The United States military has confirmed that eight people were killed in the latest strikes on three boats accused of drug trafficking in the Pacific Ocean, marking another escalation in Washington’s aggressive campaign against transnational criminal networks. According to US Southern Command, the vessels were intercepted while traveling along “known narco-trafficking routes” and were actively engaged in illicit drug smuggling.

Footage released by the military and shared on social media shows high-speed boats being targeted from the air—images that have reignited global debate over US military strikes on drug boats, the legality of such actions, and their broader geopolitical consequences.

This incident is not isolated. More than 20 vessels in the Pacific and Caribbean have been targeted in recent months, with at least 90 people reportedly killed, as part of President Donald Trump’s intensified anti-drug strategy. The administration argues that these operations are necessary to disrupt cartel supply chains before narcotics—particularly fentanyl—reach US shores.

High-level officials insist the strikes are defensive in nature. The White House maintains that the operations comply with the laws of armed conflict and are aimed at preventing criminal organisations from “destroying American lives.”

Despite official assurances, international law experts have voiced alarm. The most controversial episode occurred on 2 September, when the US allegedly conducted a “double-tap” strike—a second attack that killed survivors of an initial strike on an alleged Venezuelan drug boat.

Several legal analysts told BBC Verify that the second strike may constitute an extrajudicial killing, potentially violating international humanitarian law. A former chief prosecutor at the International Criminal Court went further, describing the broader campaign as a planned and systematic attack against civilians during peacetime.

The controversy has now reached Capitol Hill. US Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth is expected to brief members of both the House and Senate, alongside Secretary of State Marco Rubio, on the rationale behind the strikes. According to Politico, lawmakers will be shown video footage of the disputed double-strike incident during closed-door sessions of the armed services committees.

Hegseth has faced increasing pressure to release the footage publicly, a move that could dramatically shape public opinion and future policy debates around US military accountability.

The strikes are unfolding against a backdrop of worsening relations with Venezuela. The Trump administration has repeatedly accused President Nicolás Maduro of enabling narcotics trafficking into the US and has designated two Venezuelan criminal groups—Tren de Aragua and the Cartel de los Soles—as foreign terrorist organisations.

To reinforce this stance, the US has deployed thousands of troops and positioned the USS Gerald Ford, the world’s largest aircraft carrier, within striking distance of Venezuela. In December, US forces also seized an oil tanker off the Venezuelan coast, alleging it was part of an illicit oil shipping network involving Iran.

Venezuela’s Foreign Minister Yván Gil condemned the seizure as “international piracy,” accusing Washington of attempting to seize control of the country’s vast oil reserves—claims that resonate with audiences searching for US Venezuela conflict, oil geopolitics Caribbean, and Maduro Trump tensions.

Perhaps the most striking development is the administration’s decision to officially classify fentanyl as a weapon of mass destruction. The synthetic opioid is responsible for tens of thousands of overdose deaths annually in the United States, and the designation signals a dramatic reframing of the drug crisis as a national security threat.

This shift underpins the administration’s justification for using military force far from US borders, blending counter-terrorism tactics with counter-narcotics enforcement—a strategy that could redefine future drug policy worldwide.

As investigations continue and congressional scrutiny intensifies, the latest strikes raise profound questions about how far the US can go in the global war on drugs. Supporters argue the actions save American lives; critics warn they risk undermining international law and escalating regional instability.

One thing is clear: with rising tensions in the Pacific and Caribbean, increased military deployments, and a hard-line stance on fentanyl and cartels, the US campaign against narco-trafficking is entering a far more dangerous and controversial phase—one that the world is watching closely.