US strikes on ‘Venezuela drug boats’: are they legal?

US officials say they carried out a number of attacks on boats in the Caribbean Sea, killing several drug traffickers.

President Donald Trump announced the first of these operations in September, saying his forces had destroyed a ship that had left Venezuela. He said the boat was operated by the Tren de Aragua cartel and was carrying drugs destined for the United States.

Similar announcements have followed in recent weeks, accompanied by grainy footage but no evidence of the alleged drug trafficking and few details about who or what was on board each ship.

Trump officials say they were acting in self-defense by destroying boats carrying illegal drugs to the United States, but the strikes have drawn condemnation in the region.

In one case, the Colombian president said the boat struck by the United States was not Venezuelan, but “Colombian with Colombian citizens inside” — something the White House denied.

After the first strike, BBC Verify spoke to a range of experts in international and maritime law, several of whom said the US may have acted unlawfully by attacking the ship.

The United States is not a signatory to UNCLOS, but US military legal advisers have previously said that the US Should “act in a manner consistent with its provisions”.

Under the agreement, countries agree not to interfere with ships operating in international waters. There are limited exceptions to this that allow a state to seize a ship, such as “hot pursuit” where a ship is pursued from state waters onto the high seas.

Professor Luke Moffitt of Queen’s University Belfast said: “Force can be used to stop a boat, but generally these should be non-lethal measures.”

Professor Moffitt added that the use of aggressive tactics must be “reasonable and necessary for self-defense where there is an immediate threat of serious injury or loss of life to law enforcement officials,” noting that the US moves were likely “unlawful under the law of the sea.”

Experts also questioned whether the killing of alleged members of the Tren de Aragua cartel could contravene international law on the use of force.

Under Article 2(4) of the UN Charter, states can resort to force when under attack and deploy their military forces for self-defense. Trump had previously accused the Tren de Aragua cartel of waging an irregular war against the United States, and the State Department accused Classifying the group as a foreign terrorist organization.

After the first strike, Professor Michael Baker of Trinity College Dublin told BBC Investigation that the US action “stretches the meaning of the term beyond breaking point”.

Professor Baker said: “The fact that US officials describe the individuals killed in the US raid as drug terrorists does not turn them into legitimate military targets.” He added, “The United States is not involved in an armed conflict with Venezuela or the Tren de Aragua criminal organization.”

Professor Moffitt added: “Categorizing everyone as terrorists does not make them a legitimate target and enables states to bypass international law.”

A memo sent to the US Congress, which was leaked, reportedly stated that the Trump administration had determined that the US was in a “non-international armed conflict” with drug cartels.

In response to the fifth strike in October, Professor Mary Ellen O’Connell at Dyme University School of Law told the BBC: “No reliable facts or legal principles have emerged to justify these attacks.”

“The only law relevant to peace is international law, which is the law of treaties, human rights and the state,” Professor O’Connell wrote in an emailed statement.

But US officials, including Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, defended the measure, which was welcomed by Republicans in Congress.

In response to a question about the strike itself, a White House official told BBC Verified that Trump authorized it to be carried out after the boat left Venezuela with members of the Tren de Aragua on board. The official added that the president is committed to using all means to prevent drugs from reaching the United States.

The Pentagon declined to share the legal advice it obtained before carrying out the strike.

In one of the attacks on October 16, there were two survivors – a Colombian and an Ecuadorian, who the US government says have been returned to their home country “for detention and trial.”

Questions have also been raised about whether the White House complied with US law in authorizing the strikes. The US Constitution stipulates that Congress alone has the authority to declare war.

However, Article II – which defines the president’s powers – states that “the President is Commander-in-Chief of the Army,” and some constitutional experts have suggested that this gives the president the authority to authorize strikes on military targets. Trump administration sources have previously cited this provision when defending US strikes on Iran.

But it is unclear whether this provision extends to the use of force against non-state actors such as drug gangs.

Rumen Cholakov, an expert on US constitutional law at King’s College London, told BBC Investigation that since 9/11, US presidents have relied on the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) law when carrying out strikes against groups responsible for attacks.

“Its scope has been continually expanded in subsequent administrations,” he added. “It is not immediately clear that drug cartels like Tren de Aragua would be within the president’s authority to use the AUMF, but that may be what the narco-terrorists are implying.”

Questions also remain about whether Trump has complied with the War Powers Resolution, which requires the president “in every practicable case to consult with Congress before bringing the armed forces of the United States into hostilities.”

Although some Republicans in Congress have concerns about the strikes, the Senate rejected a resolution in October that would have required the Trump administration to obtain congressional approval before any further attacks.

The Venezuelan government responded to the strikes with anger. Its president, Nicolas Maduro, denies US accusations that he is involved in drug trafficking.

These strikes come amid reports that the United States has deployed naval warships to the region to support anti-drug operations against Venezuela.

Using satellite imagery, images from social media, and information from publicly available ship tracking devices, we identified 14 U.S. military vessels in the area.

These include guided missile destroyers and amphibious assault ships.

We have also identified a number of military aircraft and drones in Puerto Rico.

Trump also admitted in October that he had authorized the CIA to conduct the investigation Covert operations in Venezuela

The president – who has long sought to oust Maduro – has agreed to a $50 million reward for any information leading to his arrest. The Venezuelan leader declared victory in last year’s elections, which international observers widely considered fraudulent.

Additional reporting by Lucy Gilder