Since early September, the United States has conducted at least 22 declared military strikes against suspected drug-trafficking vessels off the coast of Central and South America.
Legal experts and international officials say the attack, which killed at least 86 people, broke the law and amounted to extrajudicial killings.
Recommended stories
list of 3 itemsend of list
But despite what scholars say is clear illegality, President Trump’s deadly campaign shows little sign of slowing, and critics see an alarming shift in the use of military force against criminal activity.
Ben Sole, the United Nations special rapporteur on counter-terrorism and human rights, told Al Jazeera in a telephone interview that he was “absolutely shocked that the United States would do something like this.”
“This shows the Trump administration’s lack of respect for international law and convention regarding the use of force.”
This situation shows the tendency of powerful countries to suffer impunity. While there may be broad consensus that President Trump is violating international law, it is unclear what legal or political mechanisms could stop his bombing campaign.
“Certainly, trying to rein in a superpower like the United States is very difficult,” Saul said. “This has to stop from within the United States.”
“The guardrails are being eroded.”
Experts say the causes of surveillance can come from a variety of sources.
On the domestic front, the U.S. Congress has the power to pass laws prohibiting military attacks or reducing funding for military attacks.
Military personnel involved in the attack may also refuse to carry out orders deemed illegal.
Foreign leaders could limit or suspend intelligence cooperation with the United States.
But so far, there has been little meaningful restraint on the Trump administration.
The U.S. Senate has twice previously voted to reject legislation that would have required the White House to seek Congressional support for the bombing campaign.
The first bill failed by a 51-48 vote in October, and the second bill failed by a 51-49 vote in November.
On the international front, there are reports that Britain and Colombia are considering whether to stop sharing information from the Caribbean with the United States.
But officials from both countries have downplayed these reports, with Colombian Interior Minister Armando Benedetti calling the situation a “misunderstanding.”
Other mechanisms aimed at assessing the legality of the Trump administration’s military actions are also facing political pressure.
News outlets including CNN and NBC News reported that U.S. military lawyers (known as Judge Advocates General, or JAG officials) who questioned the legality of the bombing campaign were removed or fired.
Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth previously said he did not want military lawyers to become an “obstacle” to President Trump’s policies.
“If you want to break the law, military lawyers are just an obstacle,” said Sarah Harrison, an analyst at International Crisis Group.
Mr. Harrison previously served as deputy general counsel for the Department of Defense, advising the military on international law issues. He said the Trump administration is deliberately weakening institutional norms and legal safeguards to prevent the abuse of military force.
“They established a blueprint directing the military to carry out illegal orders without resistance,” she said.
“Internal guardrails are being eroded.”
“Unlimited privileges”
However, there are numerous laws that prohibit extrajudicial killings, such as those President Trump is currently carrying out in the Caribbean and the Eastern Pacific.
For example, Article 2 of the United Nations Charter primarily prohibits states from using force internationally, except in acts of self-defense.
The Geneva Conventions, the basis of humanitarian law, also prohibit military violence against “persons not taking an active part” in hostilities.
The Trump administration’s use of “double tap” attacks (a second attack to kill survivors of the first attack) raises additional legal concerns.
The Hague Convention specifically prohibits the “no quarter” policy of ordering soldiers to execute potential prisoners of war.
Nevertheless, the Trump administration denied that the attack violated international or domestic law.
Instead, they claim that the ships they bombed were loaded with deadly drugs, that drug traffickers are “illegal combatants,” and that transporting drugs constitutes an attack on the United States.
“Our current operations in the Caribbean are lawful under both U.S. and international law, and all actions are fully compliant with the laws of armed conflict,” Pentagon spokesman Sean Parnell said in a statement.
“Lawyers up and down the chain of command have been thoroughly involved in reviewing these operations prior to execution.”
But legal scholars say the administration’s claims are baseless.
Rebecca Ingber, a professor at Yeshiva University’s Cardozo School of Law and a former adviser to the U.S. State Department, said the Trump administration is trying to erase the distinction between criminal acts and armed attacks that justify a military response.
She compared the administration’s reasoning to the kind of gibberish legal analysis that an AI assistant like Grok might produce.
“It feels to me like some political actors within the executive branch have taken all the statements and memos regarding use of force over the past 25 years, jumbled up the words, threw them in the glock, and asked us to make a legal argument,” Ingber said.
“They think they can freely throw around words like ‘armed conflict’ and ‘terrorist’ and that labeling someone as such gives them unlimited power,” she added.
flexible parliament
Trump is not the first president to raise concerns about the use of widespread military force.
After the September 11, 2001 attacks, presidents including George W. Bush and Barack Obama conducted military strikes in countries such as Iraq, Afghanistan, Somalia, and Yemen as part of the global “war on terror.”
Both men took advantage of the barely enacted Congressional Authorization for Military Force (AUMF) in response to the September 11th attacks.
These recognitions applied to a growing list of organizations and disputes over time.
But critics say this increased use of military force has expanded the president’s powers beyond constitutional limits and weakened oversight and transparency.
President Trump continues the trend of presidents sending in the military without Congressional approval.
Normally, the power to declare war and authorize military action rests with Congress, not the president, and Congress retains the power to restrain the president’s military deployment.
But many conservative lawmakers are hesitant to stand up to Trump, who maintains a firm grip on the Republican Party. Some accept the government’s portrayal of the airstrikes as an anti-drug campaign.
Only two Republican senators, Rand Paul of Kentucky and Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, voted with Democrats on the latest attempt to stop the boat bombings.
“There are entrepreneurs on the right who are happy to criticize the administration when it pursues interventionist policies, from bombing Iran to a possible attack on Venezuela,” said Kurt Mills, director of American Conservative, a magazine that advocates for a more restrained foreign policy.
“But Congress is weak. Its influence over foreign policy is at an historic low.”
“There is no limiting principle.”
Given the reluctance of most Republicans to assert Congressional authority, some experts expressed hope that voters would send lawmakers to Congress who would exercise greater control over military attacks overseas.
But so far at least, the majority of voters do not seem particularly alarmed by the current strike.
In a CBS News poll last month, about 53% of respondents expressed support for attacking the alleged drug smuggling vessels, while 47% expressed disapproval.
Ingber, a professor at Yale University, speculates that decades of overseas military operations in the war on terror may have helped the public perceive the current air strikes as normal.
“This may already be a boiled frog, and the public is starting to accept the idea that the president will use force at his command,” Ingber said. “In this case, even for a criminal suspect who doesn’t even have the death penalty in this country.”
But if the “war on terror” has helped desensitize the public to the use of military force overseas, legal experts say the strikes mark a radical new development in the application of wartime powers to criminal activity.
“The president is asserting the power to kill anyone he accuses of a crime, no questions asked,” said Annie Seale, US director of the advocacy group Civilian Center for Conflict (CIVIC).
“There’s no limiting principle there. So the risks are very high for people in the United States and around the world.”
