The United States military carried out coordinated strikes on three vessels suspected of drug trafficking in Latin American waters, killing 11 people in one of the deadliest single days of the administration’s ongoing maritime counter-narcotics campaign. The announcement from U.S. Southern Command signals a continued escalation in what officials describe as a war against “narcoterrorists” operating along major smuggling corridors in the eastern Pacific Ocean and Caribbean Sea.

According to a statement released Tuesday, U.S. forces struck:

All 11 individuals were killed in the strikes. The military described the targets as suspected drug traffickers navigating known maritime smuggling routes. Video footage shared by Southern Command showed small, open boats engulfed in flames following precision strikes.

The Pentagon did not release evidence confirming narcotics onboard the vessels. As with prior operations in the campaign, officials cited classified intelligence linking the boats to transnational criminal organizations.

These latest actions bring the reported death toll to at least 145 since the administration began authorizing direct military strikes against suspected cartel-linked vessels in early September. More than 40 strikes have been publicly acknowledged.

President Donald Trump has characterized the campaign as part of an “armed conflict” with Latin American drug cartels. Administration officials argue that traditional interdiction efforts have failed to meaningfully disrupt narcotics supply chains, particularly amid the ongoing fentanyl crisis in the United States.

The strategy represents a significant departure from previous counter-drug efforts, which largely focused on surveillance, seizures, and arrests in cooperation with regional governments. Instead, the current approach emphasizes lethal force at sea, targeting small, fast-moving boats often used to transport cocaine and other illicit substances northward.

Military planners describe the strikes as a necessary deterrent designed to dismantle maritime trafficking networks before drugs reach Central America, Mexico, or U.S. territory. Critics, however, question whether destroying small vessels in international waters meaningfully impacts the larger supply chain, especially since much of the fentanyl entering the United States is transported over land after production in Mexico using precursor chemicals sourced from Asia.

The campaign has drawn scrutiny from international law experts and members of Congress. At issue is whether the strikes comply with international humanitarian law and U.S. constitutional limits on executive war powers.

Legal analysts argue that lethal force outside a formally declared war zone — particularly without public evidence of imminent threat — raises serious concerns. Some lawmakers have described certain incidents, including a prior strike that reportedly killed survivors of an initial attack, as potential violations of the laws of armed conflict.

Supporters of the policy contend that designated cartel groups qualify as hostile non-state actors engaged in sustained violence against the United States. They maintain that the president possesses the authority to act in defense of national security and public health.

Congressional efforts to limit or more tightly regulate the administration’s authority to conduct further strikes have thus far been unsuccessful.

The strikes come amid a broader U.S. military buildup in Latin America, one of the largest in decades. The administration has expanded naval deployments across the Caribbean basin and eastern Pacific while increasing surveillance operations.

Tensions have also risen with Nicolás Maduro and the Venezuelan government. Following a January operation that resulted in Maduro’s capture and transfer to the United States to face drug trafficking charges, U.S. forces have reportedly seized oil tankers connected to Venezuelan interests.

Meanwhile, the aircraft carrier USS Gerald R. Ford, previously deployed in the region, has shifted toward the Middle East as geopolitical tensions grow elsewhere. Defense officials indicate that maritime counter-drug operations will continue even as major naval assets reposition globally.

Regional governments have reacted cautiously. Some Caribbean and Central American nations rely heavily on U.S. security assistance but remain wary of operations that could destabilize fishing zones or commercial shipping lanes.

Security experts remain divided over whether maritime airstrikes meaningfully curb narcotics trafficking. Drug supply chains are adaptive, often rerouting through alternate corridors when traditional paths are disrupted. Small, inexpensive boats are relatively easy to replace, raising questions about the long-term deterrent value of vessel destruction.

Supporters argue that sustained pressure increases operational costs for traffickers and disrupts coordination among cartel networks. Opponents contend that without parallel diplomatic, economic, and domestic public health initiatives, enforcement-heavy approaches rarely produce lasting reductions in drug availability.

The debate reflects a broader tension in U.S. drug policy: balancing national security objectives with international legal norms and humanitarian considerations.

As the maritime campaign continues, policymakers face mounting pressure to clarify the legal basis, operational transparency, and measurable outcomes of the strikes. With at least 145 fatalities reported since September, the program represents one of the most aggressive counter-narcotics strategies in recent U.S. history.

Whether the escalation reshapes trafficking routes or fuels further regional instability remains uncertain. What is clear is that the United States has entered a new phase of maritime enforcement — one that blends counterterrorism tactics with anti-drug operations and places military force at the forefront of narcotics interdiction policy.