International law experts have concluded that a controversial second missile strike by the U.S. military on a suspected Venezuelan narcotics vessel likely constituted an illegal extrajudicial killing under international law. The operation, which occurred on September 2nd and resulted in eleven total fatalities, has drawn sharp criticism from legal scholars across the political spectrum.
According to verified reports, the initial strike killed nine individuals aboard the vessel, leaving two survivors clinging to the burning wreckage. The subsequent follow-up attack—ordered by US Navy Admiral Frank Bradley under authorization from War Secretary Pete Hegseth—eliminated both survivors. The Washington Post first revealed that Hegseth had directed military personnel to ‘kill everybody’ on board during the operation, though officials later denied this characterization.
The Trump administration has defended the strikes as legally justified under the ‘law of armed conflict,’ with White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt stating the operation was necessary to ‘ensure the boat was destroyed and the threat of narco terrorists to the United States was completely eliminated.’
Legal experts from multiple institutions have challenged this interpretation. Jessica Peake, Director of the International and Comparative Law Program at UCLA, stated unequivocally that ‘the US is not in an international armed conflict with Venezuela, nor is the US in a non-international armed conflict with any criminal gang or drug cartels.’ She emphasized that even if the first strike were legal, the second attack violated customary international law prohibitions against ‘denial of quarter.’
Professor Luke Moffett of Queen’s University Belfast added that while the strikes don’t qualify as war crimes due to the absence of recognized armed conflict, ordering ‘no quarter’ would constitute a war crime if such conflict existed.
Notably, conservative legal scholar John Yoo—a former Bush administration official—also condemned the operation, citing explicit prohibitions in the US Law of War Manual against conducting hostilities ‘on the basis that there shall be no survivors.’
The administration’s characterization of Caribbean anti-drug operations as a ‘non-international armed conflict’ represents a significant legal framing that experts challenge. Historical precedents from the Obama administration’s drone program, which similarly employed double-tap strikes, were also deemed illegal by legal analysts despite previous presidential assertions of their legality and effectiveness.