In a significant escalation of its global anti-drug campaign, the U.S. military has destroyed an alleged drug-trafficking vessel off the coast of Colombia, marking the first known strike in the Pacific Ocean. The operation, conducted under the Trump administration’s expanding “war on narco-terrorism,” killed two people and has reignited legal and diplomatic controversy.

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth released a video of the incident on X (formerly Twitter), showing a small speedboat laden with brown-wrapped packages before being struck and engulfed in flames.

“Just as al-Qaida waged war on our homeland, these cartels are waging war on our border and our people,” Hegseth declared. “There will be no refuge or forgiveness—only justice.”

The attack marks the eighth known U.S. strike on suspected drug boats since early September, but the first outside the Caribbean, extending military operations to the Pacific side of South America.

Previous strikes targeted vessels off Venezuela’s coastline, where U.S. military presence has intensified over recent months. The latest strike near Colombia reflects a strategic expansion of Washington’s counter-narcotics operations into new maritime regions.

Officials familiar with the mission said the destroyed vessel was believed to be operated by members of Tren de Aragua, a Venezuelan-based criminal network the Trump administration designated a Foreign Terrorist Organization (FTO) earlier this year. The administration argues that such designations justify the use of military force under self-defense authorities.

However, regional governments and international observers have questioned whether this represents a shift from law enforcement to armed conflict, a change that carries serious implications under international law.

The White House maintains that these strikes are lawful under the framework of a “non-international armed conflict”—a designation that treats cartel members as unlawful combatants rather than criminals. This interpretation allows the president to employ lethal military force without prior congressional approval.

Legal experts, however, have sharply disputed this claim. Many argue that labeling a cartel as a terrorist organization does not automatically authorize extrajudicial killings in international waters.

“Without clear evidence of imminent threat or state sponsorship, these operations risk violating the laws of armed conflict,” said Dr. Rosa Alvarez, a professor of international law at Georgetown University.

The CIA’s role in these missions has also drawn attention. Intelligence sources suggest the agency provides much of the targeting data, though the details remain classified. That secrecy has fueled growing demands in Congress for oversight and accountability.

The Pacific strike has already strained U.S. relations with Latin America.

Colombian President Gustavo Petro denounced the attack as a “flagrant violation of national sovereignty”, demanding transparency and coordination before any future operations. Both Ecuador and Venezuela have echoed Colombia’s concerns, accusing the U.S. of acting unilaterally under a disputed interpretation of counterterrorism law.

Regional analysts warn the campaign could damage diplomatic cooperation on drug enforcement and push Latin American nations to question U.S. military presence in their maritime zones.

“This isn’t just about drugs anymore—it’s about power projection,” said María Jiménez, a Latin American security researcher. “Washington is redefining narcotics control as a global military operation.”

Human-rights organizations, including Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch, have condemned the campaign as extrajudicial and opaque, warning of possible civilian casualties and breaches of international law.

In Washington, lawmakers are calling for congressional review of the administration’s reliance on Article II self-defense powers. Critics argue that bypassing both Congress and the international community risks eroding democratic accountability and damaging U.S. credibility abroad.

“The executive branch is unilaterally defining war,” said Senator Elizabeth Grant, a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. “That’s a dangerous precedent, especially when the targets are far from any battlefield.”

Pentagon officials have not ruled out future maritime strikes and are reportedly evaluating additional targets along Pacific smuggling corridors. Analysts expect traffickers to adapt by using smaller boats, submersibles, and coastal routes to evade detection.

Meanwhile, the administration’s strategy appears to signal a fundamental shift in U.S. drug policy—from interdiction and arrests to direct military engagement. Whether this approach reduces trafficking or inflames regional tensions remains to be seen.

NOVEMBER 2-4 | AUSTIN, TX

At Main Street Over Wall Street 2025, you’ll learn the exact playbook we’ve used to help thousands of “normal” people find, fund, negotiate, and buy profitable businesses that cash flow.

Use code BHP500 to save $500 on your ticket today (this event WILL sell out).

Click here to get your ticket, see the speaker list, schedule, and more.