President Donald Trump formally declared that the United States is in a “non-international armed conflict” (NIAC) with certain Central and South American drug cartels — an extraordinary move that redefines long-standing U.S. counter-narcotics efforts as an act of war. The administration’s decision, revealed in a classified notice to Congress and first reported on by The New York Times, marks a sharp break from decades of law enforcement-driven anti-drug policy.
In recent weeks, U.S. military forces blew up at least four suspected drug boats in international waters near Venezuela, killing around 20 people. The Trump administration classified those killed as “unlawful combatants,” a term traditionally reserved for terrorists or militants engaged in armed conflict against the United States.
Defining a non-international armed conflict
The president’s notice to Congress described the drug cartels as “nonstate armed groups” whose actions “constitute an armed attack against the United States.” Trump asserted that the trafficking of narcotics amounts to sustained hostilities, and the military response falls under the law of armed conflict.
Legal experts, however, are unconvinced. Under international law, a non-international armed conflict occurs when fighting breaks out between a government and an organized nonstate group with a unified command structure, and only when the violence reaches a certain level of intensity. Critics say that definition doesn’t apply to drug trafficking networks, which are profit-driven criminal enterprises rather than armed movements pursuing political goals.
“This is not stretching the envelope,” said Geoffrey S. Corn, a retired Army judge advocate general lawyer quoted by The New York Times. “This is shredding it. This is tearing it apart.”
Download the SAN app today to stay up-to-date with Unbiased. Straight Facts™.
Point phone camera here
Military intelligence perspective
U.S. Army intelligence Warrant Officer Jon Molik said the administration’s use of “unlawful combatant” language mirrors post–9/11 legal frameworks.
“They’re using the same legal auspices the Bush administration used after 9/11, particularly because this administration has designated cartels as a foreign terrorist organization,” Molik explained. “That gives them a lawful right — from an American perspective — to go after these organizations.”
Molik added that many of the intelligence methods used to target suspected traffickers are classified, complicating public scrutiny.
“It’s a challenge to present the evidence because we don’t want anyone to know how we’re gathering the information,” he said. “I understand why the American people are like, ‘Listen, this is an open society here. If you’re gonna make these claims–– that these are bad people–– then you owe it to us to show us why you think they’re bad people and you’re making these decisions.’ I get that from a conceptual standpoint, but from a national security standpoint, it’s really, really hard to do.”
From law enforcement to combat operations
Traditionally, maritime drug interdictions were led by the U.S. Coast Guard, which operates under law enforcement rules of engagement. President Trump’s policy shift effectively transfers that responsibility to the Department of Defense, making counter-drug missions in the region governed by wartime rules.
Former Democratic congressman and retired U.S. Navy Adm. Joe Sestak, who once commanded counter-drug operations in the Caribbean, said the change erases critical distinctions. “We always had a Coast Guard law enforcement detachment aboard,” Sestak recalled. “If they found [drug smugglers], they’d be arrested, have due process and go to trial. That’s the way it is — because these are civilians. We don’t attack civilians.”
Sestak called the new approach “wrong and harmful,” warning that it risks normalizing military violence against noncombatants.
“What prevents someone from making a similar decision about something else?” he asked. “You’re changing accepted definitions of what hostilities are. Does that mean we can go after them in a foreign country like Venezuela? Can we strike them here?”
Trump defends his decision
At a recent event celebrating the U.S. Navy’s 250th anniversary, President Trump defended the strikes, framing them as a humanitarian necessity.
“Every one of those boats is responsible for the death of 25,000 American people and the destruction of families,” he said. “What we’re doing is actually an act of kindness. We’re stopping drugs coming into America, if that’s okay? We’re stopping drugs at a level that nobody’s ever seen before. Last year, we lost, I believe, 300,000 people, and that’s not talking about the destruction to families.”
But Trump’s justification relied on a vastly inflated statistic. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reports about 80,000 Americans died from overdoses last year — a decrease of nearly 27% from the previous year.
Legal and political backlash
Members of Congress and legal experts from across the political spectrum condemned the administration’s reasoning. Sen. Jack Reed of Rhode Island, the top Democrat on the Senate Armed Services Committee, accused Trump of waging “secret wars against anyone he calls an enemy” without credible justification or congressional authorization.
“Drug cartels are despicable and must be dealt with by law enforcement,” Reed said, “but now, by the President’s own words, the U.S. military is engaged in armed conflict with undefined enemies he has unilaterally labeled ‘unlawful combatants.’”
Former Navy lawyer Mark Nevitt echoed that concern in comments to Reuters, saying, “Applying a new label to an old problem does not transform the problem itself — nor does it grant the president or the U.S. military expanded legal authority to kill civilians.”
Broader implications
While the White House argues the cartels’ narcotics shipments amount to armed attacks that justify the use of lethal military force, many legal analysts say the move dangerously expands wartime powers and undermines international norms separating law enforcement from combat operations.
Sestak warned that redefining criminals as combatants could eventually erode the boundary between the military and civilian law enforcement inside the United States.
“Does that legalize the military to act as a police force here?” he asked, pointing out that America’s founders never wanted a standing army enforcing laws on American soil.
As of publication, most of the operations against the cartels designated as FTOs have taken place at sea, but Trump has suggested he may authorize future strikes on land. If that happens, legal experts say it could ignite a full-scale constitutional and international crisis.
