The Trump administration officials have come forward to defend the controversial follow-up strike on a drug boat that resulted in the deaths of survivors on September 2. They assert that the primary objective of this military action was to ensure the complete destruction of the vessel, a move that reportedly received internal legal approval from the Pentagon. During a press briefing on Monday, White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt emphasized that Admiral Frank Bradley, who oversaw the operation, acted within his legal authority when he ordered the second strike aimed at sinking the boat. Leavitt stated, “Adm Bradley worked well within his authority and the law, directing the engagement to ensure the boat was destroyed, and the threat to the United States of America was eliminated.”
Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, speaking at a cabinet meeting on Tuesday, reiterated that the second strike “sunk the boat and eliminated the threat.” He attempted to downplay his involvement in the decision-making process. The administration has framed the strikes as specifically targeting the drug boat, which aligns with the language found in a classified memo from the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) that supports the legality of such actions. This framing places the attack on solid legal ground, especially as concerns arose regarding the incident.
According to three lawyers familiar with the matter, the OLC memo asserts that the United States is permitted to use lethal force against unflagged vessels laden with cocaine. The rationale behind this legal stance is that drug cartels utilize the profits from these drugs to fund violence, thereby placing the U.S. in a position of “armed conflict” with these organizations. Consequently, the memo posits that as a form of collective self-defense, the U.S. can destroy the cocaine on these boats to cut off the cartels' financial resources for acquiring weapons.
One of the most critical points for the administration, as previously reported by the Guardian, is the OLC memo's assertion that the likelihood of casualties aboard the boat does not render it an improper military target. This legal analysis is rooted in findings from the U.S. intelligence community, contained in a classified "statement of facts" annex to the OLC opinion, along with a National Security Presidential Memorandum (NSPM) dated July 25, authorizing military force against drug cartels. Although the specifics of these documents remain classified, it is understood that they include detailed information indicating that each drug boat carries approximately $50 million worth of cocaine.
Despite the administration's justification, the OLC memo has faced substantial criticism from external legal experts, primarily due to the lack of public evidence supporting the claim that drug cartels finance armed violence. Nevertheless, the Trump administration's explanation aligns with the parameters set by the OLC memo, providing a legal basis that could help them navigate potential congressional or criminal inquiries, particularly amid increasing scrutiny from lawmakers.
It is anticipated that Admiral Bradley, who now heads U.S. Special Operations Command as a three-star admiral, will reiterate this defense when he appears before key members of the House and Senate Armed Services Committees on Thursday morning. Until recently, Hegseth has been candid about the intentions behind the second strike, suggesting at various times that it is permissible to execute individuals affiliated with drug cartels. In a post on X, he remarked, “Every trafficker we kill is affiliated with a Designated Terrorist Organization,” aiming to deflect a Washington Post report alleging that he ordered the killing of survivors from the boat strike.
Hegseth later reinforced his position with a satirical book cover that depicted the animated children's character Franklin the Turtle targeting drug boats from a helicopter, humorously titled “Franklin Targets Narco Terrorists.” However, this portrayal diverges from the OLC memo's content, which strictly evaluates the legality of targeting boats rather than the individuals aboard them. Experts have pointed out that a military factory supplying an army might be deemed a legitimate military target, but the personnel working there would be considered civilians unless they are part of an active fighting force, making it illegal to kill them.