President Donald Trump’s latest military strike against a boat allegedly carrying drugs from Venezuela to the United States has sparked intense debate after it resulted in three deaths, as ABC News reports.

The strike, ordered on Monday, marks the second such action in under two weeks, raising concerns over the use of lethal force against suspected drug traffickers.

On Monday, Trump announced that he had directed a military operation targeting a vessel in international waters, suspected of transporting illegal narcotics into the U.S.

The operation led to the deaths of three individuals, whom Trump described as "male terrorists." No American forces were harmed during the mission, according to the president.

Second such strike in weeks

Following the strike, Trump claimed that significant amounts of cocaine and fentanyl were discovered in the water near the destroyed boat. He described the scene to reporters as having "big bags" of drugs scattered in the ocean. A video shared by Trump depicted a boat being hit at sea, with a plume of dark smoke rising afterward.

This incident follows a similar military action on Sept. 2, when Trump authorized a strike on another boat, resulting in 11 deaths.

He alleged that the earlier vessel was operated by members of the South American gang Tren de Aragua and carried large quantities of drugs. A source familiar with that operation noted the boat had turned back toward shore before being targeted.

However, Venezuela’s interior minister, Diosdado Cabello, disputed Trump’s claims about the Sept. 2 incident on state television. He insisted that the crew members killed were not affiliated with any gang or involved in drug trafficking.

Legal questions surround actions

The use of military force in these operations represents a shift from traditional U.S. methods of intercepting suspected drug vessels. Historically, the Coast Guard and law enforcement have boarded ships for searches, as seen in a Sept. 12 incident in which a civilian fishing boat was inspected based on a tip, though no contraband was found.

Earlier this year, Trump designated drug cartels as foreign terrorist organizations, a move that he and his administration argue justifies military action typically reserved for immediate threats to American safety.

Sebastian Gorka, Trump’s counterterrorism adviser, defended the label, stating that cartels have essentially "declared war" on the U.S. He added that such a designation provides a broader range of legal tools for action.

Critics, however, question the legality of this approach, with some suggesting it could amount to a war crime. Republican Sen. Rand Paul publicly condemned the strikes, calling the celebration of such killings without trial "despicable and thoughtless."

Details of strike still unclear

Specifics about Monday’s strike, including its exact location and whether a drone was involved, have not been disclosed by the administration. Trump asserted there is "proof" of the boat’s illicit cargo due to items found in the water, though he did not elaborate on the evidence. He also mentioned having "recorded evidence" of the crew’s wrongdoing but provided no further details on its nature.

The administration has similarly withheld its legal reasoning for the Sept. 2 strike, adding to the controversy surrounding these military actions. This lack of transparency has fueled criticism from both political parties over the ethics and legitimacy of using deadly force in such contexts.

Meanwhile, Trump has bolstered military presence in the region to combat drug trafficking, authorizing eight Navy ships and 10 F-35 fighter jets under U.S. Southern Command. Photographs published by Reuters also revealed at least one armed MQ-9 Reaper drone stationed at a civilian airport in Puerto Rico.

Political fallout ensues

The strikes have intensified scrutiny of Trump’s aggressive stance on drug trafficking, with the president issuing a stark warning to suspected traffickers. He declared that those transporting drugs harmful to Americans are being actively pursued by U.S. forces.

As debates continue, the human cost of these operations remains a focal point for critics like Paul, who argue against the use of lethal force without due process. The deaths of 14 individuals across the two strikes underscore the high stakes of this policy shift.

With legal, ethical, and political questions lingering, the administration faces growing pressure to clarify its justifications and the evidence behind these deadly actions. The outcome of this controversy could shape future U.S. approaches to combating drug trafficking on the high seas.