Donald Trump has released shocking footage on Truth Social, showing a military strike that obliterated a vessel believed to be trafficking illegal drugs. The footage depicts a speedboat in international waters being struck and destroyed, with no survivors. Trump’s post detailed the military’s action, describing it as a targeted strike on “narcoterrorists” linked to drug trafficking, but the legality of such operations is raising significant concerns.
The Military Strike
In the unclassified footage, a speedboat is seen moving through international waters for about 30 seconds before a devastating strike sends it up in flames. A drone camera captures the aftermath, showing that none of the individuals onboard survived. Trump’s social media caption provided more context:
“On my Orders, the Secretary of War ordered a lethal kinetic strike on a vessel affiliated with a Designated Terrorist Organization conducting narcotrafficking in the USSOUTHCOM area of responsibility,” Trump wrote.
He claimed intelligence confirmed that the vessel was involved in drug trafficking, aiming to transport fentanyl and other illicit narcotics to the U.S. He emphasized the operation’s success in stopping the “poison” from reaching America and warned criminals to cease their activities.
Donald Trump authorised another military strike on drug dealers this week (SAUL LOEB/AFP via Getty Images)
“STOP SELLING FENTANYL, NARCOTICS, AND ILLEGAL DRUGS IN AMERICA, AND COMMITTING VIOLENCE AND TERRORISM AGAINST AMERICANS!!!”
Legal Questions Surround the Operation
While Trump has framed the strike as part of the U.S. military’s broader efforts to combat the drug epidemic, legal experts are raising red flags about its legitimacy. The operation occurred in international waters, far from U.S. territory, and involved the use of military force without Congress’ approval.
Senate Democrats Adam Schiff and Tim Kaine have expressed concerns about these strikes, especially the legality of using military force in this manner. They argue that such operations could drag the U.S. into unnecessary conflicts and violate constitutional war powers. Schiff emphasized the need for Congress to weigh in on military actions:
“While we share with the executive branch the imperative of preventing and deterring drugs from reaching our shores, blowing up boats without any legal justification risks dragging the United States into another war and provoking unjustified hostilities against our own citizens,” Schiff stated.
Kaine added that Trump lacks legal authority to authorize such military actions without congressional approval. He called on Congress to reclaim its authority over decisions involving the use of force, particularly in the Western Hemisphere.
Precedents and Previous Strikes
This isn’t the first time Trump has authorized military action against alleged drug traffickers. A similar strike was carried out a few weeks ago against Venezuelan gang members, where 11 individuals reportedly lost their lives during the attack. Trump has maintained that these operations are necessary to stop drug shipments from reaching U.S. shores, but critics argue that they lack transparency and clear legal justification.
The Debate: National Security vs. Military Oversight
The key point of contention is whether these military actions fall under the U.S. War Powers Resolution, which requires Congress to approve hostilities unless the nation is under direct attack. Trump’s administration has faced criticism for not adequately consulting or informing Congress on the legal basis for such strikes. With Senator Schiff and Senator Kaine calling for greater oversight, the debate over the balance of power between the executive branch and Congress continues to heat up.
Some argue that this kind of military action is justified in the fight against drug cartels and terrorism, but the legality of conducting strikes in international waters without congressional approval remains a major legal and ethical issue.
The Bigger Picture: Drug Crisis and Military Overreach
Trump’s stance on combating the U.S. drug crisis is clear, with fentanyl being a primary target. However, his aggressive use of military force in these operations raises concerns about the potential for overreach and the erosion of congressional authority. As Schiff and Kaine pointed out, while the goal of stopping narcotrafficking is widely shared, the methods employed must be justified, legal, and transparent.
As this issue unfolds, the U.S. government will likely face increasing pressure to clarify its stance on the use of military force against drug dealers, particularly in international waters. The debate between national security and military oversight is far from over.
For more on Trump’s policies and global military strategies, check out these articles:
