- U.S. military has escalated lethal strikes on suspected narco-trafficking vessels, framing cartels as "narco-terrorists" and equating them with al‑Qaeda.
- Operations lack public evidence and congressional authorization, raising legal, diplomatic, and human-rights concerns across the region.
WASHINGTON—In a moment that could have been ripped straight from a blockbuster script, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth on Tuesday channeled Liam Neeson’s gravelly resolve from the 2008 thriller Taken, issuing a stark warning to the shadowy world of narco-traffickers plying the Pacific.
“These narco-terrorists have killed more Americans than Al-Qaeda, and they will be treated the same,” Hegseth declared in a social media post announcing the latest U.S. military strikes.
“We will track them, we will network them, and then, we will hunt and kill them.”
The FrankNez Media Daily Briefing newsletter provides all the news you need to start your day. Sign up here.
The phrasing—echoing Neeson’s iconic line about possessing “a very particular set of skills”—drew swift mockery and alarm from critics, who saw it as more chest-thumping bravado than sober policy.
But beneath the cinematic flair lies a grim escalation: The strikes Hegseth touted killed 14 people aboard four suspected drug vessels in the eastern Pacific, marking the deadliest single operation in a campaign that’s now claimed at least 57 lives since early September.
One survivor was reported, with Mexican authorities coordinating the rescue, though details on their fate remain murky.
Intel on the Mission
Hegseth’s post included grainy video footage of the attacks, showing speedboats erupting in flames amid the waves. He insisted the vessels were “known by our intelligence apparatus, transiting along known narco-trafficking routes, and carrying narcotics.”
Yet, as with previous operations, the Pentagon offered no public evidence—no manifests, no photos of seized cargo, no victim identifications—to back those claims.
This opacity has fueled a torrent of backlash, turning what the Trump administration frames as a righteous crusade against fentanyl pipelines into a flashpoint for debates over executive power, international law, and the blurred line between counterterrorism and summary execution.
The strikes represent the latest chapter in a broader military pivot under President Donald Trump, who has designated several Latin American cartels—including Mexico’s Sinaloa and Jalisco New Generation groups, as well as Venezuela’s Tren de Aragua—as foreign terrorist organizations.
This labeling, formalized in executive orders signed on Trump’s first day back in office in January, has unlocked an arsenal of tools once reserved for groups like al-Qaeda or ISIS.
United States to Start Dismantling the Cartels
In August, Trump quietly directed the Pentagon to prepare “options for the possible use of military force” against these networks, according to U.S. officials speaking to Reuters and The New York Times. The goal?
To treat drug smuggling not as a criminal enterprise, but as an “armed attack” on American soil, justifying lethal action under the president’s Article II powers.
That rationale traces back to the campaign’s bloody debut on September 2, when U.S. forces sank a boat in the Caribbean Sea, killing 11 alleged Tren de Aragua members.
Trump himself released the footage, claiming the vessel was loaded with “massive amounts of drugs.”
Subsequent hits followed in rapid succession: Four more died off Venezuela’s coast on October 3, per a CBS News report citing Hegseth’s X post; three in another Venezuelan-linked strike on September 15, as announced by the White House; and five in Pacific waters off Colombia just last week, where Hegseth again invoked al-Qaeda parallels.
“Just as al-Qaida waged war on our homeland, these cartels are waging war on our border and our people,” he wrote then.
“There will be no refuge or forgiveness—only justice.”
By mid-October, the tally had climbed to at least 34 deaths across eight confirmed strikes, all without congressional authorization or declarations of war.
Trump dismissed the need for one during a White House event last Friday, saying, “I don’t think we will necessarily ask for a Declaration of War… I think we will just kill people that are bringing drugs into our country. Okay? We’re going to kill them. They’re going to be, like, dead.”
The Risks Aren’t Going Unnoticed
The human cost is stark, but so is the diplomatic fallout. Colombian President Gustavo Petro, a former guerrilla turned leftist leader, has demanded a United Nations criminal probe, branding the operations “murder.”
In mid-September, Petro identified one victim as Alejandro Carranza, a “lifelong fisherman” whose damaged boat had been drifting—not smuggling—when it was hit.
Trump fired back on Truth Social, labeling Petro an “illegal drug leader” for allegedly shielding traffickers.
Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro, meanwhile, has decried the strikes as “extravagant, unjustifiable, immoral and absolutely criminal,” deploying his own warships and drones to counter what he calls U.S. “aggression.”
In March, Maduro even threatened a state of emergency over the encroaching American naval presence.
Closer to home, the backlash crosses party lines. Kentucky Republican Sen. Rand Paul, a staunch non-interventionist, slammed the tactics as “summary execution,” arguing, “We can’t just kill indiscriminately because we are not at war.”
Maryland Democrat Sen. Jamie Raskin piled on, warning that Trump is positioning himself as “the police, the judge, the jury and the executioner.”
Legal scholars echo those concerns: Without a post-9/11-style Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) from Congress—unlike the one greenlighting al-Qaeda hunts—these boat bombings skirt constitutional bounds, potentially violating international humanitarian law by forgoing interception or capture attempts.
Even within the administration, secrecy reigns. Reuters reported this month that Pentagon officials expanding Latin American ops have been asked to sign non-disclosure agreements, stifling transparency.
Former GOP trial lawyer John Jackson called it a non-starter in court: “Good luck going into a federal court and arguing that you need to enforce a contract to shield mass murder. Pig won’t fly.”
Mexican Officials Allegedly Angered by U.S. Threats
This isn’t Hegseth’s first foray into cartel saber-rattling. Barely a week into his tenure, the former Fox News host told his old colleagues on “Fox & Friends” that “all options will be on the table” for striking Mexican cartels, refusing to rule out cross-border raids.
“Should the cartels continue to pour people, gangs and drugs and violence into our country—we will take that on,” he said, emphasizing a “shift” in military focus to border security.
In closed-door talks with Mexican officials that March, Hegseth reportedly “shocked and angered” them by threatening unilateral action if Mexico didn’t curb government-cartel collusion, per the Wall Street Journal.
Mexico responded by extraditing 29 cartel suspects to the U.S., but Trump remained unsatisfied, slapping 25% tariffs on Mexican goods to squeeze the traffickers’ finances.
The pressure campaign extends beyond boats. On October 11, Hegseth announced a new counter-narcotics Joint Task Force under U.S. Southern Command (SOUTHCOM), vowing to “crush the cartels, stop the poison, and keep America safe.”
Adm. Alvin Holsey backed the move, noting that “transnational criminal organizations threaten the security, prosperity, and health of our hemisphere.”
Resources have poured in: The USS Gerald R. Ford carrier strike group, flanked by destroyers and F-35 jets, now patrols off South America, while drone surveillance over Mexican fentanyl labs has intensified from Biden-era levels.
Yet for all the firepower, questions linger about efficacy. Fentanyl deaths in the U.S. topped 70,000 last year, but experts doubt sea strikes alone will dent the trade—most product crosses via land ports or tunnels.
And as one survivor now potentially faces Mexican custody, the operations risk alienating allies like President Claudia Sheinbaum, who in May flatly rejected Trump’s offer of U.S. troops on Mexican soil: “We cooperate, we coordinate but there won’t be an invasion… that is ruled out.”
Hegseth’s Taken-esque vow may rally the base, but it’s also laid bare the tensions in Trump’s “America First” war on drugs: a high-stakes gamble where Hollywood tough talk collides with the messy realities of law, lives, and sovereignty.
As the death toll mounts and evidence stays under wraps, one thing’s clear—the hunt shows no signs of slowing.
Also Read: A DOJ Whistleblower Now Makes Revelation That Undermines the Judicial System’s Integrity
