Trump orders military to treat cartels as combatants—what that means for US law

Trump orders military to treat cartels as combatants

US President Donald Trump has escalated his use of military power by authorizing the summary killing of suspected drug smugglers at sea, blurring the line between law enforcement and warfare. The order, which targeted a boat in international waters, represents a dramatic expansion of presidential authority that legal experts say has little precedent in U.S. or international law, the New York Times reported.

From policing to war rules

Traditionally, counter-narcotics missions fall under law enforcement. The Coast Guard and Navy intercept suspected smugglers, who are arrested and prosecuted. Under wartime rules, by contrast, enemy combatants can be killed on sight. By labelling Latin American cartels as terrorist organizations, Trump has sought to reclassify drug traffickers as combatants, effectively granting the military authority to shoot first without due process. Critics argue that such redefinition bypasses both constitutional and statutory limits on presidential power.

Legal and ethical doubts

Specialists in the laws of war say the move may amount to murder under international standards the Pentagon itself has long recognized. Ryan Goodman, a former US Defense Department lawyer, said it was “difficult to imagine” how internal legal counsel could approve such an operation. Jeh Johnson, who oversaw controversial drone strikes during the Obama era, noted that Congress has never authorized the use of force against drug cartels, making Trump’s unilateral order “pretty extreme.” The legality hinges on whether suspected smugglers can truly be classified as combatants in an armed conflict.

The administration’s defence

White House officials insisted the strike was lawful, citing national interests and “collective self-defence” of nations harmed by cartel violence. Press secretary Anna Kelly emphasized that the action took place in international waters and did not endanger US troops. US Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth and Secretary of State Marco Rubio echoed Trump in vowing that such operations would continue. They argued that intelligence confirmed the vessel carried members of Venezuela’s Tren de Aragua gang and a shipment of narcotics.

Risks of faulty intelligence

Sceptics warn that relying on intelligence to justify lethal force carries grave risks, citing past tragedies. In 2001, Peru, acting on faulty U.S. intelligence, shot down a plane it believed carried smugglers but which in fact held American missionaries. Questions already surround Trump’s operation: conflicting accounts emerged about the boat’s destination, and U.S. intelligence does not back Trump’s claim that Venezuela’s government controls the gang involved. Such uncertainties raise the danger of wrongful killings that could amount to war crimes.

Escalating militarization

The strike is part of a broader pattern of Trump deploying the military in areas once off-limits. He has invoked a wartime deportation law, sent migrants to Guantánamo Bay, and dispatched federal troops to U.S. cities over local objections. A judge recently ruled that his use of troops in Los Angeles was illegal. Trump has long praised harsh anti-drug crackdowns abroad, even lauding Rodrigo Duterte of the Philippines, who now faces charges of crimes against humanity.

By claiming the authority to summarily kill suspected smugglers, Trump has pushed the boundaries of presidential power into legally fraught territory. The policy raises profound questions about due process, the rule of law, and the dangers of militarizing criminal enforcement. Whether courts, Congress, or the military itself will rein in this expansion remains uncertain, but the precedent could reshape how the United States wields force against non-state actors far from traditional battlefields.