In the eastern Pacific

US: Campaign of raids on suspected drug traffickers continues

The US military has stated that it struck a vessel ‘operated by designated terrorist organisations’ – which it did not identify – adding two more victims to the list of over 200 people killed in such attacks since September.

by Elisa Rigamonti

22 June 2026

4' min read

Translated by AI

Versione italiana

4' min read

Translated by AI

Versione italiana

On Thursday, the United States once again attacked a vessel accused of drug smuggling that was sailing in the eastern Pacific Ocean, killing two people. The operation is part of an ongoing campaign against alleged drug traffickers in Latin America. The military has not provided any evidence that the vessel was carrying drugs.

In a post on X, the US Southern Command stated: “Intelligence reports have confirmed that the vessel was travelling along routes known to be used for drug trafficking in the Caribbean and was involved in drug trafficking operations.” The video attached to the post shows the vessel speeding across the water before being struck and bursting into flames. Six men survived, but the Pentagon has not clarified whether the US Coast Guard managed to rescue them or the two survivors of Tuesday’s attack, which killed one person. The Operation Southern Spear , aimed at combating drug trafficking to the United States, has now recorded 65 raids on vessels in the eastern Pacific Ocean and the Caribbean Sea, resulting in a total of at least 211 casualties.

The first attack and the double tap

The Trump administration began taking military action against those it describes as ‘narcoterrorists’ over nine months ago: the first offensive against a vessel suspected of drug trafficking took place on 2 September 2025, and remains the most controversial due to the use of the ‘double tap’ method. The attack actually took place in two stages, initially killing nine people and leaving two survivors clinging to the wreckage of the now-destroyed vessel. The US military then continued the operation, killing both survivors.

At the time, President Donald Trump had claimed, without providing any evidence, that the vessel was carrying drugs, had set sail from Venezuela and was run by the gang ‘Tren de Aragua’. The White House insisted that the attack on the survivors had been carried out ‘in self-defence’, to ensure the destruction of the vessel and in accordance with the laws of armed conflict. Karoline Levitt, a White House spokesperson, attributed the order for the second attack to US Navy Admiral Frank Mitchell Bradley, who was promoted following the operation. However, some legal scholars have argued that a second attack on the survivors is to be considered illegal under any circumstances, regardless of whether or not an armed conflict exists.

Critics: ‘Extrajudicial killings’

Following this initial military operation, Democratic senators wrote a letter to the White House complaining about the lack of legitimate legal justification, emphasising that the US armed forces are not ‘authorised to hunt down alleged criminals and kill them without trial’. The attacks on the vessels continued, however: Trump claimed that, as a result, large sacks of cocaine and fentanyl were scattered all over the ocean, but neither the military nor the White House released any images to back up this claim.

Many senators and humanitarian organisations have continued to question the legality of the operations, describing them as a potential abuse of power by the executive. Despite this, on 8 October, Republican senators rejected a bill that would have obliged the president to seek congressional authorisation before launching further military strikes. On 31 October, the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, Volker Türk, called for an investigation into the US offensives, stating: ‘The United States must put an end to such attacks and take all necessary measures to prevent the extrajudicial killing of people on board these vessels.’

L'attacco

A war on drug overdoses of dubious effectiveness

Trump has repeatedly claimed that the United States is in an ‘armed conflict’ with Latin American cartels and has justified the attacks as a necessary escalation to stem the flow of drugs into the United States and the fatal overdoses claiming the lives of American citizens. As well as questioning the overall legality of these military operations, critics of the administration doubt their effectiveness in preventing the loss of American lives. Part of the argument is based on the fact that fentanyl, responsible for around 60 per cent of overdose deaths in the United States, is typically trafficked overland from Mexico.

“For every boat we destroy, we save 25,000 American lives,” Trump said. But between February 2025 and January 2026, the US Centres for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) estimated around 70,000 deaths from drug overdoses. The number of lives (over one and a half million, according to the figures he cited) that Trump claims to have saved so far thanks to the attacks is therefore more than 23 times the number of actual overdose deaths.

The Pentagon oversees the procedures but not the legitimacy of the attacks

The Pentagon’s oversight body stated in May that it intended to investigate whether the US armed forces had followed a pre-established regulatory framework for identifying targets whilst carrying out the attacks. However, the Inspector General’s office clarified that the assessment would focus solely on compliance with the ‘joint target identification cycle’ (a six-stage process used by military planners to align lethal and non-lethal effects with strategic and operational objectives), without investigating the legality of the attacks.

Historically, the United States has dealt with vessels suspected of drug trafficking through civilian interdiction operations led by the Coast Guard, rather than through military attacks. The use of the armed forces to attack and destroy vessels suspected of drug trafficking represents a marked departure for the US military from its traditional approach to maritime drug trafficking.