ACLU Sues Pentagon, Says Caribbean Drug-Boat Strikes Violated US and International Law

A coalition of civil liberties organisations has filed a federal lawsuit against the Trump administration, seeking to compel the disclosure of the secret legal framework used to justify a series of lethal military strikes against suspected drug-trafficking vessels in the Caribbean.

The legal challenge, brought by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and the Centre for Constitutional Rights (CCR), argues that the Executive Branch has secretly rewritten the rules of engagement for counter-narcotics operations, effectively authorising extrajudicial killings without public oversight.

The Legal Challenge to Boat Strikes

The lawsuit targets the Department of Justice (DOJ), the Department of State, and the Department of Defense. The plaintiffs are utilising the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) to obtain a classified memorandum prepared by the DOJ's Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) regarding the strikes that occurred in September 2025.

Inside the government, the OLC acts as the final word on what the President can and cannot do. Its opinions provide a legal shield, allowing the administration to sideline standard regulations if the office decides a specific military action is constitutional. Keeping this analysis classified effectively creates a shadow legal code, one where drug trafficking suspects can be treated as enemy combatants without public scrutiny.

The ACLU argues that the release of the information is 'critically important to ensuring informed public debate about the US military's unprecedented strikes', which the group asserts were carried out 'in clear violation of domestic and international law'.

'The US military may not summarily kill civilians who are merely suspected of smuggling drugs,' the union added, noting that it is imperative that the government take 'non-lethal measures' before resorting to a more drastic action.

Boat Strike in the Caribbean Sea

On 2 September, the US launched airstrikes on a small Venezuelan boat in the Caribbean Sea suspected of trafficking drugs. There were 11 people aboard, but two individuals survived the first strike.

Surveillance footage reviewed by lawmakers reportedly depicts the aftermath. The two men were seen trying to stay afloat, appearing confused and distressed. Despite their incapacitated state, US forces launched a second strike approximately an hour later, killing both survivors.

This specific action has drawn accusations of war crimes. Under the Geneva Conventions, combatants who are hors de combat (out of the fight) due to injury or shipwreck are protected from attack.

Representative Jim Himes, a Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee who viewed the footage, condemned the decision. 'You have two individuals in clear distress, without any means of locomotion, with a destroyed vessel,' he stated. '[They] were not in the position to continue their mission in any way.'

A Shift in Rules of Engagement

While US military assets routinely patrol the region, the September strikes represent a paradigm shift. Historically, counter-narcotics operations involve naval forces stopping and boarding vessels to seize contraband and detain suspects for trial.

The decision to destroy the vessels from the air, rather than interdict them, suggests the administration has reclassified drug trafficking as an act of war rather than a criminal enterprise. This aggressive posture bypasses the judicial process entirely, replacing arrest warrants with Hellfire missiles.

Trump's Statement & Involvement in the Operation

President Donald Trump has offered conflicting accounts of his involvement. While Pentagon Press Secretary Kingsley Wilson confirmed that 'the President and the Secretary are the ones directing these strikes', Trump appeared to distance himself during a recent interview.

When asked by Politico whether the second strike on the survivors was necessary, the President replied: 'Uh, well, it looked like they were trying to turn back over the boat, but I don't get involved in that. That's up to them.'

However, he defended the broader strategy using a utilitarian argument. Trump praised Admiral Frank Mitchell, who oversaw the operation, and justified the lethal force by citing the potential harm caused by narcotics.

'We save 25,000 people every time we knock out a boat,' Turmp claimed. This statement implies a policy where the potential future harm of the drugs is used to legally justify the immediate use of lethal force against the smugglers, a novel and controversial legal theory that the ACLU is determined to expose.