US Military kills 14 in attacks on vessels in the Pacific, according to Hegseth

2025-10-2816:531312www.theguardian.com

US says one person survived latest strikes, having killed 51 people in attacks on at least 13 vessels in recent weeks

The US military killed 14 people and left one survivor in more strikes on drug-trafficking boats in the eastern Pacific, the defense secretary, Pete Hegseth, said on Monday, as the Trump administration continued to expand its campaign beyond the Caribbean.

The latest strikes mean the US has now attacked at least 13 vessels and brought the officially acknowledged death toll to 51 people since the campaign began at the start of September.

Hegseth did not provide geographic details beyond saying that the strikes took place in the eastern Pacific, in international waters. Last week, the administration started targeting boats on the western side of the Americas after initially focusing on boats off the coast of Venezuela.

The four boats were hit on Sunday in three strikes, Hegseth said in a social media post announcing the matter. His said the boats were “known by our intelligence apparatus, transiting along known narco-trafficking routes, and carrying narcotics”. He also acknowledged there was a survivor.

In perhaps an effort to avoid the legally thorny questions that could come with detaining that person, Hegseth said the US enlisted Mexico to take on search-and-rescue responsibilities – which Mexico accepted.

Hegseth sought to justify the attacks by comparing the US strikes against alleged drug traffickers to conducting strikes on al-Qaida targets during the global war on terror.

“The Department has spent over TWO DECADES defending other homelands. Now, we’re defending our own. These narco-terrorists have killed more Americans than Al-Qaeda, and they will be treated the same. We will track them, we will network them, and then, we will hunt and kill them,” Hegseth said.

But the justification for the strikes has been widely disputed by legal experts. For one, when the US killed al-Qaida members, Congress had authorized the use of force. In targeting drug cartel members, the administration has relied on Trump’s article II powers to defend the US against an imminent threat.

The latest boat strikes come as the US appears destined to start hitting land-based targets in the coming weeks, after the Pentagon sent its most advanced aircraft carrier and its strike group to the Caribbean — a major escalation in the Trump administration’s stated war against drug cartels.

The move is expected to bring the USS Gerald Ford, with its dozens of fighter jets, and its accompanying destroyers, to the coast of Venezuela by roughly the end of the week, according to a person familiar with the matter.

Sending the carrier strike group to the Caribbean is the clearest sign to date that the administration intends to dramatically expand the scope of its lethal military campaign from hitting small boats alleged to be carrying drugs bound for the US to targets on land.

skip past newsletter promotion

The supercarrier has dozens of F-18 Super Hornet jets that increase the offensive firepower and ability for the US to hit air-defense systems in Venezuela. That would clear the way for US special operations or drones to destroy land-based targets, current and former officials said.

Donald Trump confirmed to reporters at the White House on 23 October that the next stage of the campaign was to hit targets on the ground. “The land is going to be next,” the president said. “The land drugs are much more dangerous for them. It’s going to be much more dangerous. You’ll be seeing that soon.”

Trump did not discuss which targets in which countries the US intended to strike. But he directed Hegseth, who was seated beside him at the White House event about curbing the flow of illegal drugs into the US, to notify Congress about the administration’s plans.

Asked whether he would declare war against the cartels, Trump suggested he would continue with individual strikes. “I think we’re just going to kill people that are bringing drugs into our country, OK?” he said. “We’re going to kill them, you know they’re going to be, like, dead.”


Read the original article

Comments

  • By more_corn 2025-10-2818:563 reply

    Let’s talk about the fact that we’re sort of ok with these murders. These are extrajudicial killings outside of a declaration of war. I’m not arguing we shouldn’t do it. But let’s talk about the fact of what we’re doing.

    • By beardyw 2025-10-2819:41

      > I’m not arguing we shouldn’t do it.

      Why not. Most human beings agree this is wrong.

    • By maximinus_thrax 2025-10-292:24

      > Let’s talk about the fact that we’re sort of ok with these murders.

      I am definitely not ok with these murders but I know the press is working hard to manufacture popular support for them.

    • By dragonwriter 2025-10-2820:41

      > Let’s talk about the fact that we’re sort of ok with these murders.

      If you are, in fact, okay with the murders, go ahead and talk about it.

      I'm not, from either a moral, an international legal, or a domestic legal viewpoint, but, you do you.

  • By standardly 2025-10-2818:443 reply

    I'm conflicted. The narcotics situation is very bad. At the same time... Can't wait for cartel terrorist attacks in the US. What a time

    • By noworriesnate 2025-10-2820:331 reply

      I don't see how the cartel could win by doing terror attacks in the US. Nobody likes them here. They won't have popular support. The US military will have enormous popular support. This won't be like Afghanistan or Vietnam or anything like that.

      • By dragonwriter 2025-10-2820:39

        > I don't see how the cartel could win by doing terror attacks in the US.

        Retaliation (if the attacks were actually impacting cartels at all, which most reports that don't come from the US government cast doubt on) does not require a rational plan for victory. (OTOH, the way they could win by doing that is to provoke a reaction by a government intent on being seen to be doing something about the attacks so that it responds in a way which has either direct [because of poor targeting] or collateral [because of lack of restraint] adverse impacts on uninvolved domestic populations sufficient to make the government campaign unpopular independent of how unpopular its nominal targets are. Of course, this would take an administration that is both unusually prone to poorly aimed violent actions and unusually unconcerned with due process and the rule of law, but that’s exactly what produced the current situation, anyway.)

    • By deeg 2025-10-293:21

      I'm not conflicted at all. No matter how bad a problem is the government can't just kill people with no due process. That's murder.

  • By beardyw 2025-10-2816:541 reply

    The Houthis only managed to kill 7.

    • By johng 2025-10-2817:592 reply

      If the barrels are full of fentanyl precursor, then the amount of deaths saved by the attacks could be in the tens of thousands.

      • By beardyw 2025-10-2819:13

        Helping prevent people killing themselves is not a justification for murdering other people. That is animal.

      • By lawn 2025-10-2819:39

        "If" is doing a lot of work there buddy.

HackerNews