The Trump administration has secretly justified its controversial boat strikes against drug cartels in the Caribbean as collective self-defense for regional allies, according to internal documents obtained by The Guardian.
Diverging Narratives: Public vs Private Justifications
A classified justice department memo reveals the administration's legal analysis rests on the premise that cartels are waging armed violence against security forces in allied nations like Mexico. This violence is allegedly financed by cocaine shipments, though no public evidence supports this claim.
This legal framework marks a sharp departure from President Donald Trump's public statements. While Trump has repeatedly described the 21 strikes killing over 80 people as necessary to prevent American overdose deaths, the internal justification presents a completely different rationale.
A White House official responded that Trump hasn't been making legal arguments in his public remarks. However, his comments remain the only explanation offered to the American public for missile attacks that have a substantially different legal basis.
Expanding Military Campaign
The legal justification gains urgency as the military campaign against cartels shows signs of significant expansion. The arrival of the USS Gerald Ford, the world's most advanced super-carrier, provides enhanced capabilities to strike land targets - something Trump has expressed interest in pursuing.
The situation escalated this week when Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth threatened Senator Mark Kelly with court-martial. This came after Kelly and five other Democratic lawmakers recorded a video warning military members to question unlawful orders, apparently referencing the controversial strikes.
Legal Framework Under Scrutiny
The Office of Legal Counsel opinion formalised a 21 July meeting of a restricted interagency lawyers group. It principally argues that the US has entered an armed conflict with cartels because it's helping regional allies like Mexico and Colombia, which allegedly requested US assistance confidentially.
The armed conflict designation is crucial because it permits Trump to operate under the law of armed conflict, allowing lethal force without violating federal murder statutes or international law.
The opinion finds Trump doesn't need congressional approval because the administration satisfied OLC's two-prong test: whether strikes serve national interest and whether they won't be prolonged in scope, nature or duration.
Legal experts have expressed skepticism about the administration's claims. Martin Lederman, a former deputy assistant attorney general at OLC during Obama and Biden administrations, noted significant problems with the theory.
"A significant problem with this theory is that they still have not identified any state that's engaged in an armed conflict with a particular cartel," said Lederman.
An administration official claimed evidence exists that each boat carries around $50 million worth of cocaine, with proceeds funding sophisticated weapons, though the underlying intelligence remains classified.
Critically, the justice department's OLC typically defers to intelligence assessments rather than conducting independent verification. A senior administration official acknowledged OLC didn't attempt to stress-test the purported goals of cartels or verify the existence of an armed conflict.
