The first US airstrike on a suspected drug-trafficking boat in the Caribbean may constitute a war crime after reports revealed that the aircraft involved was disguised as a civilian plane, according to an investigation by The New York Times.
The strike, carried out on September 2 last year, killed 11 Venezuelans aboard a small boat. Two of those killed were reportedly survivors of an earlier strike who were clinging to wreckage in the water when they were hit again. The Venezuelan government denied US claims that the victims were linked to drug cartels, and Washington has not presented public evidence to support the allegation.
Civilian disguise and ‘perfidy’ allegations
The New York Times reported that the aircraft used in the attack had been painted to conceal its military identity, with weapons hidden inside its fuselage rather than mounted visibly under the wings. Legal experts say such concealment could amount to “perfidy” — a war crime under international humanitarian law.
The US Law of War Manual defines perfidy as feigning civilian status to gain a military advantage before attacking. Similar prohibitions appear in US military handbooks, including those used by the Navy, Marines and military commissions.
Nehal Bhuta, professor of public international law at the University of Edinburgh, said that even if the US claim of being “at war” with drug cartels were accepted — a position most international legal experts reject — disguising a military aircraft as civilian would still be illegal.
“This would have a corrosive effect, making every civilian aircraft a potential target,” Bhuta said, adding that if no armed conflict exists, the strikes should instead be viewed as extrajudicial killings.
Wider campaign and mounting toll
Following the September strike, the Trump administration reportedly carried out at least 35 similar attacks in the Caribbean and Pacific, killing more than 120 people as part of what it described as a counter-narcotics campaign ahead of direct military action against Venezuela.
Most international law experts dispute the notion that drug trafficking constitutes an armed conflict, arguing that lethal force in such cases amounts to unlawful killing.
Pentagon response and legal oversight concerns
The Pentagon said the US military uses “standard and non-standard aircraft” that undergo rigorous legal and procurement reviews to ensure compliance with domestic and international law. It added that later strikes used clearly identifiable military aircraft, including drones.
However, Craig Jones, a senior lecturer at Newcastle University, warned that recent sidelining of military legal advisers under Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth has weakened safeguards meant to ensure compliance with the laws of war.
“The mechanisms designed to prevent illegal conduct are no longer fully part of the decision-making process,” Jones said.