Key points: SOUTHCOM’s senior JAG warned that strikes on suspected drug-smuggling boats could be unlawful and might constitute extrajudicial killings, but his view was reportedly overruled by higher-ranking civilian lawyers. Since Sept. 2, U.S. forces have carried out 21 strikes that officials say killed 82 people, though detailed evidence linking the vessels to drug shipments has not been publicly released. Legal experts warn the administration’s justification is fragile and could expose service members and commanders to future legal risk; lawmakers have pressed for more information about the legal and intelligence basis for the campaign.
Top SOUTHCOM Legal Advisor Warned Boat Strikes Could Be Unlawful, Sources Say
Key points: SOUTHCOM’s senior JAG warned that strikes on suspected drug-smuggling boats could be unlawful and might constitute extrajudicial killings, but his view was reportedly overruled by higher-ranking civilian lawyers. Since Sept. 2, U.S. forces have carried out 21 strikes that officials say killed 82 people, though detailed evidence linking the vessels to drug shipments has not been publicly released. Legal experts warn the administration’s justification is fragile and could expose service members and commanders to future legal risk; lawmakers have pressed for more information about the legal and intelligence basis for the campaign.
08:26 AM, 11/20/2025Security
A senior military lawyer at U.S. Southern Command (SOUTHCOM) warned in August that planned strikes on small boats suspected of carrying drugs could be unlawful and might amount to extrajudicial killings, according to multiple people familiar with the deliberations. His advice was reportedly set aside by higher-ranking civilian lawyers, including advisers from the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel.
Legal Concerns and Internal Dispute
The officer — the command’s senior judge advocate general (JAG), identified by three people as Marine Col. Paul Meagher — raised concerns that strikes against people aboard small vessels in the Caribbean Sea and eastern Pacific Ocean could expose service members to criminal or civil liability. Sources said Meagher warned the strikes risked crossing from law enforcement into armed conflict and could amount to unlawful, extrajudicial killings.
Multiple military attorneys at different levels also weighed in during internal discussions; several uniformed and civilian lawyers expressed doubts to senior officials at their commands and to Pentagon legal counsel about whether the operations met applicable legal standards. According to those familiar with the process, it is uncommon for an operation to proceed without seriously incorporating the judgment of a command’s top lawyer, although senior civilian or Justice Department lawyers can overrule such advice.
Government Response
A Pentagon spokesman, Sean Parnell, issued a statement saying the Defense Department denies that Pentagon or SOUTHCOM lawyers raised legal concerns about the strikes and affirmed the department’s confidence that the operations are lawful under U.S. and international law and consistent with the law of armed conflict.
SOUTHCOM directed further inquiries to the Defense Department. Repeated attempts to reach Col. Meagher for comment were unsuccessful.
Facts, Claims and Questions
U.S. officials say that since Sept. 2 forces have conducted 21 strikes on small vessels and that 82 people were killed. Officials have not publicly released detailed evidence linking those specific vessels to drug shipments bound for the United States, and lawmakers from both parties have pressed the administration for more information about the legal rationale and the intelligence underpinning the strikes.
The administration has told congressional staff that the president concluded the United States is in an "armed conflict" with some cartel members and has moved to designate certain Latin American cartels as foreign terrorist organizations. Administration officials argue the strikes are necessary to stem a drug threat they say harms Americans, pointing in particular to fentanyl; critics note that fentanyl is most commonly trafficked overland across the U.S.-Mexico border, while cocaine — more often moved by sea — poses different risks.
Expert Views and Potential Ramifications
Legal scholars and former military lawyers say the administration’s legal theory is fragile. Dan Maurer, an associate law professor and former Army JAG, told colleagues that narcotics smuggling and related crimes generally do not meet the legal definition of an armed attack under U.S. and international law. Several former military lawyers warned that a weak legal justification could expose commanders and troops to future legal jeopardy if subsequent administrations or courts scrutinize the decisions.
"There is no world where this is legal," a current JAG told sources on the condition of anonymity.
Some critics also point to operational concerns: a number of strikes may have killed people who were noncombatants or migrants merely aboard smuggling vessels. Two survivors of a reported strike were repatriated to Colombia and Ecuador rather than detained by U.S. authorities, raising additional questions about the strength of the intelligence and evidence used to identify targets.
Broader Implications
The dispute over the boat strikes echoes earlier internal fights over legal limits — for example, disagreements among senior military lawyers in the early 2000s about interrogation techniques. Observers warn the debate over the legality of these strikes could intensify if the administration expands operations to strikes on land inside another country, which the current maritime legal rationale does not cover.
Southern Command’s commander, Adm. Alvin Holsey, has announced his planned departure after less than a year in the post, a shorter tenure than is typical, and officials say internal friction over the campaign contributed to tensions within the command.
The issue remains politically charged: administration lawyers maintain the operations are lawful and say they have briefed Congress; lawmakers and legal experts continue to press for clearer evidence and legal explanation. The matter raises enduring questions about the proper boundary between law enforcement and armed conflict and about how legal advice is used when weighing lethal military operations.