Are Americans in favor of Trump's boat strikes? It's complex.

The uproar surrounding the Trump administrations second strike on a suspected drug-smuggling boat in the Caribbean has revived questions about the legality of the earlier attacks. While some critics argue the second strike on survivors could constitute a war crime, the initial strikes which have resulted in more than 80 deaths have also faced serious legal scrutiny due to the absence of a declared conflict.

President Donald Trump, however, shows little interest in legal debates. He frames the strikes as effective policy and strong politics, insisting that people are either aligned with the alleged traffickers or firmly against them.

When asked whether those responsible would face consequences if it were proven that survivors were intentionally targeted, Trump avoided the question. He instead suggested that many Americans support the aggressive approach, saying there is a very receptive ear to doing exactly what theyre doing, taking out those boats.

Despite claims from those close to the White House that the strikes represent a politically advantageous issue, public opinion is far more nuanced. Before examining the legal complexities, it is important to understand whether Americans even support these actions.

A recent CBS News/YouGov poll offers a baseline: 53% of respondents supported using military force to attack boats suspected of transporting drugs into the United States, while 47% opposed it. The issue appears only mildly popular, far from the overwhelming support some have claimed.

The same poll then asked whether the government should publicly provide evidence proving the targeted vessels were actually involved in drug trafficking. A significant 75% said yes including half of Republican respondents highlighting strong public demand for transparency.

So far, the administration has not released such evidence. It has not identified the more than 80 people killed, nor has it publicly explained its legal rationale. When two men survived an October strike, they were released to their home countries rather than detained, preventing them from challenging the government in court and potentially forcing a disclosure of information.

This trust us approach appears to conflict with public expectations. A Reuters/Ipsos poll found that Americans oppose killing suspected traffickers abroad without judicial process by a margin of 51% to 29%. Even a substantial portion of Republicans expressed discomfort with the approach.

There remains the question of how deeply Americans value due process in this context. Some may express support for legal checks but still approve of harsh action against traffickers in practice. Trump appears to be counting on this dynamic, much like his strategy involving sweeping deportation efforts actions that have simultaneously energized his base and damaged his broader approval ratings on immigration.

Now, with Congress seeking answers, the details behind the boat strikes are becoming increasingly important. Concerns raised by lawmakers including Republicans about the reliability of the intelligence used to justify lethal force could prove damaging if the evidence is shown to be weak.

Even more serious is the possibility that survivors were intentionally targeted, which could amount to a war crime. While polling has not yet assessed how Americans would respond to such allegations, it is likely that support would erode significantly if such claims were substantiated.

The administration managed to avoid intense scrutiny for months, but the second strike has thrust the issue into the national spotlight. As more information comes to light, the reaction from the public and the consequences for the administration will hinge on how much Americans truly care about due process and accountability.

Author: Grace Ellison