A chilling announcement from the Pentagon revealed another lethal strike in the eastern Pacific, leaving four men dead and igniting a fierce debate over the boundaries of American military power. This incident, following a previous strike just days before, has thrust the legality of these actions into the harsh glare of public scrutiny.
Classified video footage of the follow-up strike sparked immediate disagreement among lawmakers. Some, like Congressman Jim Himes, found the images deeply unsettling, while others, including Senator Tom Cotton, staunchly defended the military’s actions. At the heart of the controversy lies a fundamental question: has the United States overstepped the line, potentially violating the laws of armed conflict?
The current debate, however, obscures a larger, more troubling issue – a campaign of 22 military strikes resulting in the deaths of 87 individuals suspected of drug smuggling. Legal experts argue that the core problem stems from the Trump administration’s controversial assertion that drug trafficking constitutes an act of war, justifying the use of lethal force at sea.
Traditionally, the United States has treated smuggling as a criminal offense, the purview of the Coast Guard. But the administration declared cartels as enemy forces and their boat crews as “combatants,” a framing supported by a Justice Department memo that redefined drug profits as military assets. This radical shift has been met with resistance, as leaders in Mexico and Colombia reject the U.S. rationale.
The administration’s justification rests on the claim that cartels, like Tren de Aragua, are waging “armed attacks” against the United States, with narcotics trafficking equated to irregular warfare. This legal theory draws parallels to post-9/11 precedents involving groups like al-Qaeda and ISIS, but critics argue the comparison is flawed.
Unlike terrorist organizations with defined political objectives, narcotraffickers are primarily driven by profit. Critics maintain that cartels should be treated as transnational criminal organizations, subject to the stricter limitations of law enforcement operations, not military intervention.
However, a crucial development occurred on February 20, 2025, when the U.S. Department of State formally designated eight major international criminal cartels – including Tren de Aragua, MS-13, and the Sinaloa Cartel – as Foreign Terrorist Organizations (FTOs) and Specially Designated Global Terrorists (SDGTs). This designation fundamentally altered the legal landscape.
The State Department’s detailed fact sheet outlined a pattern of horrific activity: kidnapping, extortion, assassinations, drone attacks, intimidation of civilians, and violence against government officials throughout the Americas. These designations severed the cartels’ access to the U.S. financial system and prohibited transactions with them.
Beyond financial restrictions, the FTO designations bolstered law enforcement cooperation with international partners and paved the way for further sanctions and criminal prosecutions. Issued under established legal authorities, the designations took immediate effect upon publication, solidifying their legal weight.
The facts are undeniable: Congress and the State Department have officially recognized these cartels as terrorist organizations. This designation legally compels the United States to treat them as such, dramatically expanding the scope of permissible government actions.
The designation authorizes counterterrorism intelligence operations, allows the deployment of military assets to support law enforcement, and strengthens the legal justification for using force in self-defense should cartel activity threaten U.S. citizens, forces, or territory. While explicit congressional authorization for sustained military operations remains absent, the legal foundation has been laid.
These cartels are no longer simply criminal groups; they are now legally defined terrorist organizations, and the government is empowered to respond accordingly. The debate has shifted from whether action is justified to what actions are now legally permissible.
