Bold claim: the second strike was about destroying a drug vessel, not just targeting its crew. Trump administration officials defend a follow-up attack on a drug boat that killed survivors on September 2 by saying the aim was total destruction of the vessel, a move the Pentagon reportedly had internal legal approval to pursue.
White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt stated during a briefing that Adm. Frank Bradley, who oversaw the operation and issued the second-strike order, directed the engagement to sink the boat. Leavitt asserted that Bradley acted within his authority and the relevant law to eliminate the boat and remove the U.S. threat.
Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth also said for the first time at a cabinet meeting that the second strike sunk the boat and removed the threat, while attempting to minimize his own involvement.
By framing the strikes as narrowly aimed at the boat—paralleling language found in a secret Justice Department Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) memo that blessed the strikes—officials placed the action on what they describe as the strongest possible legal footing amid ongoing questions about the incident.
According to three lawyers familiar with the matter, the OLC memo reportedly argues that lethal force against unflagged vessels carrying cocaine is permissible because cartels use drug proceeds to fund violence. The rationale contends that cartels are in an armed-conflict-like state with regional allies, and that destructive measures against cocaine on boats can choke off cartel funding for weapons.
Crucially for the administration, The Guardian has reported that the memo notes the likelihood that anyone on board could die from the strike does not render the vessel an improper military target. The legal analysis reportedly relies on classified intelligence presented in a “statement of facts” annex to the OLC opinion and a National Security Presidential Memorandum (NSPM) dated July 25 concerning military action against drug cartels. The documents themselves are not public, but are said to contain granular details, including estimates that each drug boat carries around $50 million worth of cocaine.
Quick Guide
Contact us about this story
The best public-interest journalism relies on firsthand accounts from people with direct knowledge. If you have information to share, contact us confidentially using these methods:
Secure Messaging in the Guardian app: The Guardian app includes a Secure Messaging tool that offers end-to-end encryption and conceals the fact that you’re communicating with us within the app’s routine activity. If you don’t have the Guardian app, download it (iOS or Android) and choose Secure Messaging from the menu.
SecureDrop, instant messengers, email, telephone, and post: If safely possible, use the Tor network to send messages and documents to the Guardian via SecureDrop. Our tips guide at theguardian.com/tips outlines multiple secure contact options and discusses their pros and cons.
Illustration: Guardian Design / Rich Cousins
The OLC memo has faced sharp criticism from external legal experts due to limited public evidence supporting the claim that cartels use drugs to finance armed violence rather than the reverse.
Still, the Trump administration’s explanation aligns with the OLC memo and provides a plausible legal justification—one that could be invoked to dodge potential congressional or criminal scrutiny amid calls for tighter oversight.
This justification is likely to be revisited by Adm. Bradley, a longtime operator who now leads U.S. Special Operations Command as a three-star admiral, when he testifies before House and Senate Armed Services committees.
Until recently, Hegseth has publicly varied in describing the strike’s purpose. He has suggested at times that it was permissible to kill individuals outright if they were linked to cartels. He also sparked commentary by posting a controversial message and a satirical image in response to coverage of the incident.
It’s important to note that the OLC memo’s scope was to address the legality of striking boats and to illustrate how military targeting could extend under the laws of armed conflict. For example, while a legitimate military target could include a military factory known to support an army, its workers would only be civilians unless they were part of a fighting force, making their death illegal under international law.
In short, the administration frames the operation as legally grounded and strategically aimed at cutting off the cartel’s revenue stream, while critics question whether the legal theory truly justifies lethal force against vessels containing civilians and whether alternative, non-lethal measures were exhausted. This disagreement invites ongoing debate about the boundaries of state action in counter-narcotics operations and the corresponding implications for civilian safety and international law.
