On Sept. 2, the U.S. government carried out military strikes on a boat that it claims belonged to the Venezuelan gang Tren de Aragua. At least 11 people were killed. The U.S. alleges that the boat was smuggling drugs but has presented no evidence.
Since then, the U.S. has bombed at least three more boats in the Caribbean, killing a total of at least 21 people.
As a Quaker organization committed to peace and justice, we oppose violence in all its forms. These strikes will only lead to more violence. They put U.S. citizens at risk of retribution, heighten the risk of wider conflict, and do nothing to address the complex issue of drug addiction.
Here’s what you need to know.
1. These attacks are extrajudicial executions.
The U.S. killed the people in these boats without due process. All people—no matter where they live or what law they are accused of breaking—have basic rights, including the right to life and due process. When someone is accused of a crime, they are detained and afforded a trial and defense. Instead of interdicting vessels, the U.S. government chose to simply kill the accused. This is state-sanctioned murder.
The U.S. government claims the men killed were “narco-terrorists” and members of Tren de Aragua but has provided no evidence. Even if true, the U.S. is not in a state of armed conflict with Tren de Aragua or other cartels and gangs that the government has labeled “foreign terrorist organizations.” The U.S. has no legal right to use force against these groups. Drug smugglers are not lawful military targets.
2. Drug smuggling is a law enforcement issue, not a military one.
The U.S. has effective bilateral agreements in place with countries across the Western Hemisphere to address drug trafficking. The Coast Guard has interdicted drug smugglers alone and with others for decades through established legal processes.
The U.S. interdicts boats and detains people in international or U.S. waters because, without doing so, there is no evidence that those accused of drug trafficking have done anything wrong. Without interdicting boats, you don’t know who you are killing. They could be fishermen, migrants, or drug traffickers. Additionally, drug smuggling is not a capital offense. Killing drug smugglers is neither legal nor moral.
3. These attacks dramatically expand the terrorism framework and could lead to increased violence and repression.
The Trump administration has justified these attacks by calling the men killed “narco-terrorists” and members of proscribed “terrorist organizations.” Since February 2025, the U.S. government has designated at least 19 new groups—mostly drug cartels and gangs from Latin America—as “foreign terrorist organizations” (FTOs). These and other additions represent over one-third of all FTO designations in the last 20 years.
FTO designation has broad impacts that place whole communities at risk. Anti-terrorism laws prohibit any contact or relationship with proscribed organizations and their members. Any contact could be considered a violation of the law. This is particularly concerning in locations where cartels hold significant power and control businesses, potentially criminalizing entire communities. In the U.S., individuals or groups who intervene, provide legal assistance, or otherwise work with or around designated FTOs like MS-13 could face legal sanctions.
However, designating a group as an FTO does not constitute authorization for the use of military force against it or its members. The U.S. is not in a state of declared conflict with any of these entities. Human rights law governs this situation and permits lethal force only as a last resort when there is an imminent threat to life. That does not apply to this situation. The deadly military strikes against members of recently designated FTOs are illegal.
4. Only Congress, not the president, can authorize war and the use of military force.
President Trump has told Congress that it is his position that the U.S. is in a formal state of armed conflict with the drug cartels that his administration has labeled “terrorist” organizations. However, it is not the executive branch that determines when the U.S. is at war.
Under the War Powers Resolution of 1973, Congress authorizes the use of military force. Without explicit congressional approval or an emergency brought about by an attack against the U.S., the president lacks legal authority to carry out unilateral military hostilities that risk a new war. The attacks on these boats are therefore illegal, and the U.S. is not at war.
Congressional war powers extend beyond authorizing war. Despite its name, the War Powers Resolution requires congressional approval for any use of the U.S. military in “hostilities.” This congressional assertion of broad authority was purposeful and means that Congress has the right to limit the use of military force.
In an attempt to “legalize” these strikes, the White House and Republicans in Congress are circulating a draft Authorization for the use of Military Force (AUMF). An AUMF is a joint resolution passed by Congress to authorize the use of military force. The AUMF passed in 2001 provided authorization for the global war on terror, and the AUMF passed in 2002 authorized the war in Iraq.
Any new AUMF should be opposed. The draft proposal could be interpreted to authorize U.S. attacks in as many as 60 countries. It also opens the door for a military invasion of Venezuela and possible regime change. The threat of a new war should be taken seriously. Trump administration officials have accused Nicolas Maduro of controlling cartels in Venezuela, despite receiving no support for these allegations from U.S. intelligence agencies. And other officials are pushing for regime change in Venezuela. Well being and security of Venezuela’s people has to be a priority.
5. Congress must hear from constituents who oppose these strikes.
War Powers Resolutions are the key tool available to oppose this assassination campaign and the growing push for war. Resolutions have been introduced in both the House and the Senate to demand a stop to the Trump administration’s actions.
Senators Adam Schiff and Tim Kaine have introduced a war powers bill, S.J. Res 83, to ban attacks on groups designated as FTOs after Feb. 2025. Unfortunately, their resolution was voted down by the Senate. However, new legislation to enforce war powers can and should be introduced in the Senate. In the House H. Con. Res 51 has been introduced for the same purpose and needs support.
Latin America faces deep and persistent challenges—inequality, violence, and unemployment continue to shape daily life for millions. The United States has a crucial role to play, but it must rethink its approach. Instead of policies that fuel instability and insecurity, it should work alongside the region to promote inclusive, sustainable solutions that address the root causes of these problems.
Congress needs to hear from you. Join AFSC in taking action to demand that Congress pass war powers resolutions to stop the U.S. from entering into a new and borderless war.