WASHINGTON (AP) \u2014 The U.S. Coast Guard detects and detains scores of drug-running vessels in the Caribbean every year in its role as the world\u2019s drug police on the high seas.<\/p>\n
Now, that anti-narcotics mission may look vastly different after a U.S. military strike on a vessel<\/a> off Venezuela. Trump administration officials asserted last week that gang members were smuggling drugs bound for America.<\/p>\n The Trump administration has indicated more military strikes on drug targets could be coming<\/a>, saying it is seeking to \u201cwage war\u201d on Latin American cartels it accuses of flooding the U.S. with cocaine, fentanyl and other drugs. It is facing mounting questions, however, about the legality of the strike and any such escalation<\/a>, which upends decades of procedures for interdicting suspected drug vessels.<\/p>\n \u201cThis really throws a wrench in the huge investment the U.S. has been making for decades building up a robust legal infrastructure to arrest and prosecute suspected drug smugglers,\u201d said Kendra McSweeney, an Ohio State University geographer who has spent years investigating the legal infrastructure of U.S. drug interdictions at sea<\/a>.<\/p>\n Citing self-defense and an \u2018immediate threat\u2019<\/p>\n Secretary of State Marco Rubio asserted while visiting Latin America last week that drug cartels \u201cpose an immediate threat<\/a> to the United States\u201d and that President Donald Trump \u201chas a right, under exigent circumstances, to eliminate imminent threats to the United States.\u201d <\/p>\n A U.S. official familiar with the reasoning also cited self-defense as legal justification for the strike that the administration says killed 11 members of Venezuela\u2019s Tren de Aragua gang<\/a>, which has been dubbed a foreign terrorist organization<\/a>. The official spoke on condition of anonymity to avoid retaliation.<\/p>\n The administration used a similar argument months prior<\/a> to justify an intense bombing camping against Houthi rebels<\/a> in Yemen. However, behind the scenes, the justification for strikes against the cartels appears to be far more complex.<\/p>\n The New York Times reported last month that Trump signed a directive to the Pentagon to start using military force against certain Latin American drug cartels. That reporting was related to the Venezuela strike, according to a U.S. official, who spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss operational details.<\/p>\n Touting the strike, but no details on how it happened<\/p>\n Vice President JD Vance celebrated the strike over the weekend, suggesting that the use of force is necessary to protect American families from deadly drugs.<\/p>\n \u201cKilling cartel members who poison our fellow citizens is the highest and best use of our military,\u201d Vance said on X. <\/p>\n Several Democrats and even some fellow Republicans criticized Vance\u2019s comments. Congressional leaders also have pressed for more information on why the administration took the military action.<\/p>\n The Pentagon has been silent about any details on the strike. Military officials have not divulged what service carried it out, what weapons were used or how it was determined that the vessel was operated by Tren de Aragua or carrying drugs.<\/p>\n Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth said last week that \u201cforeign terrorist organizations have been designated, we have those authorities, and it\u2019s about keeping the American people safe. There\u2019s no reason for me to give the public or adversaries any more information than that.\u201d <\/p>\n Pentagon officials did not respond to direct questions about the legal justification for the strike and whether the military considered itself at war with Venezuelan President Nicol\u00e1s Maduro\u2019s government<\/a>. <\/p>\n Hegseth traveled Monday to Puerto Rico<\/a>, where troops deployed for a training exercise and where the U.S. is sending 10 F-35 fighter jets for operations against drug cartels.<\/p>\n \u2018There\u2019s no authority for this whatsoever\u2019<\/p>\n Claire Finkelstein, a professor of national security law at the University of Pennsylvania, said \u201cextrajudicial killing\u201d would be a better term to describe the strike. She sees it as an outgrowth of the two-decade blurring of the lines between law enforcement and armed conflict.<\/p>\n Following the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, the U.S. started designating members of foreign terrorist organizations, such as al-Qaida and the Taliban, as unlawful combatants, making them vulnerable to U.S. attacks even when not directly engaged in warfare.<\/p>\n Trump has designated several Latin American cartels<\/a>, including Venezuela\u2019s Tren de Aragua, as foreign terrorist organizations. But that in itself does not make a U.S. strike against suspected members of the group legal, Finkelstein said. Congress has not authorized the use of force against Venezuela nor are there any U.N. resolutions that would justify the U.S. actions.<\/p>\n \u201cThere\u2019s no authority for this whatsoever under international law,\u201d she said. \u201cIt was not an act of self-defense. It was not in the middle of a war. There was no imminent threat to the United States.\u201d<\/p>\n