.png)
The Trump administration has intensified its antidrug offensive, launching a second lethal strike in the Pacific Ocean this week as part of an expanding campaign against vessels allegedly carrying narcotics bound for the United States. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth announced late Wednesday that U.S. Special Operations forces had destroyed another suspected smuggling boat, marking a significant escalation of military activity beyond the Caribbean Sea.
A Widening Military Campaign
The operation, which began in early September under direct orders from President Donald Trump, has now resulted in at least nine known strikes on maritime targets. Officials said the latest two attacks in the eastern Pacific brought the publicly confirmed death toll to thirty-seven. According to Hegseth, the targets were “known by our intelligence” to be involved in narcotics trafficking, though he did not provide evidence or specify the groups allegedly responsible.
A U.S. official speaking anonymously said one of the Pacific strikes occurred off the coast of Colombia, a country that produces a significant portion of the world’s cocaine supply. The defense secretary described the Tuesday attack as a precision strike that killed two people, followed by another the next day that killed three. Both were carried out in international waters, he said, using advanced surveillance and guided munitions.
The announcement marks a geographical expansion of the administration’s antidrug campaign. Previous strikes had focused exclusively on the Caribbean, particularly areas near Venezuela, where U.S. officials claim drug smuggling networks operate under the protection of the Maduro government. The shift to the Pacific reflects what officials describe as a broader effort to target “any vessel posing a narcotics threat” to the United States, regardless of location.
Trump Boasts of “Amazing” Military Power
At a White House press briefing, President Trump hailed the strikes as proof of American resolve and military superiority. “They had one today in the Pacific,” he said, “and the way I look at it — every time I look — because it is violent and it is very — it’s amazing, the weaponry, you know they have these boats that go 45 to 50 miles an hour in the water, and when you look at the accuracy and the power — look, we have the greatest military in the world.”
Trump claimed that each destroyed smuggling boat saves 25,000 American lives, though that figure does not align with public health data. While approximately 100,000 Americans die annually from drug overdoses, most of those deaths involve fentanyl, a synthetic opioid produced primarily in Mexico, rather than cocaine shipped from South America.
Despite these discrepancies, Trump’s rhetoric underscores his administration’s effort to portray the strikes as a life-saving national security measure rather than a law enforcement operation.
Talk of Expanding Strikes to Land
In comments that raised eyebrows among legal analysts and lawmakers, the president suggested his administration may soon authorize military action against suspected drug operations on land. He claimed that maritime interdictions had forced traffickers to shift to overland routes, requiring a new phase of the campaign.
“We will hit them very hard when they come in by land,” Trump said. “They haven’t experienced that yet, but now we are totally prepared to do that.” He added that his administration would “probably go back to Congress and explain exactly what we are doing,” but insisted he did not need congressional approval to expand the strikes.
The president’s remarks hint at a potential escalation that could blur the lines between counterterrorism and counternarcotics missions — an approach that critics say risks undermining international law.
Legal Questions and International Backlash
The strikes have drawn sharp criticism from legal experts and human rights advocates, who argue that targeting drug traffickers with military force violates international law and the laws of armed conflict. Under established norms, military operations are authorized only against combatants or groups engaged in armed hostilities. Drug smugglers, they note, are criminals — not enemy soldiers.
“The use of deadly force against civilians, even those suspected of drug trafficking, cannot be justified under international humanitarian law,” said one expert on the use of armed force. “Labeling cartels as terrorists does not transform a criminal problem into a war.”
The Trump administration insists otherwise. Officials have repeatedly asserted that the president’s designation of major Latin American drug cartels as terrorist organizations provides sufficient legal authority to use lethal force against them. The White House maintains that the strikes are lawful acts of self-defense aimed at organizations posing a direct threat to U.S. security.
Colombian President Gustavo Petro condemned the attacks after several of his citizens were reportedly killed, accusing Washington of violating international sovereignty and calling the operations “acts of murder.” In response, Trump announced he would suspend foreign aid to Colombia, escalating tensions with one of America’s closest regional partners.
Rising Death Toll and Regional Fallout
The series of strikes has already had deadly consequences. Colombian and Trinidadian citizens were among those killed in separate incidents, and survivors have described chaotic scenes of destruction. In one case, two men were rescued by the U.S. Navy after their semi-submersible vessel was destroyed, though one later died from brain trauma in a Colombian hospital. The other was returned to Ecuador, where authorities declined to prosecute him, citing a lack of jurisdiction.
Critics in Congress are demanding greater transparency. Representative Jason Crow, a Democrat on the House Armed Services and Intelligence Committees, questioned the administration’s logic during a security conference. “If these are narco-terrorists, as Secretary Hegseth reports,” he said, “then why did we just repatriate two of them back to their country of origin, if they’re such bad guys?”
The Pentagon has offered few details about the specific groups targeted, though one earlier strike was said to involve members of Colombia’s National Liberation Army, a Marxist insurgent faction long designated by the State Department as a terrorist organization.
A New Frontier in the War on Drugs
The Trump administration’s maritime campaign marks one of the most aggressive uses of military force against drug networks in modern history. Officials portray it as a necessary step to curb the flow of cocaine and other narcotics into the United States, though analysts warn that such operations rarely address the root causes of drug trafficking — poverty, corruption, and demand.
Critics argue that blurring the boundaries between military and law enforcement roles could set a dangerous precedent, effectively turning the “war on drugs” into a literal war. Allies in Latin America have also expressed alarm, warning that unilateral U.S. military actions could destabilize fragile regional relationships and reignite old tensions over sovereignty.
As the campaign expands into the Pacific, questions multiply about where it will end — and whether a military approach can ever solve what is fundamentally a social and economic crisis.
For now, the administration shows no sign of slowing down. “We will hit them hard,” Trump vowed. “We will hit them everywhere.”
%20(2).png)
