Executive Summary
The Story So Far
Why This Matters
Who Thinks What?
The Trump administration has developed a classified legal opinion authorizing lethal strikes against a secret and expansive list of cartels and suspected drug traffickers, according to multiple individuals familiar with the matter. Produced by the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel (OLC), the opinion asserts the president’s authority to use deadly force against these groups, arguing they pose an imminent threat to Americans. The scope of this list extends beyond organizations publicly designated as terrorist groups by the administration.
Legal experts view the opinion as highly significant, suggesting it could justify an open-ended conflict against an undisclosed array of groups. This framework appears to grant the president the power to classify drug traffickers as enemy combatants, enabling their summary killing without traditional legal review. Historically, drug trafficking has been addressed through criminal justice channels, with law enforcement agencies like the Coast Guard interdicting vessels and arresting smugglers.
Legal Justification and Concerns
The OLC opinion forms the basis for the Defense Department’s recent memo to lawmakers, which outlined the legal rationale for a series of strikes in the Caribbean. This memo contended that the U.S. is engaged in an “armed conflict” with cartels and that their smugglers are “unlawful combatants.” Lawmakers have repeatedly requested a copy of this legal opinion, including as recently as last week, but the Justice and Defense departments have not yet provided it to Congress.
Attorney General Pam Bondi is scheduled to testify on Capitol Hill on Tuesday, where she is anticipated to face questions regarding the administration’s legal justification for these lethal strikes. To date, the U.S. military has conducted at least four strikes on boats in the Caribbean, resulting in fatalities among individuals the Trump administration claims are “affiliated” with designated terrorist drug cartels.
Within the Pentagon, some military lawyers, including international law experts, have reportedly expressed concerns about the legality of these strikes. Multiple current and former Judge Advocate Generals (JAGs) have indicated that the strikes do not appear lawful. Despite these concerns, Pentagon lawyers cannot override an OLC opinion, which represents the executive branch’s prevailing legal interpretation.
Expanded CIA Authorities
The Justice Department’s opinion is a central component of President Trump’s intensified campaign against Latin American drug cartels. This initiative also includes expanded authorities for the CIA to conduct lethal targeting and covert actions in the region, according to sources familiar with the situation. President Trump reportedly updated the CIA’s authorities concurrently with signing a secret directive earlier this summer, ordering the military to commence strikes against Latin American drug cartels.
The CIA had previously begun reviewing its authorities for lethal force against drug cartels in Mexico and elsewhere, aligning with the Trump administration’s prioritization of this issue. The agency is also utilizing armed surveillance drones over Mexico. While a presidential directive for CIA covert action in counternarcotics dates back to the 1980s, the administration has been working to update this “finding” to provide clearer guidance for the agency’s specific actions in the region.
The expansion of CIA authorities to include lethal targeting of cartel actors carries significant risks. Latin America has a comparatively higher number of U.S.-born citizens and green card holders who could potentially sue the U.S. government if harmed, presenting a novel challenge for the agency.
Key Takeaways
The Trump administration’s classified legal opinion marks a significant shift in U.S. policy towards drug cartels, moving from a criminal justice approach to one that authorizes lethal military force. This expansion of executive power, based on a secret list and the declaration of an “armed conflict,” has raised considerable concern among legal experts and some military lawyers, while drawing scrutiny from Congress.
