In the wake of mounting public and congressional scrutiny over a months-long U.S. military campaign targeting suspected drug smuggling vessels in Latin American waters, the Pentagon’s independent inspector general has launched a formal evaluation to assess whether military personnel adhered to established, standardized targeting protocols during the operations that have left nearly 200 people dead.
The review, which the oversight body confirmed Tuesday is self-initiated, centers its examination on the military’s own six-step Joint Targeting Cycle – a structured framework that outlines clear requirements for defining a commander’s core intent, developing and vetting potential targets, conducting rigorous threat analysis, securing formal approval for action, executing the strike, and completing a post-operation assessment. Details of the evaluation, first reported by Bloomberg News, were laid out in a May 11 correspondence sent to senior Defense Department leadership.
Notably, the inspector general’s office has stated it will not investigate whether the strikes themselves violate domestic or international law, a gap that comes as the operations have drawn sharp criticism from Democratic members of Congress and independent military legal scholars. To date, the watchdog has declined to share a projected completion date for the review, leaving the timeline for any findings unresolved.
The controversial campaign, launched by the Trump administration in early September, frames its actions as a direct war on transnational Latin American drug cartels, which officials blame for the ongoing public health crisis of fatal opioid and drug overdoses devastating communities across the United States. Since the operations began, strikes carried out in the eastern Pacific Ocean and Caribbean Sea have killed at least 193 people, according to official tallies.
In the most recent incident on May 8, U.S. Southern Command confirmed one person survived the strike, but there remains no public confirmation that U.S. Coast Guard teams located and rescued the survivor – an outcome that could push the final death toll even higher.
A key point of contention that has fueled criticism is the U.S. military’s refusal to release public evidence confirming any of the targeted vessels were actually carrying illicit drug shipments. In public social media statements, military officials have repeatedly relied on vague references to unspecified intelligence and the fact that the boats were traveling along well-documented narco-trafficking corridors to justify the attacks.
The very first strike carried out in early September sparked particularly intense outcry over reported rules of engagement. Military records show nine people on the targeted vessel were killed in the initial attack, leaving two survivors clinging to the capsized wreckage. The boat was hit a second time with ordnance, killing the remaining two survivors. In a December statement, Rep. Adam Smith, the ranking Democratic member of the House Armed Services Committee, condemned the action, describing the men as “basically two shirtless people clinging to the bow of a capsized and inoperable boat, drifting in the water — until the missiles come and kill them.”
White House officials have publicly defended the follow-up strike, asserting it was carried out in self-defense, intended to fully disable the targeted vessel, and aligned with the established laws of armed conflict.