US 'drug boat' strikes don't just cross a line, they're legally indefensible

Cmdr. Dave Petri, USN (Ret.) & RADM William D. Baumgartner, USCG (Ret.)

USA Today

Nov. 20, 2025

When the United States began sinking boats on suspicion of drug trafficking – with no warning, no arrests and no evidence recovered – we crossed a line. These so-called narco-terrorist strikes may be politically popular, but they are legally indefensible.

Now, reports indicate that the British government has stopped sharing intelligence with Washington, DC, over fears that the U.S. operations violate international law. If true, one of America’s oldest allies is signaling what many of us who served in uniform already know: Justice and lasting security cannot be achieved through lawlessness.

For more than two decades, the U.S. Coast Guard’s HITRON program has proved that there’s a better way. Helicopter-based marksmen disable engines on fleeing drug boats, allowing suspects to be arrested, evidence recovered and intelligence exploited.

More than 1,000 vessels have been stopped this way, without deliberate loss of life. It is effective, lawful and consistent with both our national values and our obligations under the law of the sea.

The only flaw is that we have not assigned enough ships and aircraft to this effort. This new approach – destroying boats outright and killing the occupants – abandons that model and the principles behind it. In addition, it sets a frightening example for other nations throughout the world.

Rules of engagement in armed conflict

In any legitimate military or law enforcement operation, rules of engagement exist to ensure that force is necessary, proportionate and discriminate. These rules are designed to protect innocent life, preserve evidence and maintain compliance with the Law of Armed Conflict – the body of international law that governs when and how force may be used.

The supposed justification, that these boats pose a “clear and present danger” to Americans, falls apart under scrutiny.

The Wall Street Journal reported a secret memo invokes an unsubstantiated “chemical weapons” threat to justify these strikes. Even if the report is correct, this is not a recognized basis under the Law of Armed Conflict, nor is it the kind of imminent threat required for a president to employ lethal force without congressional approval.

In addition, it appears to be lacking in factual basis, as government assessments have shown this is not a route for trafficking fentanyl.

Under the Law of Armed Conflict, deadly force is lawful only when an imminent armed threat exists. Drug traffickers, however violent or corrupt, are not conducting military attacks against the United States and are not interested in deliberately killing their “customers.” Under criminal law, force must be the minimum necessary to compel compliance, not missiles or munitions that leave no survivors.

Commander Dave Petri, U.S. Navy (Ret.), serves as the Communications Director of National Security Leaders for America. Rear Admiral William D. Baumgartner, U.S. Coast Guard (Ret.), is a retired Coast Guard officer and former Commander of the Seventh Coast Guard District.