Four people have been killed in the latest US strike on an alleged drug boat amid growing unease at the legality of the attacks.
The small vessel, which was hit in the eastern Pacific Ocean on Thursday, is the 22nd destroyed by the US military on suspicion of drug trafficking.
It is the first such attack after a pause of nearly three weeks.
At least 87 people have now been killed during Donald Trump‘s war on the narcotics trade, which has also seen vessels targeted in the Caribbean Sea, including near Venezuela.
Video of the strike shows a small boat moving across the water before it is suddenly hit by a large explosion.
The boat is then seen engulfed in flames and billowing smoke as the camera zooms out.
On X, formerly known as Twitter, US Southern Command described those killed as “four male narco-terrorists“.
Is Trump’s latest peace deal a total sham?
In ‘Little Kabul’, Afghans feel they have to prove their US loyalty all over again
US defence secretary Pete Hegseth faces escalating scrutiny as report finds he put troops at risk
“Intelligence confirmed that the vessel was carrying illicit narcotics and transiting along a known narco-trafficking route in the Eastern Pacific,” the post said.
The Trump administration has been weighing options to combat what it has portrayed as Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro‘s role in supplying illegal drugs that have killed Americans.
The socialist leader has denied having any links to the illegal drug trade.
It comes as an investigation in Washington DC has started looking into the very first strike on an alleged drug boat on 2 September in international waters near Venezuela.
On that occasion, US navy admiral Frank “Mitch” Bradley is accused of ordering a follow-up strike to kill the survivors.
This reportedly followed demands from defence secretary Pete Hegseth that the navy “kill them all”.
The admiral briefed politicians in a series of closed-door briefings at the US Capitol on Thursday, and denied there was any such order from Mr Hegseth.
Mr Hegseth said the admiral “made the correct decision to ultimately sink the boat and eliminate the threat”.
But speaking on Air Force One last Sunday, the president said he was unaware of the second strike and would not have wanted it, though he backed Mr Hegseth.
Read more:
Hegseth blames ‘fog of war’ for second strike on ‘drug boat’
UK stops some intelligence sharing with US over ‘drug boat’ strikes
A video of the 2 September strike, which killed 11 people, has been shown to politicians, but accounts of its contents split along party lines.
Republican Senator Tom Cotton of Arkansas said the survivors were “trying to flip a boat loaded with drugs bound for United States back over so they could stay in the fight”.
His party colleague, representative Rick Crawford of Arkansas, issued a statement saying the strikes were legal.
But representative Jim Himes of Connecticut, the top Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, said: “What I saw in that room was one of the most troubling things I’ve seen in my time in public service.
“You have two individuals in clear distress, without any means of locomotion, with a destroyed vessel.”
They “were killed by the United States” he said.
Representative Adam Smith of Washington, the top Democrat on the House Armed Services Committee, echoed his account.
He said the survivors were “basically two shirtless people clinging to the bow of a capsized and inoperable boat, drifting in the water – until the missiles come and kill them”.
Likewise, Senator Jack Reed of Rhode Island, the top Democrat on the Senate Armed Services Committee, said he was “deeply disturbed” by the video, and called for it to be made public.
“This briefing confirmed my worst fears about the nature of the Trump Administration’s military activities,” he said in a statement.
👉 Tap here to follow Trump100 wherever you get your podcasts👈
Legal experts said killing survivors of a strike at sea could violate the laws of military warfare.
Attacks on combatants who are incapacitated, unconscious or shipwrecked are forbidden by the Defence Department’s Law of War Manual – provided the survivors abstain from hostilities and do not attempt to escape.
Firing upon shipwreck survivors is cited as an example of a “clearly illegal” order that should be refused.
