According to recent reports, the Trump administration has drafted a legal opinion granting immunity to U.S. personnel involved in lethal maritime strikes in Latin America, a move that has drawn significant international criticism and accusations of extrajudicial killings .
Since the initial strike in early September, U.S. forces have conducted a campaign, now officially dubbed "Operation Southern Spear," resulting in at least 20 to 21 separate strikes on vessels in the Caribbean and Eastern Pacific . These operations have killed at least 76 people, with some reports putting the death toll at 80 . The Trump administration asserts that these strikes target "narco-terrorists" associated with groups like the Tren de Aragua cartel and alleges that the Venezuelan government of Nicolás Maduro is a "narco-terrorist regime" involved in drug trafficking . However, the Pentagon has provided limited public evidence to substantiate its claims about the targets or their alleged activities .
Amid growing scrutiny, the administration has sought to preemptively shield its personnel from legal consequences. A classified opinion from the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) states that U.S. military personnel involved in these strikes are immune from prosecution . This legal backing is based on the administration's position that the U.S. is in a "non-international armed conflict" against drug cartels, whom it labels "unlawful combatants" . This framing, initially used by the Bush administration to deny Geneva Convention protections, remains highly controversial in international law .
The strikes have provoked strong international backlash and strained diplomatic relations. The French foreign minister, Jean-Noël Barrot, publicly stated that the operations "disregard international law" and contribute to regional instability . In a significant move, the United Kingdom has reportedly suspended intelligence-sharing with the U.S. on Caribbean drug trafficking over concerns of being implicated in what it sees as unlawful attacks . U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio dismissed these criticisms, asserting that the European Union does not get to dictate how the United States defends its national security .
Prominent international legal experts have roundly condemned the strikes. French Foreign Minister Barrot explicitly labeled them a violation of international law . Former International Criminal Court chief prosecutor Luis Moreno Ocampo has suggested the strikes could be treated as crimes against humanity . Legal scholars argue that narcotics trafficking does not meet the international legal threshold for an "armed attack," which would justify a military response under the UN Charter . Without this justification, the use of lethal force against individuals who have not been charged or tried constitutes extrajudicial killings, not lawful acts of war . Professor Michael Shifter characterized the policy as a "radical departure" from traditional law enforcement approaches, noting that alleged criminals were previously detained and tried in court .
Analysts suggest that the campaign's objectives extend beyond interdiction of drugs. The substantial U.S. military buildup near Venezuela, including the deployment of the USS Gerald R. Ford aircraft carrier and other warships, points to a strategy of regional power projection and intimidation . Professor Michael Shifter analyzes that the true goal appears to be regime change in Venezuela, using military pressure to provoke panic and fear within the Maduro government in the hopes of ousting him from power . This aligns with President Trump's own statement that he believes "Maduro's days are numbered" .