“A War on Cartels”: An Analysis of the Legal Justification for 2025 U.S. Maritime Strikes

Introduction

Since September 2025, the United States military, under the direction of the Trump administration, has conducted a series of kinetic strikes against maritime vessels in the Caribbean Sea and Eastern Pacific. The administration has stated these operations target “narcoterrorists”—specifically, drug cartels designated as Foreign Terrorist Organizations (FTOs), including the Venezuelan gang Tren de Aragua. These strikes, which have resulted in dozens of deaths, represent a significant escalation from traditional counter-narcotics operations, which typically fall under a law enforcement framework of interdiction and arrest.

This policy has ignited a significant constitutional and international controversy. Your question—why a clear legal justification is not being provided—is the central issue being debated by Congress, legal scholars, and the international community. The administration has put forward a rationale, but that rationale is itself the source of the conflict, as it challenges long-standing legal norms. This paper analyzes the justification the administration has offered and the primary reasons it is being contested as legally insufficient.

The Administration’s Stated Framework: From Law Enforcement to Armed Conflict

The administration’s legal rationale rests on a two-part framework intended to shift the paradigm from law enforcement to armed conflict.

  1. Designation of Cartels as FTOs: In January 2025, President Trump signed an executive order paving the way for Latin American drug cartels to be designated as “Foreign Terrorist Organizations.” This designation is the foundational step, equating criminal organizations primarily motivated by profit with politically motivated terrorist groups like al-Qaeda or ISIS.
  2. Declaration of a “Non-International Armed Conflict”: Following the FTO designation, the administration reportedly sent a memo to Congress asserting that the United States is in a “non-international armed conflict” (NIAC) with these designated “narcoterrorist” groups.

By invoking this framework, the administration claims the authority to use the laws of war. Under this interpretation, alleged drug traffickers are not treated as criminals entitled to due process (arrest, trial) but as “unlawful combatants” who can be targeted and killed with lethal military force. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth has publicly reinforced this view, stating that “narco-terrorists” will be treated “EXACTLY how we treated Al-Qaeda.”

Why This Justification Is Contested or “Missing”

The perception that a valid legal justification is absent stems from the fact that the administration’s framework is rejected by many legal experts and lawmakers as a violation of both domestic and international law.

1. Constitutional Challenges: Usurpation of War Powers

The most prominent domestic criticism is that the strikes violate the U.S. Constitution’s separation of powers.

  • Article I, Section 8: The Constitution explicitly grants Congress—not the President—the power to “declare War.”
  • War Powers Resolution of 1973: This law limits the president’s ability to commit U.S. forces to hostilities without congressional authorization. It allows the president to act unilaterally only in “a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces.”

Critics, including Senators Rand Paul and Tim Kaine, argue that drug trafficking, while a serious problem, does not constitute an “attack” that justifies bypassing Congress. They contend that the administration has unilaterally initiated a new war against non-state actors, thereby usurping congressional authority.

2. International Law: Sovereignty and Human Rights

The strikes are also widely viewed as violations of established international law.

  • Extrajudicial Killings: The UN human rights chief and legal groups like the New York City Bar Association have labeled the strikes “unlawful” and “extrajudicial killings.” International human rights law (such as the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, to which the U.S. is a signatory) prohibits the “arbitrary deprivation of life.” Critics argue that killing suspected criminals outside of a legally recognized armed conflict is a summary execution.
  • Law of the Sea: Traditional maritime law provides for stopping, boarding, and seizing vessels suspected of piracy or trafficking (a law enforcement action). It does not authorize their summary destruction by military airstrike.
  • Violation of Sovereignty: While many strikes occur in international waters, the focus on Venezuela—and the military buildup near its coast—is seen by many nations as a violation of the UN Charter, which prohibits the “threat or use of force” against the territorial integrity or political independence of another state.

3. Lack of Publicly-Available Evidence

A primary reason the justification is failing to gain traction is the administration’s refusal to provide public (or, according to some reports, even full congressional) evidence to support its claims. Lawmakers and the public have been demanding, but not receiving, proof that the specific vessels targeted were:

  1. In fact, carrying narcotics.
  2. Operated by members of the specifically designated FTOs.

Without this evidence, the administration’s claims that it is targeting “narcoterrorists” remain unsubstantiated assertions. This secrecy fuels suspicion that the policy is either based on flawed intelligence or that the counter-narcotics rationale is a pretext for a broader, undisclosed foreign policy objective, such as regime change in Venezuela.

Conclusion

The “missing” legal justification is, in fact, the central point of the entire controversy. The Trump administration has articulated a legal framework: that it is in an “armed conflict” with “narcoterrorists.” However, this justification is not being “provided” in a publicly accepted sense because it is a radical departure from established legal norms.

This framework is seen by critics as a unilateral attempt by the executive branch t. o declare a new type of war, bypassing the constitutional authority of Congress and violating foundational principles of international human rights law. The administration is choosing to act on this contested authority rather than submit to the legal and evidentiary scrutiny that Congress and the international community are demanding. Therefore, the “lack of justification” is not an oversight but a direct consequence of a policy that critics contend is operating outside the bounds of established domestic and international law.

You are correct to point that out. There is a significant discrepancy between that claim and the facts reported by U.S. government agencies and drug trafficking experts.

While President Trump and his administration have publicly justified the recent military strikes on boats as a way to stop “narcoterrorists” from bringing drugs, including fentanyl, to the U.S., the evidence does not support this.1

Here is a breakdown of the facts based on publicly available reports:

1. Fentanyl’s Main Source is Not Venezuela2

According to the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) and the U.S. State Department, Venezuela is not a producer or a primary transit country for fentanyl destined for the United States.3

  • Primary Source: The DEA’s 2025 National Drug Threat Assessment clearly identifies Mexico as the main source of illicit fentanyl.4
  • How it’s Made: The report states that Mexican cartels (primarily Sinaloa and Jalisco) synthesize the fentanyl in “clandestine laboratories” using precursor chemicals sourced from China.5
  • How it Enters the U.S.: The overwhelming majority of fentanyl is trafficked by land across the U.S. southwest border, often at official ports of entry.6

2. The Caribbean Route’s Primary Drug is Cocaine

The maritime routes in the Caribbean that the administration is targeting are known for trafficking other drugs, not fentanyl.

  • Main Drug: This route is primarily used to smuggle cocaine (produced in Colombia) and marijuana.
  • Main Destination: According to security analysts, a large portion of the drugs on this specific route is destined for Europe and West Africa, not the United States.7 The primary U.S.-bound cocaine route is in the Pacific Ocean.

3. Lack of Public Evidence

A major point of contention, as I noted in the paper, is that the administration has not provided any public evidence to prove the boats it destroyed were carrying any drugs at all, much less fentanyl.

In short, your skepticism is well-founded. Reports from the administration’s own agencies (the DEA and State Department) and independent experts contradict the claim that these specific maritime strikes are stopping the flow of fentanyl into the United States.8