WASHINGTON, Feb 21 — A US military strike on a suspected drug-smuggling vessel in the eastern Pacific Ocean killed three people on Friday, marking the second lethal attack in a week under Washington’s intensifying maritime anti-narcotics campaign, the United States Southern Command said.
The strike, which U.S. military officials characterized as targeting a vessel transiting “known narcotics trafficking routes,” reflects the Trump administration’s expanded use of military force against suspected smuggling operations but has sparked legal and ethical questions about the use of lethal force without judicial oversight.
The Pentagon said no U.S. forces were harmed during the operation, which occurred in international waters. Video released by Southern Command showed a single explosive impact hitting the vessel, which burst into flames.
Strike Details and Pentagon Statement
In its announcement, the United States Southern Command — the unit responsible for U.S. military activities in Latin America and the Caribbean — said intelligence indicated the vessel was engaged in narcotics trafficking as it moved along a recognized smuggling corridor in the Eastern Pacific.
The strike brought to at least 148 the number of people killed in similar U.S. strikes on suspected smuggling boats since the campaign began in September 2025, according to the Guardian report.
Officials declined to release details on the nationality of the three people killed or whether any drug contraband was recovered before the attack. A spokesperson for Southern Command reiterated that the action was conducted according to U.S. and international law, though specifics were limited in the initial statement.
Escalating Campaign in Pacific and Caribbean
The latest strike follows another U.S. operation earlier this week that reportedly killed 11 individuals aboard three separate vessels in the Caribbean and Pacific, making it one of the deadliest phases of the campaign so far.
Since September, U.S. forces have carried out dozens of strikes against suspected smuggling boats across both Caribbean and Pacific waters, part of an initiative described by administration officials as targeting organized crime networks they designate as “narco-terrorists.”
The campaign operates under what the U.S. military refers to as a broader effort to disrupt illicit narcotics flow from Latin America to U.S. markets. However, critics argue that the use of lethal force in international waters absent traditional arrest and prosecution procedures raises constitutional and international law concerns.
Legal and Ethical Controversy
Human rights advocates and legal experts have sharply criticized the strikes, saying that military personnel killing civilians suspected of non-combat criminal activity could constitute extrajudicial killings. In a December statement, attorneys with the American Civil Liberties Union said such strikes appear to violate both U.S. and international law.
“Under both U.S. and international law, it is flagrantly illegal to use the military to kill civilians suspected only of crimes,” the ACLU statement said, adding that suspects have a right to due process.
The controversy intensified after recent reports that Adm. Alvin Holsey, then commander of Southern Command, abruptly retired earlier this year reportedly over disagreements about the policy’s direction and legality.
Strategic Rationale and Administration Position
The Trump administration has defended the operations as vital to national security interests, arguing that militant drug logistics networks operating via maritime routes fund and sustain cartel violence affecting U.S. communities.
U.S. defense officials have described the forces’ expanded presence in the Caribbean and Pacific as a deterrent to transnational criminal networks. They have cited intelligence data linking small vessels crossing specific maritime corridors with large quantities of narcotics bound for U.S. markets.
Despite this, independent verification of the presence of drugs on the struck vessels has rarely been provided, and military statements have not publicly released evidence such as seized contraband.
Impact on Regional Security and Diplomatic Reaction
The strikes have drawn international scrutiny and sparked debates among U.S. lawmakers over the scope of presidential authority to conduct lethal military actions against individuals not formally designated as enemy combatants by Congress or the courts.
Several lawmakers from both parties have voiced concern about potential breaches of international law and the risk of diplomatic fallout with regional nations whose flagged vessels may be targeted. Some human rights organizations have called for greater transparency and oversight of the operations.
In Latin America, reactions have been mixed. While some regional governments have cooperated with enhanced interdiction efforts, others have criticized U.S. tactics and questioned the evidence supporting military strikes.
Background on Operation and Drug Routes
The United States launched its maritime anti-drug offensive in September 2025, initially focusing on the Caribbean Sea, where authorities claimed it disrupted several suspected trafficking routes originating in Venezuela and other South American nations.
In recent months, operations expanded into the Eastern Pacific, where smuggling vessels travel long oceanic distances using small craft that evade detection by standard interdiction methods. U.S. surveillance assets, including airborne radar and satellite monitoring, have been central to identifying targets.
Experts say that while narcotics trafficking remains a major transnational challenge, much of the flow of fentanyl and other synthetic drugs into the United States occurs over land borders via Mexico, raising questions about the strategic focus on international maritime strikes.
Broader Policy Debate
Defense policymakers maintain that cutting off revenue streams from drug smuggling can weaken criminal organizations’ capabilities and reduce violence linked to cartel activity. They argue that maritime routes, long used to transport cocaine and precursor chemicals, continue to evolve.
However, critics counter that the military is not the appropriate tool for policing actions against criminal networks and stress that collaboration with regional law enforcement could yield more lawful and effective results.
As U.S. Southern Command continues its operations, analysts expect the debate over legal authority and oversight to intensify in both Congress and international forums.