US military says two killed in strike on alleged drug boat

The US military says two killed in strike on alleged drug boat after a targeted operation in the eastern Pacific, authorities confirmed on Friday, marking the continuation of a controversial campaign against suspected narco-trafficking vessels authorised by the current administration. The strike is the latest in a series of military actions in international waters that have drawn both support and criticism at home and abroad.

According to the United States Southern Command, the strike was carried out on Thursday against a vessel believed to be engaged in drug-smuggling operations. Intelligence reportedly showed the boat transiting along known narco-trafficking routes when it was struck. “Two narco-terrorists were killed during this action,” the command announced on social media platform X, adding that no U.S. personnel were harmed during the operation.

Operation Background and Ongoing Campaign

The U.S. military’s campaign against naval drug trafficking, often referred to as Operation Southern Spear, began in September 2025 under the direction of President Donald Trump’s administration. It has seen dozens of strikes against small vessels in the Caribbean Sea and eastern Pacific, with the U.S. asserting that these operations disrupt significant trafficking networks and curb the flow of illegal narcotics.

Thursday’s strike brings the reported death toll from these operations to at least 128 people killed across multiple engagements. While the military describes those killed as “narco-terrorists,” critics have questioned the legal basis and evidence supporting many of the strike claims.

The boat was destroyed after being located by U.S. intelligence assets, with footage shared by Southern Command showing the vessel exploding and engulfed in flames. The military says it acted in international waters, targeting what it claimed to be drug trafficking activities.

Political and Legal Debate

Supporters of the strikes, including senior administration officials, argue that military action against traffickers at sea is a necessary step to protect American citizens from the devastating impact of illicit drugs. President Trump has labelled some Latin American cartels as terrorist organisations and has framed the operations as part of a broader campaign to weaken their influence and capability.

However, the strikes have sparked heated debate in the United States and internationally. Legal experts and human rights advocates have raised concerns about the operations’ compliance with international law, noting that lethal military force against unverified suspects in international waters may lack proper legal authority. Critics also point out that the U.S. government has provided limited evidence that the targeted vessels were directly tied to drug shipments bound for the United States or that those aboard were confirmed traffickers rather than civilians.

Earlier lawsuits have been filed by relatives of victims killed in previous strikes, including claims that some attacks constituted unlawful killings or war crimes. In one high-profile case, the families of two men killed in a 2025 strike near Venezuela filed a wrongful death lawsuit against the U.S. government, arguing that the victims were not legitimate military targets and that the administration failed to justify the use of lethal force.

Impact and International Response

International observers and allied countries have watched the campaign closely, with some smaller nations in the region expressing unease over military actions in waters near their territories. While many governments support efforts to curb drug trafficking, there is concern that military force without clear judicial oversight could set a dangerous precedent. Human rights organisations have urged greater transparency in the intelligence used to justify strikes and for more stringent accountability mechanisms.

Domestically, the campaign has become a point of contention in U.S. politics, with lawmakers from both parties debating whether Congress has adequately authorised the use of military force for these operations. Many Democrats have criticised the administration’s approach as heavy-handed and lacking clear legal backing, while some Republicans defend it as a bold effort to protect U.S. borders and populations from drug-related harm.

What Comes Next?

The latest strike adds to a growing tally of lethal engagements that have kept the issue at the forefront of debates over U.S. military strategy, drug policy and foreign relations. Analysts say continued operations could face increased legal challenges and public scrutiny, particularly if civilian casualties or misidentifications are alleged.

For now, the US military says two killed in strike on alleged drug boat stands as the most recent chapter in a contentious and evolving military campaign aimed at disrupting international narcotics traffic — one that has reshaped how the United States confronts drug smuggling beyond its borders.