A growing body of reporting and expert commentary has raised serious questions about the legality of recent U.S. drone strikes on small boats in the Caribbean and Eastern Pacific. Leading military law experts argue the operations have no lawful basis, especially after reporting revealed that Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth allegedly instructed operators to “kill them all” during the first strike. Former JAG officials and national-security attorneys note that the United States is not in an armed conflict with drug-trafficking groups, meaning lethal force is not authorized under domestic or international law. Experts have described the killings — including the reported follow-on strike against survivors in the water — as extrajudicial executions. Some have warned that directing forces to leave no survivors would constitute a prohibited “no quarter” war crime. Other former military lawyers say the actions amount to murder under the law.

Investigations also reveal a breakdown of internal legal safeguards at the Pentagon. Senior JAGs who raised concerns were reportedly marginalized or overruled, leading former officials to describe a collapse of the guardrails that normally prevent unlawful operations and protect U.S. personnel from criminal exposure. As bipartisan members of Congress call for answers, the debate now centers on whether the strikes represent not only operational misconduct but a profound breach of long-standing legal norms governing the use of U.S. military force.