Top Southern Command JAG Warned Boat Strikes Could Be Unlawful, Sources Say

A senior judge advocate general (JAG) at U.S. Southern Command warned in August that planned strikes on suspected drug-smuggling vessels near Venezuela could amount to extrajudicial killings — a legal assessment that senior officials later overruled, according to multiple people familiar with the advice.

The JAG, identified by three people familiar with the matter as Marine Col. Paul Meagher, raised concerns before strikes began in September. Two senior U.S. officials, two senior congressional aides and two former senior U.S. officials told reporters that Meagher warned the operations risked exposing service members to legal liability because targeting individuals on small boats might not meet the legal threshold for armed conflict.

Higher-ranking civilian lawyers, including advisers from the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel (OLC), ultimately accepted a different legal view that allowed the operations to proceed. Other military lawyers, both uniformed and civilian at various levels, also provided advice; some privately voiced doubts about the legality of the strikes to commanders and Defense Department officials.

What happened and what officials say

Since Sept. 2, administration briefings assert that U.S. forces have conducted 21 strikes on small vessels in the Caribbean Sea and eastern Pacific, killing 82 people the administration says were involved in smuggling drugs bound for the United States. Critics contend that the administration has not publicly produced sufficient evidence to substantiate those claims.

Chief Pentagon spokesman Sean Parnell issued a statement denying that Pentagon or SOUTHCOM lawyers had raised legal objections to the strikes within the chain of command, saying U.S. operations in the Caribbean are "lawful under both U.S. and international law" and comply with the law of armed conflict. Southern Command referred inquiries to the Department of Defense; the White House did not respond to requests for comment.

Legal and political debate

At issue is whether the strikes are lawful military action or unlawful use of lethal force against individuals who would ordinarily be pursued through criminal law. Members of Congress from both parties, retired military lawyers and legal scholars have questioned whether the administration has the legal authority to treat drug cartels as an adversary for the purposes of armed conflict without congressional authorization.

“There is no world where this is legal,” said a current JAG who declined to be named because they were not authorized to speak publicly.

Dan Maurer, an associate law professor and former Army JAG, argued that drug cartels commit crimes but do not meet the traditional legal definitions of an armed attack or invasion under U.S. and international law. Maurer and other former military lawyers warn that the administration’s legal theory is fragile and could leave commanders and personnel exposed to legal risk after the administration changes.

Some senior officials have told lawmakers that President Trump has determined the United States is in an "armed conflict" with members of certain cartels and that the administration has designated some groups as foreign terrorist organizations. Critics note that key parts of the argument — including connections between maritime smuggling and the fentanyl crisis in the U.S. — have not been documented publicly and that fentanyl is more commonly smuggled overland.

Operational and oversight concerns

Members of Congress have complained about a lack of transparency: they say they have not received adequate legal justification or the intelligence behind how vessels and individuals were selected. Questions remain about whether some people killed were noncombatants or migrants with no role in trafficking; in at least two cases, survivors were repatriated to Colombia and Ecuador rather than taken into U.S. custody, raising further questions about evidence and prosecution options.

The debate over the strikes has also produced personnel changes. Adm. Alvin Holsey, head of U.S. Southern Command, announced he will depart after less than a year in the post — a noticeably shorter tenure than usual.

Broader implications

Legal disagreements between command lawyers and senior civilian advisers echo past disputes about the limits of U.S. policy and the role of military counsel in operational decisions. Some commentators warn that expanding military action into policing roles risks blurring long-established lines between law enforcement and armed conflict — a debate with potential consequences for both U.S. legal obligations and the safety of deployed forces.

As officials consider the possibility of expanding strikes, including potential action on land, the current at-sea legal rationale may not apply, and the legal scrutiny surrounding the campaign is likely to intensify.