Berlin, Germany (Weltexpress). President Trump is facing fierce criticism both domestically and internationally for his order to sink a civilian speedboat in international waters off the coast of Latin America on September 2, killing all eleven passengers because Trump suspected them of “drug terrorism.”
In a dramatic escalation of the fight against Latin American drug cartels, the Trump administration announced on September 2, 2025, that US forces had carried out a “kinetic strike” (air-to-surface missile) against a speedboat in international waters off the coast of South America, killing eleven suspected members of the notorious Venezuelan gang “Tren de Aragua.”
Legal basis and controversy
President Donald Trump described the action as a response to an “immediate threat” from “drug terrorists” transporting illegal drugs into the US. The mass killing on mere suspicion took place amid a massive US military build-up in the southern Caribbean, with seven warships, a nuclear-powered submarine, and over 4,500 soldiers and marines.
It was not without pride that Trump informed the public of his dubious “success” against “narcoterrorism” at a press conference in the Oval Office on September 2:
“We just shot down a drug-laden boat in the last few minutes… there were a lot of drugs on that boat.” On Truth Social, he posted a grainy video showing the explosion of a four-engine speedboat, but it remains unclear whether there were drugs on board. A Pentagon official confirmed the strike but remained silent about the weapon used—possibly a missile from a helicopter or an MQ-9 Reaper drone. He also provided no evidence of drugs or gang affiliation among the passengers killed on board.
Since then, the legal basis for the deadly attack remains unclear, which is why Trump is being heavily criticized by leading US lawyers and Democratic Party congressmen and senators for his alleged disregard for the US Constitution. Several politicians from Latin American countries have joined in this criticism because of Trump’s blatant violation of international law.
During a visit to Mexico City on September 3, Foreign Minister Marco Rubio initially stated that the drugs were “probably headed for Trinidad or another Caribbean country.” He later corrected himself, saying that the boat was on its way to the US, without providing any evidence. He invoked the president’s alleged powers as commander-in-chief, which supposedly allow for unprovoked attacks to eliminate “immediate threats” in international waters under “urgent circumstances.” “Instead of intercepting it (the boat), we destroyed it on the president’s orders,” Rubio said, adding that this would continue to happen in the future.
US Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth emphasized on “Fox & Friends”: “We knew exactly who was in that boat, what they were doing, and who they represented.” He threatened, “Anyone else operating in these waters as a designated narco-terrorist will suffer the same fate.” Trump claimed there were “tapes of their conversations” and visible drug bags, but neither recordings nor forensic evidence have been released.
The US government has designated “Tren de Aragua” a Foreign Terrorist Organization (FTO) since February 2025 and linked it to Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro, whom Washington accuses of being the puppet master behind the scenes and for whom the US has offered a $50 million bounty. The latest incident involving the speedboat follows a secret directive issued by Trump last July instructing the Pentagon to prepare military options against designated drug cartels.
The US threat posture now established in the Caribbean includes the following warships
- USS Erie – Ticonderoga-class guided missile cruiser, which entered the Caribbean via the Panama Canal a few days ago
- USS Iwo Jima – Wasp-class amphibious assault ship
- USS San Antonio – San Antonio-class amphibious transport dock
- USS Fort Lauderdale – San Antonio-class amphibious transport dock
- USS Gravely – Arleigh Burke-class guided missile destroyer with Aegis system (automated weapon and command system)
- USS Jason Dunham – Arleigh Burke-class guided missile destroyer with Aegis system
- USS Sampson – Arleigh Burke-class guided missile destroyer with Aegis system
Questionable legal basis for Trump’s kill order
1. Article II of the US Constitution
US Secretary of State Rubio and Pentagon chief Hegseth invoked the powers of the US president as commander-in-chief to combat “immediate threats” without congressional approval. US constitutional expert Rumen Cholakov told the BBC program “Verify” that this applies to military threats, but is questionable in the case of criminal activities such as drug trafficking. The War Powers Resolution of 1973 requires the president to inform Congress of hostilities within 48 hours and to withdraw troops deployed without authorization after 60 days. These conditions may have been “violated” in the present case.
2. Special rules dating back to September 11, 2001
The government could invoke the post-9/11 authorization to use military force, which allows force against al-Qaeda and affiliated groups. By classifying “Tren de Aragua” as “drug terrorists,” this could be claimed, but legal experts call this “implausible” because drug trafficking does not constitute an “armed attack.”
3. Self-defense under international law (UN Charter, Article 51)
Rubio spoke of “urgent circumstances” for unprovoked action. However, maritime law experts such as Luke Moffett emphasize that this violates the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea, which only allows “hot pursuit” or clear self-defense. The strike was disproportionate, as non-lethal means such as interception would have been possible.
4. Foreign Terrorist Organization (FTO) – status and regulations
The classification of “Tren de Aragua” as a terrorist organization under Executive Order 13224 allows for sanctions and seizures, but not lethal force. Furthermore, Trump’s July directive has no legal basis.
In summary, Trump’s order to destroy the civilian boat and eliminate its crew can, at best, be described as unnecessary, disproportionate, and highly problematic from a legal standpoint. Experts point out that under the U.S. War Crimes Act (18 U.S.C. § 2441), Trump’s strike was a war crime because it constituted “murder” of non-combatants, defined as the intentional killing of persons who “are not taking an active part in hostilities.” Drug traffickers are not combatants, and lethal force as a first resort violates international law. Without evidence of an armed attack, the strike was disproportionate and thus violated the War Powers Resolution. Trump’s opponents at home and abroad will use the situation to accuse him of the deliberate mass murder of civilians in violation of international law and thus of a crime against humanity.
Domestic political reactions in the US reveal party political divisions
As expected, criticism of Trump is particularly harsh on the Democratic side. Democratic Representative Adam Smith asked, “Does this mean that Trump believes he can deploy the military anywhere drugs exist? What is the risk of dragging the US into another conflict?” Former Pentagon lawyer Ryan Good called it “murder” or a war crime: “I can’t imagine any legal basis … it’s hard to imagine that this is not murder or a war crime under international law.”
However, it is unlikely that Trump will be prosecuted in the US. But Trump’s kill order is being discussed, especially by US Democrats, as a dangerous precedent for extrajudicial killings, who either have Alzheimer’s memory or deliberately fail to see the beam in their own eye. This is because none of the allegations now being made against Trump were heard during Obama’s term in office, even though the Nobel Peace Prize winner authorized mass drone killings (well over 1,000 according to US estimates) with his signature during his presidency. Even then, extrajudicial killings were carried out on suspicion alone, and the deaths of completely innocent people were accepted as collateral damage!
Internationally, there were even protests from the president of Colombia, Gustavo Petro, a friend of the US, who tweeted on X: “If this is true, it’s murder. We have been capturing drug traffickers for decades without killing them.” And Venezuela’s President Maduro accused the US of creating pretexts for regime change in his country.
