U.S. Declares 'Non-International Armed Conflict' with Drug Cartels, Designating Them 'Unlawful Combatants'

Trump Administration Declares Armed Conflict

The United States, under President Donald Trump, has formally declared drug cartels as 'unlawful combatants' and asserted that the nation is engaged in a 'non-international armed conflict' with these organizations. This significant policy shift was communicated to Congress via a memo on October 2, 2025.

The administration's justification for this declaration stems from the determination that these cartels are 'non-state armed groups' whose actions constitute an 'armed attack against the United States.' The memo further stated that these groups have been designated as 'terrorist organizations' and are transnational, conducting 'ongoing attacks throughout the Western Hemisphere.'

Context of Recent Military Actions

This declaration follows a series of recent U.S. military strikes against alleged drug smuggling vessels in the Caribbean Sea. Notably, a strike on September 15, 2025, resulted in the destruction of a vessel and the deaths of 17 people, who were subsequently referred to as 'unlawful combatants.' Another operation on September 2, 2025, reportedly killed 11 people. These actions, some involving vessels originating from Venezuela, have been presented by the White House as consistent with the 'law of armed conflict' and aimed at protecting the country from 'deadly poison.'

Legal and Political Implications

The designation of drug cartels as 'unlawful combatants' and the declaration of a 'non-international armed conflict' carry profound legal implications. Under this framework, the U.S. military can lawfully use lethal force against cartel members and detain them without trial, similar to the approach taken during the 'war on terror.' The Trump administration has previously designated several groups as terrorist organizations, including Venezuela's Tren de Aragua, Mexico's Sinaloa Cartel, and El Salvador's MS-13.

However, the move has drawn considerable criticism from various quarters:

• Rights observers and war powers scholars have questioned the legality of the strikes under U.S. and international law, likening them to 'extrajudicial killings.'
• Lawmakers from both Democratic and some Republican parties have raised objections, arguing that the administration is exceeding its presidential war powers and should seek congressional authorization for such military actions.
• Concerns have been voiced regarding the lack of specific cartels named in some instances and the evidence linking targeted individuals to designated terrorist organizations.
• Legal experts have debated whether drug trafficking, despite its devastating impact, constitutes an 'armed attack' sufficient to trigger an armed conflict under international law.

This policy represents a significant expansion of the executive's authority in combating drug trafficking, reframing it from a law enforcement issue to a matter of national security requiring military engagement.