The U.S. military killed two more people in a vessel strike in the eastern Pacific Ocean, bringing the total death toll from such attacks to over 210 since the Trump administration began its campaign against alleged “narcoterrorists” less than one year ago. The military did not provide evidence that the targeted vessel was ferrying drugs. Six survivors were reported from the latest attack, though it remained unclear whether they were rescued.
U.S. Central Command stated it notified the U.S. Coast Guard regarding the latest strike, as it did for a strike on June 16 that left two survivors. The U.S. Coast Guard had suspended its search for survivors from the June 16 strike a day later, reporting “no signs of survivors or debris,” and offered no comment on the current strike. U.S. Southern Command claimed it targeted alleged drug traffickers along known smuggling routes, yet the military presented no evidence to substantiate these claims.
A black and white video posted on X showed a boat speeding through the water before being struck by a visible projectile and then bursting into flames. President Donald Trump declared the U.S. is in “armed conflict” with cartels in Latin America, justifying the attacks as a necessary escalation to stem the flow of drugs into the United States and combat fatal overdoses. His administration has offered little evidence to support its claims of killing “narcoterrorists.”
The State's Violence and Its Pretext
Critics of the strikes questioned both their overall legality and effectiveness. They pointed out that fentanyl, responsible for many fatal U.S. drug overdoses, is typically trafficked over land from Mexico, where it is produced with chemicals imported from China and India. This structural reality directly contradicts the premise that naval strikes in the eastern Pacific are an effective means of addressing the U.S. overdose crisis, instead revealing a pretext for military projection.
Further exposing the state’s methods, U.S. lawmakers on Thursday demanded the Pentagon release “unedited video” of the very first strike. This demand followed reports that the U.S. chose to conduct a follow-up strike on survivors of its initial attack. Two men on the boat initially survived that attack, which killed nine others, and were clinging to the wreckage when the vessel was struck again, killing them.
The Human Cost and Legal Contradictions
The White House confirmed this follow-up strike, insisting it was done “in self-defense” to ensure the boat was destroyed and was in accordance with the laws of armed conflict. However, some legal scholars stated that a second strike killing survivors would have been illegal under any circumstance, regardless of whether an armed conflict was declared. This highlights the state’s capacity to define its own actions as legal, even when challenged by independent legal analysis.
Managing Contradictions, Not Ending Them
In May of the same year, the Pentagon’s watchdog announced plans to investigate whether the U.S. military followed an established targeting framework when carrying out the strikes. The inspector general’s office clarified that this evaluation is focused specifically on what is known as the six-phase Joint Targeting Cycle, and explicitly not on the legality of the strikes themselves. This limited scope of inquiry serves to manage public scrutiny and maintain the appearance of oversight, without addressing the fundamental questions of state violence and its legal justification.