Human Rights Watch says drone strikes in Haiti have killed nearly 1,250 people

2026-03-1322:28176112haitiantimes.com

Human Rights Watch has condemned drone strikes in Haiti that killed more than 1,243 of civilians, including 17 children, with no clear links to criminal groups.

Human Rights Watch says drone strikes in Haiti over a 10-month period have killed nearly 1,250 people, including 17 children, with no clear links to criminal groups. Carried out between March 2025 and January 2026 by Haitian security forces and private contractors from Erik Prince’s Vectus Global, the attacks with bomb-carrying drones over densely populated areas may represent extrajudicial killings, the organization reported.

PORT-AU-PRINCE — Human Rights Watch (HRW) said Tuesday that drone strikes carried out in Haiti over the past year have killed at least 1,243 people, including 17 children, many of whom had no apparent links to the criminal groups the attacks seek to squash.

Launched by Haitian law enforcement forces and private contractors working for Vectus Global between March 1, 2025, and Jan. 21, 2026, the strikes also injured at least 738 people, according to the organization’s report. At least 49 of the injured appeared to have no ties to gangs or other criminal groups.

Vectus is a military contractor firm founded by American businessman and former Navy SEAL Erik Prince. HRW said the forces used explosive-equipped quadcopter drones in densely populated urban areas of Port-au-Prince, raising concerns that some strikes may constitute extrajudicial killings.

Given the potential for gangs to use vulnerable residents as human shields and Prince’s history of civilian abuses in Iraq, many warned Haitian authorities of potential repeats in Haiti when reports of the contract surfaced.

Neither Prime Minister Alix Didier Fils-Aimé, the Haitian National Police nor Vectus Global responded to requests for comment about the details in the HRW report.

“Haitian authorities must urgently take control of the security forces and the private companies working on their behalf before more children die,” said Juanita Goebertus, director of the Americas Program at Human Rights Watch.

At least 141 operations took place, HRW’s report states. The United Nations Integrated Office in Haiti (BINUH) has said 57 attacks occurred in the capital city between November and January alone, nearly double the 29 strikes recorded between August and October 2025.

One strike that drew attention from the United Nations occurred Sept. 20, 2025, in Simon Pelé, a neighborhood that is part of the Cité Soleil. Of the ten people killed, nine were children ages 3 to 12 who had no apparent connection to criminal groups.

HRW said its data shows an average of about nine deaths per strike, with the deadliest operation killing 57 people. The strikes occurred across nine municipalities in the West Department: Cabaret, Cité Soleil, Croix-des-Bouquets, Delmas, Kenscoff, Léogâne, Pétion-Ville, Port-au-Prince and Tabarre.

Residents told HRW that the drones have fueled more fear rather than a sense of safety.

“I live in constant fear and anxiety,” a merchant in the Martissant neighborhood told the organization. “I pray that the drones no longer fly over our neighborhood.”

Human Rights Watch said international standards allow the deliberate use of lethal force only when strictly necessary to protect life.

“The deliberate and lethal use of firearms and other weapons is only permitted when absolutely necessary to protect a person’s life,” the organization said. “Any use of force must be both necessary and proportionate.”

The group criticized the use of explosive-equipped quadcopter drones capable of navigating between buildings and tracking moving targets in crowded urban neighborhoods. Under such conditions, the organization said, the strikes resemble targeted killings rather than conventional law enforcement operations.

HRW also said no major gang leaders have been captured or killed in connection with the drone campaign. None of the leaders of Haiti’s most powerful gangs have been identified among those killed in the strikes.

For many Haitians living in gang-controlled areas, daily life has changed little despite the costly security operations.

“Fifty-two million U.S. dollars to fire drones into populous neighborhoods,” Fondasyon Je Klere said in its report. “The use of drones in these areas causes more collateral damage among the civilian population than it truly neutralizes gangs.”

The report comes as questions mount in Haiti over a $52 million security contract between the Haitian government and a company linked to Prince. While criticism of the operations rises, the strikes appear to be continuing, with local reports emerging of several drones detonating in downtown Port-au-Prince earlier this week.

Haitian PM slammed for signing millions in foreign contracts that ‘undermine sovereignty’
Critics say three deals totaling $137 million to build prisons, provide security and manage Haiti-DR border shift too much governmental powers to private firms abroad

So far, Haitian authorities have not released a public report detailing how the drones are deployed, who authorizes the strikes or what oversight mechanisms govern the operations.

Human Rights Watch noted that Haiti is a signatory to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which protects the right to life and requires authorities to minimize harm to civilians. The organization urged the government to launch transparent investigations into alleged unlawful killings and clarify the chain of command behind the drone strikes.

“Authorities must conduct transparent investigations into all allegations of unlawful killings, hold those responsible accountable and compensate affected families,” Human Rights Watch said. 

“They must also publicly clarify the command structure for drone strikes and the role of private military companies in these operations.”


Read the original article

Comments

  • By adamiscool8 2026-03-140:193 reply

    The title framing is weird when the report says maybe 5% of the 1250 were civilians, and the same rights group also reports more than 1500 civilians [0] killed over the same period in the horrific and rampant gang violence the government is using this technology to fight against.

    [0] https://www.hrw.org/world-report/2026/country-chapters/haiti

    • By croes 2026-03-142:342 reply

      Since when are drone strikes the legal way to handle criminals. I remember something with trials before you can kill people.

      • By 01100011 2026-03-142:352 reply

        That's a luxury you get when your society has reached a certain level of stability.

        • By gjsman-1000 2026-03-142:441 reply

          Everything is that way.

          Another example: Feminism? Only happened with women in the workforce. Women in the workforce? Only when the Industrial Revolution happened and the economy could support the roles. Industrial Revolution? Only happened when farming and trading got good enough that 90% of the population didn’t need to be farmers first. Very few moral enlightenments have ever actually happened absent economic preconditions, or would not be reversed if the conditions degraded.

          • By watwut 2026-03-1410:46

            > Feminism? Only happened with women in the workforce.

            That is not how it was. First, women were actually working and producing the whole time - but with much more limited options. It is not like they would twiddle thumbs bored prior industrial revolution.

            And second, the politically succesfull feminism happened mostly with women who were middle class, not allowed to work and wanted more ambitious jobs.

        • By mmooss 2026-03-142:454 reply

          People's rights are not luxuries, but the purpose of government: "... to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men ...".

          They are a necessity to achieve freedom and stability.

          • By HDThoreaun 2026-03-1421:431 reply

            Natural rights do not exist. There is nothing natural about freedom. Every right we have we fought tirelessly for. If we forget the struggle we went through to obtain freedom we can easily abandon the cause and lose that freedom.

            • By mmooss 2026-03-1421:581 reply

              While I mostly agree, freedom as a universal right does exist; not everyone can exercise it, but that doesn't make it less of a right.

              And it is 'natural' in the sense that it is valued ~~ universally. I can't establish objectively that it is valued everywhere, of course; I can establish that people en masse have valued it and fought for it all over the world, from Europe to South Asia to SE Asia to East Asia; in Africa, to all of the Americas.

              • By HDThoreaun 2026-03-153:201 reply

                Well the issue here is that value is a spectrum. Having rights involves trade offs, take a look at singapore. I do not think it is in any way self evident that all people value each of their rights the way that you do. In el salvador the people gladly gave up their rights to obtain order, and now they have one of the most popular governments in the world even though they do not have very much freedom at all. For you to carte blanche say the el salvandorans are wrong to be happy with that trade off is naive and incredibly paternalistic. The same is true of the situation in Haiti.

                • By mmooss 2026-03-153:401 reply

                  These are the same old argument that the dictators have made for generations. 'People here don't value freedom'; 'it's just your opinion'. They are called universal rights for a reason, and finding one popular dictator (in a world of fascist propaganda) while democracy and freedom have swept the world is not significant.

                  And if you say, who are you or am I to tell them what they value? Who are the dictators? If we can't morally, then you agree they have a right to self-determination, or freedom.

                  • By HDThoreaun 2026-03-155:121 reply

                    > you agree they have a right to self-determination, or freedom.

                    Certainly I think all people should have say over how they are governed. Whether they use that say to give themselves freedom is another question.

                    > 'People here don't value freedom'

                    No one is saying this. The claim is that some people are willing to sacrifice one thing they value a little (freedom) for something they value more (safety).

                    I havent spent much time looking into the popular opinion about that trade off in Haiti, but to claim that they should never make it as you claim takes away their self determination. If your claim was that Haitans are by and large unhappy with the drone program that would be a different story, but to just say handling criminals extrajudicially is unacceptable no matter what strikes me as naive

                    • By mmooss 2026-03-1519:15

                      > The claim is that some people are willing to sacrifice one thing they value a little (freedom) for something they value more (safety).

                      You're assuming what they value more. Also, without freedom there is little safety. Without freedom of speech, etc., you can't have a free election where people can have self-determination.

                      And without universal rights, if some voters can take rights from other voters, nobody is safe or has self-determination.

                      > handling criminals extrajudicially is unacceptable no matter what strikes me as naive

                      You are naive to the age-old excuses of state murder and oppression. It's not only criminals (how do you even know who is a criminal?) and it's not going to stop. Do you think the mercenaries and others running the drones care? Do you think they won't murder people for their own benefit or through sheer recklessness and contempt for human life? There's a reason we have limited government and courts. That's why Haiti is in this current state - prior murderers who did the same. Murder is how they seized power and murder is how they kept it.

                      You'll notice that stable governments are not founded on extrajudicial state murder. That's not what Washington, Jefferson, etc. did.

                      In warfare, combatants are killed without trial but within the laws of warfare. Even there, extralegal killing is murder.

          • By blell 2026-03-148:36

            What government? Do you know anything about Haiti?

          • By nchmy 2026-03-146:031 reply

            Are you at all aware of the hellscape that is Haiti...?

            • By mmooss 2026-03-1416:501 reply

              Yes, that's all the more reason they need a real government that protects people's rights.

              The anti-freedom crowd always finds an excuse to disregard others' rights, liberty, and welfare, to impose what they want to do on others. They do it in the US too.

              Plenty of places like Haiti just put civilians in the battleground between two equal and equally bad sides, the military and the insurgents. Both sides give the same excuse why they maim and murder civilians, which doesn't begin to address the damage to property and welfare.

              In Iraq, for example, the US finally stabilized things when they adopted an effective and acceptable anti-insurgent strategy (led by David Petraeus): Protect the population.

              • By jkman 2026-03-1417:512 reply

                That is naive. 'they need a real government that protects people's rights' and this government will magically materialize out of thin air and institute an island paradise, right? You can't even meaningfully discuss a real 'military' in Haiti, it is a failed state with minimal control of even their capital city.

                • By 01100011 2026-03-154:222 reply

                  This is a very common view among people who have grown up in the west. Some form of "people are inherently good, governments will spontaneously form and will be altruistic unless a bad minority does otherwise."

                  It's strange because the dominant religion in the west has as a fundamental tenet that people are inherently bad. But I digress...

                  Unless one is some form of deist who believes there is a top-tier authority who is active in bending the fate of the world, there is no reason to believe rights are natural or exist in any way absent the will of the powerful. It's a sad conclusion but the only one I can come up with after 50 trips around the sun.

                  • By HuaraHuara2 2026-03-1519:16

                    This is an extraordinarily realistic take, I imagine you've traveled well to reach to that conclusion. The West is simply unwilling to concede that nothing is given in nature, as they have never truly dealt with the conniving spirit in the hearts of most men.

                  • By mmooss 2026-03-1519:211 reply

                    Yet universal rights have taken over the world, and are embraced by all the most free, most wealthy, most safe countries; it is the foundation of their governments. They are the most succesful governments in history with no others even close to competing, and have done that for many generations.

                    And now that universal rights have been weakened, the freedom, prosperity, and safety of those countries is weakening.

                    > Some form of "people are inherently good, governments will spontaneously form and will be altruistic unless a bad minority does otherwise."

                    That is a strawperson. Certainly nobody says 'spontaneously', and democratic goverments are constructed carefully to prevent abuses of power.

                    Naivete is swallowing the bait of fascists, hook, line and sinker: That freedom is somehow impossible, that people are only evil (instead of a mix of good and bad, either of which we can embrace and strengthen), and we must have a strongman. How convenient for the wannabe dictator.

                • By mmooss 2026-03-1417:542 reply

                  > naive

                  Exactly the words used by the enemies of freedom: 'It's naive!' It's predictable.

                  Nobody said anything about easy. Murdering civilians is easy, I suppose, but not a route to a solution nor an acceptable means.

                  • By HuaraHuara2 2026-03-1519:111 reply

                    America has always been blessed with great geography, natural resources, an educated populace, and an inventive, optimistic spirit. That is to say, Americans have never suffered and as such, cannot comprehend suffering. Thus Americans are blind and naive to injustices they have never faced.

                    • By mmooss 2026-03-1519:22

                      It's been embraced and is highly successful all over the world.

      • By aaron695 2026-03-143:27

        [dead]

    • By JohnnyLarue 2026-03-144:14

      [dead]

    • By havenbarnes 2026-03-140:392 reply

      [flagged]

      • By ghurtado 2026-03-141:094 reply

        No, not dozens of Innocents. About 1500, which is a lot more.

        You should read the comment that you replied to again. You're railing against a fact, not an opinion.

        • By spacecadet 2026-03-141:241 reply

          People don't think anymore, they just react... Im pretty sure Im done engaging on this platform for that reason. Nearly every comment is met by some crass remark that clearly demonstrates the person didn't actually understand the comment, just reacted to the trigger words within it.

          • By nickff 2026-03-141:311 reply

            This is best exemplified by all the comments (on varying posts) saying: 'I misread the title, and interpreted as X, haha!'. HN has unfortunately slid in the direction of Reddit (despite the HN Guidelines' denial of this).

        • By havenbarnes 2026-03-1417:341 reply

          I figured my wording was clearly sarcastic but I should’ve added a “/s”. Extrajudicial slaughtering is not something I’d support regardless of civilian casualty rate.

          • By ghurtado 2026-03-1417:47

            Oh right the sarcasm and the histrionics. Yeah, that makes you sound like a petulant child that should not be taken seriously.

            Do you need any more feedback about your comment or are we done?

        • By croes 2026-03-142:312 reply

          They mean the 5% of 1250 killed by drones

          • By mikkupikku 2026-03-142:362 reply

            We know what he meant, and he's being obtuse. Thinks thousands of deaths due to rampant crime somehow aren't or shouldn't be part of the discussion when the collateral cost of law enforcement efforts are discussed. Very dumb.

            • By havenbarnes 2026-03-1417:341 reply

              I figured my wording was clearly sarcastic but I should’ve added a “/s”. Extrajudicial slaughtering is not something I’d support regardless of civilian casualty rate.

              • By ghurtado 2026-03-1417:561 reply

                Spamming the same comment over and over again, what a sad existence.

                Flagged. Honestly, you do not belong in this platform. You have the maturity of a 3rd grader.

                • By AnimalMuppet 2026-03-1418:081 reply

                  Personal attacks also do not belong on this platform. Regardless of what you think of the GP's comments, don't reply like this.

                  • By jibal 2026-03-163:38

                    Neither mikkupikku nor ghurtado seem to care.

            • By croes 2026-03-1410:28

              That where only the collaterals of the drone strikes. More people are killed with at least 17% innocent civilians

          • By jibal 2026-03-142:48

            This is apparently a RW projection zone. You won't get anywhere with these people.

        • By jibal 2026-03-141:411 reply

          Dozens of innocents (5% of 1250 = 63) killed "extrajudicially" (i.e., illegally) by the drones that are the subject of the article, and those deaths were dismissed by the rationalization in the comment they replied to.

          • By mikkupikku 2026-03-142:311 reply

            If you can't handle additional context being brought to the conversation, maybe its best for you to duck out.

            • By jibal 2026-03-142:472 reply

              So much projection here from RWers, as usual. I will bow out of this, due to the massive levels of intellectual dishonesty and bad faith.

              • By ghurtado 2026-03-1417:57

                "if you can't handle being an adult you should leave"

                "I shall leave"

              • By mikkupikku 2026-03-1412:25

                "Everybody who disagrees with me is le Nazi!"

                Get a grip.

      • By aaron695 2026-03-140:45

        [dead]

  • By bawolff 2026-03-140:202 reply

    > Human Rights Watch (HRW) said Tuesday that drone strikes carried out in Haiti over the past year have killed at least 1,243 people, including 17 children, many of whom had no apparent links to the criminal groups the attacks seek to squash.

    > Launched by Haitian law enforcement forces and private contractors working for Vectus Global between March 1, 2025, and Jan. 21, 2026, the strikes also injured at least 738 people, according to the organization’s report. At least 49 of the injured appeared to have no ties to gangs or other criminal groups.

    The first paragraph made it sound like the majority were bystanders, while the second made it sound like it was 5%.

    Maybe that is still unacceptable collateral damage, but it'd be nice if the article was more specific than "many" so we know what we are actually talking about here.

    • By trhway 2026-03-140:312 reply

      My understanding that 100% were killed extrajudicially. Only hope that when it comes to US the drones would carry Tasers.

      • By tokai 2026-03-141:40

        I have no idea how Haitian law looks at it, but the UN Security Council grants the Gang Suppression Force a pretty clear mandate. They specifically authorized to neutralize, isolate, and deter gangs, search for and siege weapon, and prevent the loss of life and within the limits of its capacities and areas of deployment, adopt urgent temporary measures on an exceptional basis.[0] While emphasizing the need to apply arrests and detain offenders, they are allowed to strike back. Drones are useful as indirect fire support so if proper rules of engagement are followed, maybe some of those killing are lawful.

        [0] https://docs.un.org/en/S/RES/2793(2025)

      • By bawolff 2026-03-142:51

        At this point the situation in Haiti looks a lot like a war (non international armed conflict). I don't think extrajudicial is a term generally used for people killed during war.

    • By RobotToaster 2026-03-140:311 reply

      > private contractors

      Mercenaries with drones, just great.

      • By bawolff 2026-03-142:59

        It is kind of interesting how they get around being called mercenaries (mercenaries are very restricted under international law and have much less rights). I think they usually claim various technicalities.

  • By theoa 2026-03-143:09

    It bears remembering that all of this was reported by a group of Haitians in Brooklyn who publish and staff the Haitian Times.

    They deserve recognition for maintaining the standards of good journalism in what is, by any measure, a difficult era.

HackerNews