The Rules of Engagement Were Not Created for Trump's False 'Armed Conflict' Against Drug Smugglers

The Trump administration has strongly denied a Washington Post report claiming that Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth instructed U.S. forces to "kill everyone" on a suspected drug-running vessel in the Caribbean last September. The report alleges that a follow-up missile strike killed two survivors who were clinging to the wreckage from the initial attack. Even President Donald Trump acknowledged that such an order would be highly problematic, a view shared by Republican lawmakers planning to investigate the matter.

If the report is accurate, former military lawyers argue that the issuance and execution of such an order could constitute war crimes or murder. However, applying the law of war in this scenario is complicated by the unusual nature of the conflict, which Trump frames as a justification for his aggressive anti-drug operationsoperations that have already resulted in 83 deaths across 21 attacks.

Trump has characterized the smuggling of drugs into the U.S. as "an armed attack against the United States," making vessels suspected of carrying illegal substances legitimate military targets. Yet, the resulting violence appears one-sided, with government lawyers arguing that these actions do not meet the War Powers Resolution definition of "hostilities," as U.S. forces face minimal risk.

The Defense Department's law-of-war manual explicitly states that armed forces members must refuse clearly illegal orders, such as attacking the shipwrecked. According to the manual, the term "shipwrecked" includes anyone stranded at sea or on the coast and in need of assistance, who are not engaging in hostile acts. Deliberately killing individuals clinging to wreckage would violate this rule.

Critics argue that a "kill everyone" order would amount to a "no quarter" policy, also prohibited by the manual. This rule forbids denying surrender or executing detainees summarily, and it applies even in non-international armed conflicts, the category Trump claims his anti-drug campaign falls under. The prohibition against conducting hostilities to leave no survivors seems particularly relevant, though the government maintains that these attacks do not constitute "hostilities."

Trumps approach rejects arresting suspected drug smugglers, favoring lethal force instead, which effectively removes the concept of detainees and normalizes summary execution. It also raises questions about what constitutes a legitimate surrender when individuals are labeled as "belligerents" solely for illegal activity rather than violent attacks.

Geoffrey Corn, former U.S. Army senior adviser on the law of war, criticized Trumps classification of the situation as a non-international armed conflict, noting it contradicts standard definitions. In a New York Times interview, Corn explained that in a true naval conflict, firing on a disabled enemy ship that continues to fight is lawful, but continuing to fire after it signals surrender is illegal. In this case, the speedboat was neither armed nor engaged in combat, highlighting the flaw in treating drug smuggling as an armed conflict.

The core issue is Trumps conflation of criminal drug smuggling with violent aggression, effectively transforming murder into self-defense. This rationale underpins a campaign that bypasses due process and blurs the line between combatants and civilians. Instead of narrowly assessing whether a specific action violated the law of war, Congress should examine how summary executions of suspected criminals became normalized under this policy.

Author: Sophia Brooks