When the military becomes law enforcement: the legal architecture behind killing without trial

On the night of September 1, 2025, a US Navy vessel in the Caribbean Sea fired on a small boat. Eleven people died. The Pentagon called them narco-terrorists. Colombia and Venezuela called the killings extrajudicial. That dispute remains unresolved. It is not what this article is about.

The question that matters is the one that preceded the shot: what legal category those eleven people occupied in the instant before the strike. That decision was not made by a court, not by a judge reviewing a warrant, not by any juridical institution. It was made months earlier in Washington — through an executive order signed on inauguration day, State Department designations published in February, and a formal notification to Congress, submitted in October, asserting that the United States was engaged in a “non-international armed conflict” with drug-trafficking organizations designated as foreign terrorist organizations.

The United States has built one of the most elaborate criminal justice architectures in the world. Centuries of doctrine govern what the state must prove before it may take a life: due process, the right to be charged, confronted with evidence, and tried by a court that can evaluate the specific claim against the specific person. None of that framework applied in the Caribbean on September 1. Not because it was suspended. Because the administration’s legal theory holds it was never applicable — that the people on that boat were not criminal suspects eligible for arrest and trial but enemy combatants subject to military targeting rules, and that this categorization had been settled before anyone was shot, quietly, by the executive branch alone, without judicial participation.

The question is how that became the legal position of the United States government — and what it means that no federal court has been permitted to say whether it can be.

The campaign

By May 8, 2026 — eight months after that first strike — the United States military had killed at least 205 people in at least 62 strikes on 63 vessels across the Caribbean Sea and Eastern Pacific Ocean. The campaign is called Operation Southern Spear, conducted by Joint Task Force Southern Spear under SOUTHCOM command. Its stated purpose is to detect, disrupt, and degrade transnational criminal and illicit maritime networks. Seven of the dead are listed as missing and presumed dead. One US servicemember has died: Lance Corporal Chukwuemeka E. Oforah, who fell overboard during a mission on February 7, 2026.

Not a single individual among those 205 has been charged with a crime. No court has reviewed any targeting decision. No independent body has verified any allegation against any specific person killed. The Defense Department has not publicly identified any of the dead in any public document.

The anonymity is not a bureaucratic failure. It is the system working as designed. Military targeting identifies categories of persons — membership in a designated enemy force — not individual guilt established through evidence. The categories that placed those 205 people in the target set were determined by administrative decision in Washington, not by investigation of specific individuals. What any person on any specific boat had done, or knew, or intended, was not part of the targeting calculus. It could not have been, because the targeting system has no mechanism to assess it. The government’s targeting procedure does not require it to know who it has killed, and no external mechanism compels it to find out.

A Guardian investigation published on May 15, 2026 identified approximately thirteen of the victims. Among those it could identify, it found no evidence of drug trafficking involvement. The investigation acknowledged that some victims may have had some connection to the drug trade — these networks are real and they employ people with varying degrees of knowledge and participation. But the investigation’s core finding was stark: the US government had provided no evidence against any of the more than two hundred people it killed. The government was not required to provide any. The targeting procedure does not demand it.

In October 2025, Senators Adam Schiff and Tim Kaine sponsored a resolution to require congressional approval for continued strikes. The Senate voted 51-48 to defeat it. A second resolution failed in November 2025. The administration did not request and did not receive any formal congressional authorization. It characterized authorization as unnecessary. Throughout the operation, its language has been consistent: “narco-terrorists,” “unlawful combatants,” strikes that Hegseth has called “approved by the best military and civilian lawyers, up and down the chain of command.” The approval is asserted, not demonstrated, and the only institution that has assessed the strikes’ legality is the same institution conducting the strikes.

The dairy farm

Beginning March 3, 2026, US and Ecuadorian forces conducted a joint operation in the Cascales Canton region along the Colombia-Ecuador border. Both governments characterized the target as a compound belonging to Comandos de la Frontera, a FARC dissident group accused of drug smuggling. The New York Times reported on March 24, based on on-the-ground investigation, that the target was a cattle and dairy farm. Ecuadorian soldiers interrogated farmworkers, burned their shelters with gasoline, and destroyed two nearby homes. Three days later, helicopters returned and dropped explosives on the remains. Military forces found no weapons and no material linking the location to guerrilla operations or drug trafficking. A coalition of Ecuadorian human rights groups filed a complaint with the United Nations. No formal investigation has been announced by either government, and neither has attributed the strike to error.

The dairy farm is not incidental. It is evidence. The administration's case for replacing criminal procedure with military targeting rests implicitly on precision — on the claim that military intelligence can identify the correct target reliably enough to justify the substitution. The evidentiary standards of criminal procedure exist in part because identifying the correct target is genuinely difficult, and because errors need a mechanism to be caught and corrected. Cascales Canton demonstrates what happens without that mechanism: a dairy farm is bombed, farmworkers are interrogated and have their shelters burned, and the governments responsible call the target a guerrilla compound until a newspaper investigates otherwise.

The architecture — how the killing became legal

The legal chain that makes the strikes asserted as lawful has five discrete links, each individually defensible under some legal interpretation, and the chain as a whole has never been adjudicated by any court.

On January 20, 2025, Trump signed Executive Order 14157, titled “Designating Cartels and Other Organizations as Foreign Terrorist Organizations and Specially Designated Global Terrorists.” The order directed the Secretary of State to designate major drug-trafficking organizations as foreign terrorist organizations under Immigration and Nationality Act Section 219.

On February 20, 2025, Secretary of State Rubio published eight designations in the Federal Register: the Sinaloa Cartel, Cártel de Jalisco Nueva Generación, Cártel del Noreste (formerly Los Zetas), Gulf Cartel, La Nueva Familia Michoacana, Carteles Unidos, Tren de Aragua, and MS-13. Under INA §219, the Secretary must find that an organization (a) is foreign, (b) engages in terrorist activity or terrorism, and (c) threatens US nationals or national security. The designation requires no judicial approval. There is no substantive judicial review of the Secretary’s determination. The executive branch designates; no external institution checks whether the statutory criteria were actually met.

The first strike on a vessel occurred September 1-2, 2025. The War Powers Resolution requires presidential notification within 48 hours of committing forces to hostilities. On October 2, 2025 — thirty-one days after that first strike — Trump formally notified Congress under 50 U.S.C. §1543 that the United States was engaged in a “non-international armed conflict” with the FTO-designated drug trafficking organizations. Under international humanitarian law, a NIAC triggers the laws of armed conflict rather than the criminal law and human rights paradigm that governs law enforcement. In the administration’s framing, this made the people on those boats not criminal suspects entitled to arrest and trial but members of an organized armed group in armed conflict with the United States — lawful military targets. The administration has not explained the thirty-one-day gap between first strike and notification. Just Security’s contemporaneous legal analysis documented the notification’s procedural flaws in detail. No member of Congress formally challenged the timing.

Congress voted against requiring its approval twice — 51-48 in October 2025, and 51-49 in November. The administration did not seek a new Authorization for Use of Military Force. It did not seek a declaration of war. The Department of Justice told Congress in November 2025 that presidential approval for the strikes does not require congressional authorization. An internal OLC legal memorandum supporting the strikes’ legality exists. Its content has not been publicly released.

The circuit closes: the executive designates the target class, with no judicial review; declares the conflict, with no judicial approval required; authorizes the force under Article II; and assesses its own legality through OLC, whose conclusions remain classified. Every node in the circuit is within the same branch. There is no external check. No federal court has ruled on whether individuals operating in service of FTO-designated organizations in international waters are lawful military targets under the laws of armed conflict. The structural reason is that courts need a plaintiff with standing. The targets are dead. Their families face justiciability barriers built by prior drone-strike case law specifically to defeat exactly this kind of challenge.

The OLC memo tradition

The Office of Legal Counsel produces formal opinions on the legality of executive actions. In practice, OLC opinions function as authorization: if OLC says the executive branch can do something, it proceeds. No external review occurs unless litigation eventually forces disclosure.
The al-Awlaki targeting memo is the specific precedent. Produced around 2010-2011, authorizing the killing of Anwar al-Awlaki — a US citizen and alleged Al Qaeda operational leader — it remained classified until June 2014, when it was released under court order following ACLU FOIA litigation in ACLU v. DOJ. The public learned what legal theory justified killing an American citizen three years after the killing. That structure — OLC opinion, classified; no external review; disclosure contingent on litigation that may take years and may never reach the merits — governs the cartel strikes today, with one additional feature: the OLC memo justifying Operation Southern Spear has not been released at all.

The law being bypassed

The administration’s legal theory works by substitution, not argument. It does not claim that the Law of the Sea, international humanitarian law, or US domestic law permit what is being done. It claims that a different legal regime — the laws of armed conflict — has been activated, making those frameworks simply inapplicable. To understand what was displaced, look at what each framework actually says.

UNCLOS governs maritime jurisdiction. Under Article 110, warships have the right to board foreign vessels on the high seas only in specific enumerated cases: suspected piracy, the slave trade, unauthorized broadcasting, and vessels without nationality. Drug trafficking is not on the list. This is not a gap or oversight. It reflects a deliberate drafting decision to keep maritime drug interdiction within the criminal law paradigm. Article 108 exhorts states to cooperate in suppressing narcotics trafficking on the high seas but creates no unilateral boarding right and no authority to use lethal force. It is an instruction to cooperate, not a grant of force authority. The 1988 Vienna Convention against Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs established the bilateral consent system for boarding drug-suspected vessels — flag-state permission, not unilateral action.

The lawful sequence under UNCLOS for maritime drug interdiction is: board, arrest, bring to port, charge, try. UNCLOS contains no provision for destroying a vessel and killing its occupants. The administration has not argued that UNCLOS permits the strikes. It has argued that UNCLOS does not govern — that the armed conflict declaration replaces the maritime law enforcement regime with a different ruleset entirely. The UNCLOS framework is not defeated on its own terms. It is erased by declaration.

Stateless vessels

Many vessels targeted in Operation Southern Spear lacked flag registration. UNCLOS Article 110 permits warships to board stateless vessels, and the administration has occasionally cited this authority. The citation is accurate and beside the point. Boarding authority is not killing authority. UNCLOS permits boarding a stateless vessel to investigate its status. Even if drug trafficking is confirmed, the Convention does not authorize destroying the vessel or killing the occupants. There is no provision in UNCLOS for lethal force against stateless vessels — the Convention specifies no such authority regardless of flag status. Even if every targeted vessel in Operation Southern Spear was stateless, UNCLOS would still provide no basis for killing rather than arresting their occupants, and the administration has never argued otherwise.

International humanitarian law applies only to armed conflicts. The administration’s entire theory rests on the claim that an armed conflict exists. Under the test established by the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia in Prosecutor v. Tadić (1995), a non-international armed conflict requires two independent criteria: an organized armed group and sustained armed violence of sufficient intensity. An FTO designation satisfies neither.

The intensity criterion requires that violence exceed sporadic or isolated acts of criminality. Drug trafficking violence kills tens of thousands of people annually. It is catastrophic in human terms, and its victims are real. But it is directed at rival criminal organizations, at law enforcement incidentally, and at civilians caught between competing networks. It does not constitute sustained military operations against a state’s armed forces. Even the worst cartel violence is not organized military pressure on a state — it is organized criminal pressure on a market.

The organization criterion is similarly unmet. Cartels are sophisticated, durable, and operationally complex. Their command structures are organized for profit and territorial criminal control, not for military operations aimed at defeating or overthrowing a state. Organization for crime is not organization for armed conflict in the sense IHL was designed to address. The ICRC’s position — consistent with the prevailing scholarly consensus — is that an FTO designation does not itself create a NIAC. The factual criteria of intensity and organization must be established independently of administrative determination. Calling an organization a terrorist organization does not make engaging with it an armed conflict.

None of this is a fringe position.

The expert consensus on Operation Southern Spear has not been ambiguous. UN Human Rights Experts — Special Procedures mandate holders, not the Human Rights Council, which is a separate political body and has not formally acted — characterized the strikes as extrajudicial executions in a statement on October 21, 2025. Human Rights Watch concluded in a December 2025 Q&A that the strikes violate international human rights law. Mary Ellen O’Connell of Notre Dame Law argued in The Conversation on September 5, 2025 that the first Caribbean strike violated the human right to life — her argument is grounded specifically in ICCPR Article 6, not a vague appeal to international principles. Luis Moreno Ocampo, the ICC’s founding chief prosecutor, told NPR on December 6, 2025 that the strikes “could be clearly crimes, war crimes and crimes against humanity.” Charlie Trumbull at the University of South Carolina School of Law wrote in Lawfare on December 16, 2025 that the strikes constitute crimes against humanity, grounding the charge in their widespread and systematic character and noting the parallel to the ICC case against former Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte.

If the laws of armed conflict don’t apply — and the expert consensus is that they don’t — then international human rights law governs, unreplaced and undefeated. Under IHRL and the 1990 UN Basic Principles on the Use of Force and Firearms by Law Enforcement Officials, lethal force is permissible “only when strictly unavoidable in order to protect life.” A strike that destroys a vessel with no attempt at boarding or arrest does not meet that standard. A second strike fired at survivors clinging to wreckage fails it comprehensively.

The second-strike allegation matters here not as a question of individual culpability but as evidence of what the operation’s claimed legal vetting looks like in practice. The Washington Post reported on November 28, 2025 that Hegseth had given verbal orders before the September 1-2 strike to kill all crew members, and that a second strike targeted survivors. Hegseth denied the account. The admiral overseeing the operation told lawmakers that Hegseth had made clear before the mission that the strikes should be lethal, but that he was not informed of survivors until after they were killed. The specific facts remain in dispute. What is not in dispute is that the administration has characterized no aspect of the strikes as a deviation from proper procedure. It characterizes all of them as legally vetted.

Under US domestic law, the Fifth Amendment prohibits depriving any person of life without due process. The administration’s answer is the drone program’s answer: persons killed as military targets in armed conflict are not being deprived of life through a law enforcement action — they are being killed in armed conflict, to which the Fifth Amendment applies differently, if at all, for non-citizens abroad. The cartel strikes target non-citizens abroad, which makes the Fifth Amendment claim structurally weaker still and judicial review even less accessible — not because the legal problem is smaller, but because standing barriers are higher. And the 2001 AUMF provided, however tenuously, a congressional imprimatur for the drone program. No equivalent exists for the cartel strikes. Congress did not authorize them. The administration did not ask.

The architecture’s prior tenant — drone strikes

The expectation that courts will eventually intervene is understandable. It is also, by existing precedent, wrong.

The targeted killing program under Bush and Obama — drone strikes against Al Qaeda members and affiliated forces, resting on classified OLC opinions and the 2001 AUMF — established the judicial doctrine that governs the current situation. On September 30, 2011, Anwar al-Awlaki, a US citizen and alleged operational leader of Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, was killed by drone strike in Yemen. No trial. No charge. His father had attempted to challenge the targeting in federal court before the killing occurred. Courts declined to rule on the merits.

In Al-Aulaqi v. Obama, Judge John Bates of the US District Court for the District of Columbia found the case non-justiciable in 2010, invoking the political question doctrine and standing barriers. Bates acknowledged explicitly that the ruling had “unsettling” implications — that some executive decisions to kill American citizens may be judicially unreviewable by design. Courts declined to say the drone program was lawful. They declined to say it was unlawful. They declined to engage with the merits at all.

That is the precise inheritance. Not that targeted killing is lawful. That courts will not determine whether it is lawful.

The DOJ white paper on targeted killing, leaked February 2013, established the executive’s self-stated criteria: imminent threat, capture infeasible, law-of-war compliance. The executive certifies its own compliance. No external body has reviewed whether the criteria were met in any individual case. The OLC memo authorizing the al-Awlaki strike was classified until June 2014, released under court order following ACLU FOIA litigation in ACLU v. DOJ. Three years elapsed between the killing and the public’s opportunity to evaluate its legal basis. The OLC memo justifying the cartel strikes has not been released at all.

What Operation Southern Spear extends is both scale and constitutional structure. The drone program killed a US citizen, which made the Fifth Amendment claim live and the political controversy sharp. The cartel strikes target non-citizens abroad — at least 205 killed in nine months — which weakens the constitutional claim and raises standing barriers further.

What is constitutionally new is the legislative gap. The 2001 AUMF was congressional authorization — however broadly interpreted, however expansively applied to groups beyond Al Qaeda, Congress said something. A failed Senate vote to constrain the operation is not an authorization. A 51-48 vote against a resolution requiring approval is congressional inaction, not congressional approval. The executive is operating on the cover of that inaction. The self-authorization circuit is now complete in a way it was not during the drone program: one branch designated the target class, declared the conflict, authorized the force, and reviews its own legality. There is no external node. The executive authorized itself, and the legislature failed to object in the only way that would have counted.

What law enforcement actually produced

Conventional maritime drug interdiction — Campaign Martillo, its predecessors, a succession of operations under successive administrations — produced large absolute seizure volumes over decades and had no measurable long-term impact on US street prices or drug availability. The metric that matters for any program whose stated purpose is reducing drug supply to American consumers is not how much cocaine was seized in a given year but whether seizures affected the supply reaching US streets. By that measure, the programs failed. Price did not increase. Availability did not decrease. The cartels outlasted every enforcement strategy directed at them under the law enforcement model.

The fentanyl crisis — invoked constantly by the administration as justification — is largely unaffected by maritime strikes in the Caribbean and Eastern Pacific. The DEA’s 2024 National Drug Threat Assessment established that fentanyl enters the United States primarily through land ports of entry on the southwest border, transported in vehicles, by persons, and through commercial shipments. In 2024, synthetic opioids — primarily illicitly manufactured fentanyl — accounted for approximately 60 percent of all US drug overdose deaths, according to the CDC’s NCHS Data Brief 549, published January 2026. Total drug overdose deaths in 2024 numbered 79,384. Maritime drug interdiction in the Caribbean Sea and Eastern Pacific has essentially no bearing on any of those numbers. The geography closes the argument before it can fully open.

The structural failure of criminal prosecution is real, though, and should be stated plainly. Cartel-affiliated witnesses are killed. Prosecutors in affected countries operate under conditions of threat and corruption that are not overstated in summary. Evidence gathered at sea is legally fragile — chain-of-custody problems, jurisdictional complications, the practical difficulty of preserving admissible evidence in maritime conditions. Cartel leadership is distributed and replaceable: El Chapo’s conviction did not reduce cartel activity, it reorganized it. The administration is right that decades of law enforcement produced durable cartels.

But the argument from failure is an argument about effectiveness, not about rights. “The law enforcement approach didn’t work” establishes only that the law enforcement approach produced limited results. It does not establish that killing without trial is legal. The right to counsel is inefficient. The exclusionary rule is inefficient. The requirement to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt is inefficient. Constitutional requirements do not become optional because compliance is costly.

And the dairy farm rebuts the effectiveness argument’s internal logic. The case for military targeting over criminal procedure rests partly on precision — on the implicit claim that military intelligence is reliable enough to justify bypassing the evidentiary safeguards of criminal law. In Cascales Canton in March 2026, military intelligence identified a dairy farm as a FARC compound and dropped explosives on it. The evidentiary standards embedded in criminal procedure exist partly because identifying the correct target is genuinely difficult, and because errors need mechanisms to be caught and corrected. Removing those standards does not make targeting more accurate. It removes the mechanism by which inaccuracy would be caught.

The effectiveness argument is real, and the administration has benefited from keeping this debate centered on it. Whether military strikes reduce American overdose rates — and the geography suggests they don’t — is a question about outcomes. What was built to pursue the drug war is a different kind of question. That architecture does not name drug trafficking as its scope. It names a process.

The architecture doesn’t name drug cartels

Immigration and Nationality Act Section 219, stripped to its operative elements: the Secretary of State may designate any foreign organization as an FTO on finding that it is (a) foreign; (b) engages in terrorist activity or terrorism; and (c) threatens US nationals or national security. “Terrorist activity” is defined in 8 U.S.C. §1182(a)(3)(B) to include any act the actor knows will endanger persons or property involving a weapon. The criteria do not mention drug trafficking, maritime operations, or cartel structure. The designation is an executive determination. There is no substantive judicial review.

Within Operation Southern Spear’s own operational record, the architecture’s scope beyond maritime drug trafficking has already been demonstrated.

The Cascales Canton strike in March 2026 targeted alleged FARC dissident positions on land — a politically organized armed movement, not drug traffickers on boats. The applicable legal predicate is identical to every maritime strike: FTO designation plus NIAC declaration. FARC dissidents and maritime drug traffickers are different categories of person. The targeting framework does not require that distinction to be drawn. Both are, under the administration’s architecture, members of an FTO-designated organization in a declared armed conflict — and therefore, in that architecture, targetable. The individual characteristics that would matter in a criminal proceeding — intent, role, knowledge, specific acts — are irrelevant to military targeting analysis, which identifies categories of persons, not cases.

MS-13 was designated in the same February 2025 wave as the drug cartels. MS-13 is a street gang. It has no maritime drug-trafficking profile. Its designation places it in formally the same targeting category as the Sinaloa Cartel — same statutory criteria, same designation, same theoretical availability as a predicate for the armed conflict targeting framework. The administration has articulated no legal distinction between FTO-designated organizations subject to the cartel targeting architecture and FTO-designated organizations not subject to it, because INA §219 makes no such distinction.

The FTO list has expanded continuously since February 2025. Los Choneros and Los Lobos, Ecuadorian organizations, were designated in September 2025. Cartel de los Soles was designated in November 2025. Clan del Golfo was added in December 2025. Comando Vermelho and Primeiro Comando da Capital, both Brazilian, were designated in May 2026. The pace of expansion is consistent with an administration that understands the designation as the load-bearing mechanism — the designation activates the targeting authority, so expanding the designation list expands the pool of potential targets.

The structural conditions are unambiguous. Congress voted 51-48 not to require its approval. Courts have not reviewed targeting decisions, and the doctrine built in drone-strike litigation creates substantial barriers to any future judicial challenge. OLC assesses the legality of the executive’s own operations. Future administrations inherit this architecture regardless of their stated goals, because it exists, because no court has held it unlawful, and because no statute constrains it. Legal authorities do not come with expiration dates tied to the political context of their creation.

The name of the first target does not define the scope of the power. The legal authority assembled through Operation Southern Spear is not Sinaloa Cartel authority. It is designated-FTO-in-declared-armed-conflict authority. The Sinaloa Cartel is the first application of that authority. The criteria that define who can be added to that category — foreign, terrorist activity, threat to US nationals — are broad, are executive determinations, and admit no substantive judicial review.

The eleven people killed in the Caribbean on September 1, 2025 were placed in a legal category by a chain of executive decisions that no court approved and no court has since reviewed. An executive order. A State Department designation. A War Powers notification. An OLC memo, classified. Congress voted 51-48 not to object. By May 2026, that chain had produced at least 205 dead — not one charged, not one publicly identified, not one with access to any process in which the government’s claim against them could be tested.

What those eleven people were — drug traffickers, fishermen, something in between — remains unknown. The government never established it. The government was not required to. That is not a gap in the system. That is the system.

The legal architecture assembled here does not specify drug cartels. It specifies a process: designate, declare, target, self-assess. Drug cartels were the first application because they were the most defensible first application. Building political support for killing drug traffickers is straightforward. Building support for an unchecked executive authority to designate any foreign organization a terrorist group, declare an armed conflict with it, and subject its members to lethal force without congressional authorization, without judicial review, and without any mechanism for an individual to contest their categorization — that is considerably harder to build support for, which is precisely why the architecture was not introduced in that form.

The first application of a novel legal authority is always chosen carefully. It is chosen because it is the hardest to oppose, because it makes the architecture look like a reasonable response to a real problem. The architecture is not the response to the problem. The architecture is what the problem was used to build.

Gen AI 免責事項

このページの一部のコンテンツは、ジェネレーティブAIの助けを借りて生成・編集されたものです。.

メディア

Groups of U.S. Marines and Caribbean soldiers and police clash during riot control training as part of exercise Tradewinds 2011. – Wikipedia

主な情報源と参考文献

White House, “Designating Cartels and Other Organizations as Foreign Terrorist Organizations and Specially Designated Global Terrorists,” Executive Order 14157, January 20, 2025. whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/01/designating-cartels-and-other-organizations-as-foreign-terrorist-organizations-and-specially-designated-global-terrorists/

US State Department, “Designation of International Cartels,” Foreign Terrorist Organization designations effective February 20, 2025. state.gov/designation-of-international-cartels

US State Department, “Terrorist Designations of Los Choneros and Los Lobos,” September 2025. state.gov/releases/office-of-the-spokesperson/2025/09/terrorist-designations-of-los-choneros-and-los-lobos

US State Department, “Terrorist Designations of Cartel de los Soles,” November 24, 2025. state.gov/releases/office-of-the-spokesperson/2025/11/terrorist-designations-of-cartel-de-los-soles

US State Department, “Terrorist Designations of Clan del Golfo,” December 16, 2025. state.gov/releases/office-of-the-spokesperson/2025/12/terrorist-designations-of-clan-del-golfo

US State Department, “Terrorist Designation of Comando Vermelho and Primeiro Comando da Capital,” May 28, 2026. state.gov/releases/office-of-the-spokesperson/2026/05/terrorist-designation-of-comando-vermelho-and-primeiro-comando-da-capital

Washington Post, “U.S. in ‘armed conflict’ with drug cartels, Trump tells Congress,” October 2, 2025.

NBC News, “Trump has ‘determined’ the U.S. is in ‘armed conflict’ with cartels, administration tells Congress,” October 2, 2025. nbcnews.com/politics/national-security/trump-determined-us-armed-conflict-cartels-congress-notice-rcna235294

Just Security, “Flaws in the Trump Admin’s Notice to Congress on Armed Conflict with Drug Cartels.” justsecurity.org/121844/trump-notice-drug-cartels/

CNN, “Justice Department tells Congress Trump doesn’t need its approval for military strikes on alleged drug boats,” November 2, 2025. cnn.com/2025/11/02/politics/justice-department-tells-congress-trump-doesnt-need-its-approval-for-military-strikes-on-alleged-drug-boats

Task and Purpose, “Death toll from US strikes on suspected drug boats passes 200,” 2026 (citing DoD press releases and Philadelphia Inquirer, May 31, 2026; figures as of May 8, 2026).

The Guardian, investigation identifying approximately 13 victims of Operation Southern Spear, May 15, 2026.

New York Times, “The U.S. Said It Helped Bomb a Drug Camp. It Was a Dairy Farm,” March 24, 2026.

Newsweek, “Hegseth defends strikes on alleged drug boats in Caribbean as ‘lawful,'” November 2025. newsweek.com/hegseth-defends-strikes-on-alleged-drug-boats-in-caribbean-as-lawful-11128336

Washington Post, “Hegseth order on first Caribbean boat strike, officials say: Kill them all,” November 28, 2025.

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Health Statistics, “Drug Overdose Deaths in the United States, 2023-2024,” NCHS Data Brief No. 549, January 2026. cdc.gov/nchs/products/databriefs/db549.htm

Drug Enforcement Administration, “2024 National Drug Threat Assessment,” May 2024. dea.gov/sites/default/files/2024-05/NDTA_2024.pdf

UN Human Rights Experts (Special Procedures mandate holders), statement characterizing Operation Southern Spear strikes as extrajudicial executions, October 21, 2025.

Human Rights Watch, “Q&A: US Military Operations in the Caribbean, Pacific,” December 16, 2025. hrw.org/news/2025/12/16/qa-us-military-operations-in-the-caribbean-pacific

Human Rights Watch, “US: Other Countries Should Push Back on Lawless Executions at Sea,” December 9, 2025. hrw.org/news/2025/12/09/us-other-countries-should-push-back-on-lawless-executions-at-sea

Mary Ellen O’Connell, “US obliteration of Caribbean boat was a clear violation of international ‘right to life’ laws — no matter who was on board,” The Conversation, September 5, 2025. theconversation.com/us-obliteration-of-caribbean-boat-was-a-clear-violation-of-international-right-to-life-laws-no-matter-who-was-on-board-264568

Luis Moreno Ocampo, interview with Eyder Peralta, “Luis Moreno Ocampo, founding chief prosecutor of the ICC, examines war crimes,” NPR, December 6, 2025. npr.org/2025/12/06/nx-s1-5632610/luis-moreno-ocampo-founding-chief-prosecutor-of-the-icc-examines-war-crimes

Charlie Trumbull, “The Administration’s Drug Boat Strikes Are Crimes Against Humanity,” Lawfare, December 16, 2025. lawfaremedia.org/article/the-administration-s-drug-boat-strikes-are-crimes-against-humanity

ICRC, “How is the Term ‘Armed Conflict’ Defined in International Humanitarian Law?,” Opinion Paper, April 2024. icrc.org/en/document/icrc-opinion-paper-how-term-armed-conflict-defined-international-humanitarian-law

Al-Aulaqi v. Obama, 727 F. Supp. 2d 1 (D.D.C. 2010).

ACLU v. DOJ, No. 12 Civ. 794 (S.D.N.Y.); Second Circuit decision ordering disclosure of OLC targeted killing memo, April 21, 2014; memo released June 23, 2014. aclu.org/cases/aclu-v-doj-foia-case-records-relating-killing-three-us-citizens

Department of Justice, Office of Legal Counsel, “Lawfulness of a Lethal Operation Directed Against a U.S. Citizen Who is a Senior Operational Leader of Al-Qa’ida or An Associated Force” (memorandum, approximately July 2010; publicly released June 23, 2014).

Department of Justice, “Lawfulness of a Lethal Operation Directed Against a U.S. Citizen Who is a Senior Operational Leader of Al-Qa’ida or An Associated Force” (white paper, undated; published by NBC News, February 4, 2013).

International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia, Prosecutor v. Tadić, Case No. IT-94-1, Decision on the Defence Motion for Interlocutory Appeal on Jurisdiction, Appeals Chamber, October 2, 1995.

United Nations, Basic Principles on the Use of Force and Firearms by Law Enforcement Officials, adopted by the Eighth United Nations Congress on the Prevention of Crime and the Treatment of Offenders, 1990.