US military says 5 killed by strike on alleged drug boat in eastern Pacific

WASHINGTON — The U.S. military said it attacked a boat it accused of smuggling drugs in the eastern Pacific Ocean on Tuesday, killing five people, as the Trump administration continues its campaign against alleged traffickers in Latin America.

The latest attack brings the number of people who have been killed by the U.S. military’s boat strikes to at least 240 in more than 70 strikes. The Trump administration began targeting those it calls “narcoterrorists” in September 2025.

As with most of the military’s statements on strikes in the eastern Pacific Ocean and Caribbean Sea, U.S. Southern Command said it targeted the alleged drug traffickers along known smuggling routes and that “intelligence revealed the vessel’s active involvement in narcotrafficking.”

The military did not provide evidence that the vessel was ferrying drugs. A video posted on X showed a small boat in the water before it was enveloped by an explosion.

President Donald Trump has said the U.S. is in “armed conflict” with cartels in Latin America and he has sought to justify the attacks as a necessary escalation to stem the flow of drugs into the United States and fatal overdoses claiming American lives. But his administration has offered little evidence to support its claims of killing “narcoterrorists.”

Critics have questioned the overall legality of the boat strikes as well as their effectiveness, in part because the fentanyl behind many fatal overdoses is typically trafficked to the U.S. over land from Mexico, where it is produced with chemicals imported from China and India.

The strikes have drawn intense scrutiny from some Democratic lawmakers and military legal scholars. The U.S. military’s first strike drew particular concern from some lawmakers and those who study military law.

Two men on the boat initially survived the attack that killed nine others, and they were clinging to the wreckage when the vessel was struck again, killing them. The White House confirmed the follow-up strike, insisting it was done “in self-defense” to ensure the boat was destroyed and in accordance with the laws of armed conflict.

But some legal scholars said a second strike killing survivors would have been illegal under any circumstance, armed conflict or not.

The Pentagon’s watchdog said in May that it plans to look into whether the U.S. military followed an established targeting framework when carrying out the strikes, which includes a military commander’s intent, target development and execution. But the evaluation will not probe the legality of the strikes.