Using Labels, Not Law, to Justify Lethal Force: Inside the Venezuelan Boat Strike
By Mark Nevitt
Mark P. NevittMark P. Nevitt ( Bluesky - LinkedIn - X) Commander, JAGC (ret.) is an Associate Professor of Law at Emory University School of Law. He was previously the Class of 1971 Distinguished Military Professor of Leadership & Law at the United States Naval Academy in Annapolis, Maryland, Associate Professor at Syracuse University College of Law, and the Sharswood Fellow at the University of Pennsylvania Law School.
Published on September 5, 2025
President Donald Trump announced on Tuesday that the U.S. military had attacked an alleged drug vessel in international waters, killing what he described as 11 “terrorists” who he claimed were members of the Tren de Aragua gang from Venezuela. The strike, which appears to be unlawful under international and domestic law, marks a sweeping escalation and departure from the U.S. military’s approach to drug interdiction. Borrowing language from the post-9/11 “Global War on Terror,” the Trump administration is attempting to turn counternarcotics missions into counterterrorism operations. But applying a new label to an old problem does not transform the problem itself – nor does it grant the U.S. president or the U.S. military expanded legal authority to kill civilians.
The Trump administration’s description of the boat is not much different from any number of drug vessels and fast boats that attempt to evade U.S. authorities. As a former naval line officer and JAG who has both advised on the law of naval operations and witnessed firsthand how the Navy works with the Coast Guard to interdict suspected drug vessels, I can attest that the United States has longstanding law enforcement rules to deal with these situations. These rules have been in place for decades. Typically, such a boat would be intercepted and boarded, the drugs confiscated, and the people on board arrested and prosecuted. Longstanding law enforcement statutes and rules dictate that the Coast Guard takes the lead in maritime law enforcement operations, using well-established procedures to halt any suspected drug vessel. If the vessel refuses to comply, the Coast Guard may resort to firing warning shots and disabling fire. None of these escalation of force procedures were followed here—why?
This attack appears to have been led by U.S. special operations forces—not the U.S. Coast Guard. Rather than follow standard military procedures, the Defense Department, acting on the president’s orders, used an MQ-9 Reaper drone, run by special operators, or a military helicopter, to carry out the attack, killing everyone on board.
Remarkably, Secretary of State Marco Rubio told reporters in Mexico on Wednesday that, “Instead of interdicting it, on the president’s orders, we blew it up. And it’ll happen again. Maybe it is happening right now.” The decision to destroy and not interdict the alleged drug vessel, killing all civilians onboard, raises a host of questions and concerns. Brian Finucane has already done an expert job in outlining the core legal issues. Here, I want to explore the key operational concerns for the U.S. military, especially if these deadly strikes are going to continue, as the Trump administration promises.
Why Wasn’t the Coast Guard Involved?
As a legal matter, the Coast Guard is the primary maritime law enforcement agency of the United States, with broad authorities under the Maritime Drug Law Enforcement Act and the Drug Trafficking Vessel Interdiction Act.
Just Security
It looks like Trump went around military lawyers and did it on his own for the optics. |
