Days after the Washington Post reported that survivors of a U.S. strike on a suspected drug-smuggling boat in the Caribbean were killed, the Trump administration announced the pardon of former Honduran President Juan Orlando Hernández.
Hernández was convicted in March 2024 on drug-trafficking and firearms charges and was sentenced to 45 years in federal prison for helping traffickers move more than 500 tons of cocaine into the United States and taking millions in cartel bribes over a decade.
Despite the case being viewed as a major win against cartel-driven political corruption, Hernández was officially released from federal prison on Tuesday, Dec. 2 — a decision that contradicts Trump’s stated goal of stopping drug traffickers before they reach U.S. territory and comes amid actions that may violate both U.S. military law and international law.
What U.S. Military Law Says
As of November 2025, the United States had carried out 21 strikes on 22 vessels, resulting in at least 83 deaths.
One of the most recent strikes drew immediate concern from military leaders and lawmakers after the surviving crew members were allegedly killed, because such an act is a clear violation of U.S. military law — a point the Defense Department’s Law of War Manual makes explicit:
“Orders to fire upon the shipwrecked would be clearly illegal.”
More specifically, the manual requires that once a vessel is disabled, all hostile action must cease and aid must be rendered “to the fullest extent practicable.” This includes recovering survivors, providing medical assistance and turning detainees over to law enforcement.
International Law and History
Concerns from U.S. allies appeared early. CNN reported on Nov. 11, 2025, that the United Kingdom had suspended parts of its intelligence sharing with the United States for maritime drug-interdiction operations, citing serious legal concerns over the strikes — even before allegations of targeting survivors surfaced.
Two major bodies of international law make clear that killing shipwrecked survivors is a war crime:
Hague Convention X (1907)
At the turn of the 20th century, as conflicts grew more destructive with modern weapons and industrial-scale militaries, world powers adopted the first binding international treaty on the laws of war through the Hague Conventions.
Hague Convention X focused specifically on naval warfare, requiring nations to rescue and care for shipwrecked and wounded survivors and prohibiting attacks on anyone no longer capable of fighting.
Geneva Conventions (Post-World War II, 1949)
After mass executions, attacks on the wounded and the killing of shipwrecked soldiers during World War II, world powers reconvened to create the four Geneva Conventions.
These treaties established the modern rules of international warfare, defining how nations must treat wounded soldiers, shipwrecked personnel, prisoners of war and civilians.
The Second Geneva Convention makes these protections explicit:
- Article 12 requires that shipwrecked and wounded persons “shall be respected and protected in all circumstances”
- Article 18 requires parties to search for and rescue survivors
- Article 50 classifies the willful killing of shipwrecked or wounded persons as a “grave breach,” a prosecutable war crime under international law
Despite these long-standing obligations, Donald Trump has repeatedly criticized the Geneva Conventions, describing them as constraints on U.S. forces and saying during his first campaign that America was “like a bunch of babies” for having to follow them.
Where Does the U.S. Go From Here?
The administration argues that killing suspected smugglers at sea is necessary to stop the flow of drugs into the United States, even as it grants clemency to a former head of state who played a central role in enabling one of the largest cocaine pipelines ever uncovered.
At the same time, military officials are being pushed toward actions that violate U.S. military law and the Hague and Geneva Conventions, while the federal government has relieved one of the most significant narcotics offenders of the last decade from accountability.
Together, these opposing actions raise broader questions about what legal and ethical standards the United States intends to uphold in its fight against drug trafficking, what it is willing to abandon, and what message it sends to the world about American credibility.
