Legality and Ethicality: The U.S. Attack on Venezuelan Boat

Earlier this month, the United States carried out a deadly strike on a Venezuelan-linked boat in the southern Caribbean, and the fallout has been swift, controversial, and deeply unsettling. On September 2nd, American forces launched a precision attack that destroyed the vessel and killed eleven people on board. The justification offered by President Trump and senior officials was blunt: the boat, they said, was “loaded” with narcotics bound for the U.S. and operated by members of the Venezuelan gang Tren de Aragua. Secretary of State Marco Rubio called those killed “narco-terrorists,” and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth insisted the government had “absolute and complete authority” to use lethal force against drug traffickers. But despite these sweeping claims, no evidence has yet been released to prove the ship carried drugs at all—or that its passengers were who U.S. officials say they were. That gap between assertion and proof sits at the heart of why this incident has ignited such an intense legal and political firestorm.

The assumption that the boat was carrying drugs is doing an enormous amount of work here, because if that assumption is false—or even just unverified—then the U.S. effectively carried out an extrajudicial killing in international waters. Under international law, particularly Article 2(4) of the United Nations Charter, the use of force against another country’s vessel is only legal in response to an armed attack or with explicit Security Council authorization. Neither condition applied. The boat was not armed, and there was no imminent threat to the United States. Even under domestic law, the administration is on shaky ground. The White House appears to be relying on the president’s Article II powers as commander-in-chief, but Congress has not passed any Authorization for Use of Military Force that covers suspected drug runners, nor has it declared war on Venezuela or its gangs. The War Powers Resolution also requires prompt notification of Congress, and lawmakers have already signaled frustration at being left in the dark.

Additionally, this is not the way the U.S. has traditionally handled drug interdiction. In the past, when vessels suspected of carrying narcotics were intercepted, participants arrested, drugs seized, and illegalities prosecuted. By directly targeting and killing alleged traffickers, the administration blurred the line between law enforcement and warfare. Vice President J.D. Vance admitted as much when he defended the strike as part of a wartime strategy while also acknowledging the “due process concerns.” Indeed, those concerns are enormous: the Constitution guarantees due process before depriving someone of life or liberty, yet here, eleven people were executed without trial, without charges, and without public evidence that they were guilty of anything.

The political ramifications are just as troubling as the legal ones. Congress has begun pressing for answers, Democrats in particular questioning whether this was a reckless overreach of executive authority. Internationally, Venezuela has denied the incident outright, casting doubt on U.S. accounts and fueling speculation that the limited video evidence released may even be manipulated. Allies are uneasy, too, since this strike could set a precedent for bypassing international norms under the banner of fighting drugs. The fact that the administration insists it has “absolute authority” only deepens fears of further unilateral actions in the region.

At the end of the day, the entire episode rests on an assumption—that the Venezuelan boat was loaded with narcotics destined for U.S. shores. Without transparent proof, the strike looks less like a legitimate interdiction and more like a dangerous escalation, one that potentially violates both international law and America’s own constitutional principles. It is one thing to seize a shipment of cocaine; it is another thing entirely to carry out a lethal strike on the high seas based on suspicion alone. If this becomes the new norm, the U.S. risks eroding not just the legitimacy of its drug enforcement strategy, but the very rule of law it claims to uphold.

Sources:

Briceño, Maria, and Louis Jacobson. "The U.S. Attack Against a Venezuelan 'drug carrying boat' Raises Legal Questions." PolitiFact. Last modified September 8, 2025. Accessed September 9, 2025. https://www.politifact.com/article/2025/sep/08/venezuelan-drug-boat-us-attack-legal/. 

Murphy, Matt, and Jason Cheetham. "US Strike on 'Venezuela Drug Boat': What Do We Know, and Was It Legal?" BBC. Last modified September 3, 2025. Accessed September 8, 2025. https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cdjzw3gplv7o. 

Quesada, Juan Diego, and Florantonia Singer. "The Mystery of the Boat Pulverized by a Missile in the Middle of the Caribbean." El Pais. Last modified September 5, 2025. Accessed September 9, 2025. https://english.elpais.com/international/2025-09-05/the-mystery-of-the-boat-pulverized-by-a-missile-in-the-middle-of-the-caribbean.html. 

Winkie, Davis, and Josh Meyer. "US military strikes alleged 'drug vessel' from Venezuela in Caribbean Sea, 11 killed." USA Today. Last modified September 2, 2025. Accessed September 7, 2025. https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2025/09/02/us-military-caribbean-sea-strike-drug-boat/85945169007/.