Sen. Tim Kaine (D-Va.) questioned Secretary of State Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) regarding the criteria the U.S. uses to target alleged drug-smuggling boats.

The exchange highlights growing concerns over the legal justification for military lethal force in non-combat zones and whether the presence of narcotics is actually required for a strike.

Kaine said that evidence of narcotics is not among the military's targeting criteria. The strikes, which began in September 2025, have occurred in the Caribbean Sea and the eastern Pacific Ocean [1, 2, 3].

According to reports, the U.S. has struck more than 60 boats since the campaign began [1]. These operations have resulted in significant casualties, with some reports indicating more than 200 people have died [1, 4]. Other reports provide more specific figures, including a report of 14 people killed in Pacific-water strikes attributed to Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth [2] and another report of three deaths in a single strike within one week [5].

Rubio said that the legality of each operation is determined on-site. "Every strike has a legal officer on the deck that has to make a determination about whether the call is legal or not, and this is done by the Department of War," Rubio said [1].

Critics of the program argue that the stated purpose of disrupting drug trafficking is being used as a broad cover for strikes where the legal requirements are unclear [4, 2]. The disparity in death toll reports, ranging from 14 to over 200, further underscores the lack of transparent data regarding the campaign's impact.

“"Every strike has a legal officer on the deck that has to make a determination about whether the call is legal or not"”

The debate over these strikes reflects a tension between aggressive counter-narcotics strategies and the adherence to international maritime law. By questioning the necessity of narcotics evidence for targeting, Kaine is challenging the operational definition of a 'legitimate target,' suggesting that the U.S. may be expanding its use of lethal force under the guise of drug interdiction.