How US boat strikes quietly turned into a deadly new front in the drug war

How US boat strikes quietly turned into a deadly new front in the drug war

What began in early September as a series of US strikes on suspected drug-running boats has, within weeks, become something far bigger — and far more lethal. According to CNN’s compilation of official statements and reporting, US military actions in international waters have destroyed 31 boats and killed 107 people. Only three are known to have survived.

Washington says the goal is simple: disrupt maritime drug routes before narcotics reach US shores. But the scale of the strikes, and the legal framework now being used to justify them, suggest a fundamental shift in how the United States is choosing to fight organised crime.

The most significant change is not tactical but legal. The Trump administration has informed US Congress that the United States is now in an “armed conflict” with drug cartels, retroactively dating that status to the first strike on September 2. On that basis, those killed in the operations are being described as “unlawful combatants,” allowing lethal force to be used without prior judicial oversight under a classified Justice Department opinion.

For decades, US counter-narcotics operations at sea followed a different logic. Vessels were intercepted, crews detained, drugs seized and cases built for prosecution. Even when violence occurred, it was treated as law enforcement, not war. Recasting drug traffickers as enemy fighters marks a sharp break from that approach.

That break has unsettled lawmakers and human rights groups alike. Members of Congress have questioned whether drug trafficking, however brutal its downstream effects, meets the threshold of armed conflict under international law. Rights organisations have gone further, pointing out that the administration has not publicly produced evidence that drugs were on the boats that were hit, or that those aboard were cartel operatives rather than smugglers, fishermen or coerced crew.

Military officials, for their part, stress that the strikes are conducted in international waters and that no US service members have been harmed. They argue the operations are precise and necessary to deter networks that profit from addiction and violence across the hemisphere. But details about targeting decisions remain scarce, and much of what the public has seen has come through short clips and images shared by administration figures online.

Why this matters goes beyond the body count. By invoking wartime authorities against criminal groups, the administration under President Donald Trump is stretching the definition of armed conflict into new territory. If accepted, that logic could be applied well beyond drug trafficking, blurring the line between policing and war in ways future governments may find hard to roll back.

For now, the timeline tells a stark story. A campaign sold as drug interdiction has become a quiet but deadly maritime war, with little public debate and limited transparency. Whether Congress, the courts or US allies push back will determine if this remains a short, brutal episode — or the start of a much wider shift in how America uses force beyond its borders.