Caribbean Boat Strikes May Be Worse Than the U.S. Torture Scandal

Caribbean Boat Strikes May Be Worse Than the U.S. Torture Scandal

A covert U.S. military campaign targeting alleged drug-smuggling boats off the coasts of Central and South America has triggered one of the most serious legal and moral crises of Donald Trump’s second term, and it is now drawing comparisons to the Bush-era torture scandal that reshaped American war powers after 9/11.

According to reporting from multiple outlets and accounts from lawmakers briefed on classified materials, the strikes authorized by the Trump administration and carried out by U.S. forces, have resulted in at least 87 deaths, including civilians. The controversy intensified after revelations that the military conducted a “double-tap” strike, hitting an alleged drug vessel and then deliberately targeting survivors of the initial blast, a tactic widely condemned under international humanitarian law when used outside an active battlefield. While Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth and senior military commanders have absorbed much of the political backlash, legal experts say the most consequential decisions were made elsewhere, inside the Trump administration’s legal apparatus.

The Classified Legal Memo at the Center of the Storm

At the heart of the operation is a classified memo produced by the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) that reportedly authorizes the strikes and asserts that U.S. personnel involved are shielded from criminal liability. The memo, drafted over the summer, is said to rely on a sweeping claim: that the United States is engaged in an armed conflict with international drug cartels, thereby triggering the law of armed conflict and granting combatant-level immunity. A DOJ spokesperson has publicly defended the position, stating:

“These operations were ordered consistent with the law of armed conflict.”

That claim has fractured the conservative legal establishment. Even lawyers who previously endorsed the most aggressive expansions of executive power say the administration’s reasoning may go further, and rest on shakier ground, than anything seen in the last half-century.

Even the Architect of the “Torture Memos” Is Skeptical

One of the most striking rebukes comes from John Yoo, the former Bush administration lawyer who helped draft the post-9/11 OLC memos that authorized waterboarding and other extreme interrogation tactics.

“I don’t think there’s an armed attack,” Yoo said, rejecting the idea that drug cartels qualify as wartime adversaries under U.S. or international law.

Yoo drew a sharp distinction between al Qaeda and drug traffickers.

“They’re not attacking us because of our foreign policy or our political system,” he said. “They’re just selling us something that people in America want. That’s traditionally crime, not war.”

If Yoo is correct, legal analysts warn, the consequences are staggering. Outside a lawful armed conflict, the intentional killing of alleged traffickers, particularly survivors of earlier strikes, could constitute murder under U.S. law and war crimes under international law. While Trump himself may be insulated by recent Supreme Court rulings on presidential immunity, that protection does not automatically extend to military officers, civilian officials, or government lawyers involved in authorizing the campaign.

Internal Dissent and How It Was Overridden

Multiple reports indicate that career government lawyers raised alarms about the legality of the strikes and were sidelined or ignored. Those objections were ultimately overridden by leadership at OLC, now headed by T. Elliot Gaiser, a 36-year-old Trump loyalist with no prior experience inside the Justice Department before his appointment. Gaiser’s résumé includes clerking for conservative judges and serving as Ohio’s solicitor general, but critics argue that his rapid ascent reflects political loyalty more than institutional credibility. During his confirmation, Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse called him “completely unqualified” to run OLC.

Gaiser’s past has only intensified scrutiny. Testimony before the Jan. 6 select committee revealed that he assisted Trump’s effort to overturn the 2020 election and advanced legal theories, later rejected, claiming Vice President Mike Pence could discard certified electoral votes.

For many observers, the parallels are unmistakable: a compliant OLC issuing aggressive legal justifications to shield executive action just as it did during the Bush administration.

A Legal Theory With Dangerous Precedent

According to lawmakers briefed on the memo, OLC’s argument hinges on the idea that drug shipments themselves constitute legitimate military targets because cartel profits allegedly fund violence against Americans. Legal scholars say there is no meaningful precedent for such reasoning. The implications extend far beyond drug policy.

“This is the thing conservatives should worry about,” Yoo warned. “Once you say anything that harms Americans can be treated as an act of war, the logic becomes limitless.”

He offered a stark hypothetical: a future president declaring war on fossil fuel companies or other domestic industries by repurposing the same legal framework.

Why This May Eclipse the Torture Scandal

The Bush-era torture memos were eventually declassified, investigated, and repudiated, at least in part, because Congress had passed an Authorization for Use of Military Force after 9/11. No such authorization exists here. Congress has not approved military force against drug cartels, nor against Venezuela, which several analysts believe may be the administration’s unstated strategic target. Yet the Trump administration has reportedly restricted airspace near Venezuela and expanded military operations in the region moves that, taken together, resemble undeclared war. Unlike the torture program, which targeted detainees already in U.S. custody, this campaign involves lethal force without capture, charges, or due process, deliberately avoiding survivors who could challenge the legality of the strikes in court.

The Case for Full Disclosure

If the administration believes its actions are lawful, legal experts argue there is no legitimate justification for keeping the OLC memo entirely classified. Redactions could protect intelligence sources and methods, but the core legal reasoning, especially when lives are at stake, belongs in public view. These decisions involve war and peace, life and death, and the limits of presidential power. They cannot remain hidden behind classified memos and legal abstractions. If the Trump administration refuses to release the analysis, congressional investigators, and potentially the next administration, will be forced to reckon with it later, just as the country was after the torture program.

The lesson from history is clear: when government lawyers stretch the law to justify extreme acts in secrecy, accountability eventually follows. The only question is how much damage is done before that reckoning arrives.