The US Southern Command has renewed attacks on what the Trump administration describes as “drug boats” — vessels it says cartels use to smuggle narcotics from Latin America toward the United States. Media reports say the strikes have sunk more than 50 ships since September 2025. The Guardian reports at least 177 suspects have been killed. The US government has not publicly produced evidence that the vessels carried illicit cargo or identified those killed. Several countries have condemned the strikes, with some alleging innocent fishers have been killed.
Human rights groups and legal experts have been sharply critical. Carlos Perez Ricart of Mexico’s Center for Economic Research and Teaching (CIDE) calls the strikes “extrajudicial killings.” The US rejects such charges, arguing the attacks comply with international law and amount to acts of self‑defense because cartel operations constitute an armed attack on the US.
In the run‑up to his second term, President Trump pursued formal designations to justify tough measures. He had earlier considered labeling cartels as foreign terrorist organizations but delayed at Mexico’s request; in February 2025 his administration did designate several criminal groups as terrorist entities, including Mexican cartels, El Salvador’s Mara Salvatrucha (MS‑13) and Venezuela’s Tren de Aragua. In December 2025, Trump also declared fentanyl a “weapon of mass destruction.” In October 2025, US outlets reported the administration regarded itself as engaged in a “non‑international armed conflict” with cartels and had labeled those killed in strikes as “unlawful combatants.” Legal scholars have questioned whether these classifications legally apply.
There is little dispute over the severe harm caused by drug trafficking. Tens of thousands of people die annually in the US from drugs originating in Latin America. Illicitly manufactured fentanyl has been the deadliest contributor to overdoses: the National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA) attributes nearly 70% of fatal US overdoses to fentanyl. Its potency — roughly 50 times that of heroin — has also prompted worries about weaponization; a notable example is the 2002 Russian use of an opioid derivative to end the Dubrovka theater hostage crisis.
Production patterns vary by drug. Illicit fentanyl and many psychostimulants are primarily produced in Mexico; most cocaine bound for the US originates in South America. Geographically, most of the deadly strikes have occurred in the Caribbean. That region is a frequent maritime route for drugs bound for Europe, while many US‑bound shipments use Pacific channels.
Assessments of the strikes’ effectiveness are mixed. Manuel Supervielle, a national security expert and former Southern Command lawyer, says smugglers have grown more cautious and believes many of the sunk boats were carrying drugs. Yet he stresses the fight need not be lethal: during his service, he recalls helicopter snipers disabling boat engines so coast guards could arrest crews and seize contraband. Alex Papadovassilakis of InSight Crime says the US has disrupted certain Caribbean routes, but that cocaine flow has not stopped; cartels can adapt and the US cannot sustain this level of military pressure indefinitely. Perez Ricart notes the street price of cocaine in US cities like New York and Los Angeles has not changed, casting doubt on long‑term impact.
Some analysts link broader geopolitical aims to the campaign. Victor M. Mijares, a political scientist at Universidad de los Andes, argues that removing Venezuela’s President Nicolás Maduro could more significantly reduce South American trafficking, citing evidence of regime links to drug networks. Manuel Supervielle suggests the strikes and legal framing may also serve to create political conditions favorable to Maduro’s ouster. Venezuela’s interim government, led by Delcy Rodríguez, says it is working professionally with the US, especially on opening Venezuela’s economy to US investors in sectors like oil; the country holds the world’s largest proven oil reserves.
Observers also question political motives closer to home. Perez Ricart argues that President Trump is focused on appealing to his domestic base, and Mijares says uniting the MAGA movement ahead of elections is likely a key consideration.
This article was translated from German.