize the use of deadly force on vessels in international waters and characterize this as a novel and escalatory use of military power outside recognized zones of armed conflict ^{[2] [1]}.

2. Allegations of War Crimes and Extrajudicial Killings — The Legal Alarm Bells

Legal experts and reporting raise concerns that killing suspected smugglers in international waters could amount to unlawful extrajudicial killings or war crimes if procedures required by domestic and international law were not followed. The articles document expert warnings labeling the strikes “patently illegal” and stressing constitutional and international law constraints on the use of lethal force, especially when civilian casualties are alleged and when targets are not engaged in an armed conflict with defined belligerents ^{[1] [6]}. These experts argue the precedent of using force against transnational criminal groups risks blurring criminal law and wartime authorities.

3. Administration Rationale: War on Drugs, New Military Doctrine, and Draft Legislation

The White House publicly justified strikes as part of an intensified crackdown on drug trafficking, describing narco-terrorists as threats warranting military response, and reporting notes circulation of a draft bill that would explicitly grant the president authority to use force against cartels ^[3]. The administration presents strikes as targeted operations to stop drugs entering the U.S., arguing for a national-security framing that policymakers say legitimizes military action. These policy moves are presented in reporting as deliberate efforts to broaden executive power, with proposed legislation potentially codifying controversial operational authorities ^{[3] [6]}.

4. Parallel Claims: Weaponizing Justice — Public Pressure on Prosecutors

Separate but contemporaneous reporting documents President Trump’s public calls for the Justice Department to charge political opponents, naming figures such as Adam Schiff and Letitia James, and pressuring Attorney General Pam Bondi to investigate rivals. Journalists report that a federal prosecutor who had doubts about pursuing a case was replaced, prompting concerns over political control of prosecutions and the erosion of DOJ independence ^{[4] [5]}. These stories present factual accounts of public statements and personnel changes, with critics arguing the actions undermine norms designed to prevent prosecutorial decisions from being driven by partisan interests.

5. Contrasting Narratives and Expert Disagreements — Where the Debate Lies

The sources show a clear split: the administration frames strikes and prosecutorial pushes as lawful, necessary, and targeted measures to protect national security and enforce the law, while outside legal experts and critics characterize some actions as potentially illegal, unconstitutional, or norm-shattering ^{[2] [4] [5]}. Reporting cites legal warnings and factual claims such as dates and number of strikes, but also notes the presence of evolving doctrine and draft legislation, which complicates assessments of legality absent full disclosure of targeting procedures, rules of engagement, and prosecutorial decision-making processes ^{[3] [2]}.

6. What Is Established, What Is Alleged, and What Remains Unverified

Factually established in the reporting: multiple airstrikes and orders to use lethal force against vessels were reported in September 2025, and public pressure on DOJ officials and prosecutors was documented ^{[1] [3] [4] [5]}. Alleged but legally unresolved: whether those maritime strikes violated domestic or international law in ways that constitute war crimes, and whether DOJ actions represent improper politicization versus lawful oversight. Key open questions include specific legal authorizations used, casualty and target identification records, and internal DOJ decision memos—documents not fully disclosed in the cited reporting ^{[1] [6]}.

7. Bottom Line: Multiple Angles, High Stakes, and Needed Evidence

The coverage collated in September 2025 presents serious allegations with significant legal and political implications, but legal determinations about war crimes or prosecutorial abuse require access to classified operational details, targeting records, and internal DOJ communications. The reporting responsibly aggregates expert warnings and administration rationales, and it signals the need for independent review and transparency. Absent public release of operational authorizations and prosecutorial files, the claims remain contested between administration security imperatives and expert concerns about legality and democratic norms ^{[1] [2] [4] [6]}.