Al-Mayadeen news agency reported that the Trump administration has argued that the missile attack on drug smuggling ships in the Caribbean was an act of collective self-defense on behalf of regional partners, The Guardian reported, citing people with direct knowledge of the domestic legal basis.
Its justification rests on claims for which there is no publicly available evidence that drug cartels are funded by cocaine shipments and wage armed combat against security forces in allied countries such as Mexico.
Under this rationale, the United States argues that the attack targeted the cocaine itself and that the deaths on board should be considered combatant casualties or collateral damage, rather than unlawful killings. This argument is at the heart of a confidential legal opinion from the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel (OLC), which provides the clearest explanation yet of how the administration believes it has met the standard for use of deadly force.
But the internal rationale stands in stark contrast to the public message of President Donald Trump, who has consistently framed the 21 deadly attacks that killed more than 80 people as an effort to stop overdose deaths.
A White House official told the Guardian that Trump’s comments were the only public justification for the airstrike, although the actual legal basis appears to be quite different, although Trump has not made any legal arguments.
If accepted, this claim would be the first time the United States has controversially asserted that cartels primarily use cocaine proceeds to wage war, rather than to generate profits, contrary to popular understanding.
“These operations were ordered in accordance with the laws of armed conflict,” a Justice Department spokesperson said in a statement.
The new legal legitimacy comes as the administration’s campaign against cartels appears poised to significantly escalate. The arrival of the USS Gerald Ford, the world’s most advanced aircraft carrier, brings the ability to strike land targets, something President Trump has publicly signaled he wants.
This week, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth went so far as to threaten court-martial after Sen. Mark Kelly and five Democratic senators released a video urging military personnel to question illegal orders.
Three lawyers familiar with the OLC opinion said the theory of collective self-defense is a central pillar of the government’s legal analysis.
The opinion formalized the July 21st meeting of the Limited Interagency Counsel Group, which is comprised of eight professional and political officials from the Department of Defense, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the CIA, the White House, and OLC.
The memo asserts that the United States effectively entered an armed conflict with the cartels by assisting regional partners such as Mexico and Colombia, but administration officials said they privately sought U.S. assistance to avoid retaliation.
This “armed conflict” designation is critical because it allows President Trump to act under the law of armed conflict, providing legal cover for deadly force without violating U.S. homicide law or international humanitarian law.
OLC further concludes that President Trump does not need Congressional approval. That’s because the administration has met two conditions: the attack would advance U.S. interests and the operation would not be extended in scope or duration.
The memo outlines four national interests at stake, including the obligation to support allies, maintaining regional stability, and protecting the United States from illegal drug traffic.
However, the OLC framework relies on assumptions about cartel conduct for which no public evidence has been presented.
Martin Lederman, who served as OLC’s assistant attorney general in the Obama and Biden administrations, questioned the administration’s claims.
“A significant problem with this theory is that it does not yet identify states that are in armed conflict with specific cartels,” Lederman stressed.
“Nor has the administration provided any evidence that another country involved in such an armed conflict has asked the United States to destroy cocaine shipments that are allegedly being used to support armed violence against the requesting country,” he added.
Government officials said intelligence shows that each boat contained about $50 million in cocaine, with the proceeds likely being used to secure sophisticated weapons, but that the underlying assessment remains confidential.
Still, the OLC is generally not responsible for vetting information about cartels’ motives and typically defers to the judgment of U.S. intelligence agencies.
In this case, government officials acknowledged that OLC did not attempt to scrutinize the cartel’s alleged objectives or verify whether an armed conflict existed.
Instead, OLC answered a narrow question from the White House about whether it was legal for the president to use military force against an unflagged cocaine ship in international waters.
MNA/PR