US strikes on alleged drug boats may be ‘crimes against humanity’, UN says

A United Nations human rights expert has concluded that US attacks on suspected drug trafficking boats in the Caribbean Sea and the Pacific Ocean violate international law and may amount to crimes against humanity.

In a report published on Monday, Ben Saul, the UN’s special rapporteur on human rights and counterterrorism, said the US has struck 68 vessels in international waters between September 2025 and August this year, killing at least 223 people.

The US has defended the strikes as acts of self-defence against “narco-terrorists”, and President Donald Trump has told Congress that the operations reflect a state of armed conflict with designated “terrorist” organisations.

The report, however, rejected that framing.

“The United States military attacks are… contrary to international law, violate the human right to life, and plausibly constitute crimes against humanity,” it said.

The findings came two days after the US military announced it had killed four people in a strike on a vessel in the Caribbean Sea. The campaign has also drawn condemnation from human rights groups, which have called the killings extrajudicial. The Pentagon has released videos of the strikes on social media but has disclosed little about who was killed or what evidence tied them to drug trafficking.

Saul’s report said the US has no right to the use of force in self-defence against alleged drug trafficking.

No right to self-defence

It argued that drug trafficking does not meet the legal threshold of an “armed attack” that would trigger a right to self-defence. It noted that international law only permits self-defence against non-state actors sent by a state, but that there “appears to be no factual basis” that some of the groups designated as “terrorists” by the US, such as Tren de Aragua, were acting as armed proxies of the Venezuelan state.

TThe report also noted that less-lethal alternatives were available, including the maritime interception of vessels – a measure that it said has been acknowledged as feasible by US Secretary of State Marco Rubio.

Because of this, the report said the US attacks also violate the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which permits lethal force only as a last resort against an imminent threat – a standard it said was not met.

It went further, arguing that the killings meet the legal definition of murder as a crime against humanity, since they were carried out “systematically” under an organised state policy and are widespread “given the large number of victims”.

It also called on the US to investigate the killings, prosecute those responsible – including political and military leaders who ordered the strikes – and provide reparations to victims’ families.

Beyond examining the legality of the attacks, the report also questioned the effectiveness of the campaign in reducing drug trafficking to the US. It said cocaine seizures at the US border have remained steady, and noted that much of the region’s cocaine moves through container ships that are rarely inspected, and not the small boats being targeted.

It also said the strikes have done nothing to address fentanyl and opioids, which are not typically trafficked by sea from Venezuela and are the leading cause of US overdose deaths.

The report added that by killing low-level suspects, the strikes may be undermining efforts to dismantle cartel networks and prosecute their leaders. “Meanwhile, it has been estimated that the military operations had cost US$4.7 billion by mid-2026 – funds that could have instead been spent on evidence-based law enforcement, public health, and developmental interventions,” it said.