In February, Emil Bove, then acting Deputy Attorney General, spoke to drug prosecutors about a drastic change in strategy regarding drug vessels. He suggested that instead of stopping these boats, the U.S. should just “sink the boats.” This was a shocking shift, especially just a month after President Trump took office. The administration made it clear that tackling drug cartels was a priority, but few expected that it would lead to actual bombing of suspected drug boats in international waters.
Recent strikes have resulted in over 20 incidents in which more than 75 people have died. Officials claim these boats posed a threat and were carrying drugs, but they haven’t presented any public evidence to back this up. Bove’s comments hint that the administration considered this policy change earlier than many realized.
Notably, several former officials expressed grave concerns about the legality and effectiveness of this new approach. One veteran official stated that such deadly strikes could be seen as preemptive actions without any form of due process, raising ethical questions about the legality of killing people on the high seas.
“There’s significant frustration,” one former Justice Department official noted. “This is a big departure from a proven strategy that allows for capturing bad actors and disrupting their networks.” This traditional method involved seizing drugs, detaining crews, and using their testimonies to gather intelligence. Now, those opportunities might be evaporating.
A recent national survey conducted by the Pew Research Center indicates that nearly 70% of Americans oppose such lethal actions, suggesting a discomfort with the government’s aggressive tactics against drug traffickers. Many believe that simply killing individuals on boats doesn’t halt drug trafficking but may, in fact, exacerbate the problem.
Compounding this issue is the substantial reliance on intelligence. Effective interdictions depend heavily on gathering information from detained crews, which will likely dwindle if they are simply killed. As officials destroy vessels instead of capturing them, U.S. understanding of cartel operations could decline, weakening future efforts to combat drug trafficking.
The new approach departs from the core philosophy of law enforcement. Cutting off the flow of information hampers the ability of U.S. agencies to trace drug supply chains and money laundering networks. A former FBI agent, who specialized in transnational crime, compared the previous system to a “self-licking ice cream cone,” where each interception led to more substantial intelligence. In contrast, Bove’s proposed strategy might stifle this cycle by eliminating participants before any information can be gleaned.
Amidst these changes, the Trump administration is also increasing military presence in the Caribbean, contributing to speculation that the U.S. might target not just drug traffickers, but also Venezuela’s leadership. With no tangible evidence yet shared publicly regarding the operations, skepticism continues to grow about the administration’s claims and goals. As this narrative unfolds, many are left questioning the long-term effectiveness of such a militarized approach to domestic drug issues.
