U.S. service members carrying out lethal strikes against alleged drug trafficking boats now face sharper questions about whether their orders are lawful. A United Nations expert found that the attacks may constitute crimes against humanity, deepening legal pressure around the campaign.

Ben Saul, the U.N. special rapporteur on counterterrorism and human rights, examined a U.S. military campaign that killed 223 people in at least 68 strikes across the Caribbean and Pacific since September 2025.

Saul found reasonable grounds to believe the strikes were murders under international law and that the campaign could constitute crimes against humanity. He also rejected the argument that targeting alleged members of designated terrorist groups alone gives the United States the right to use military force in self defense.

The Trump administration maintains that the strikes are lawful. It says the United States is engaged in an armed conflict with drug trafficking organizations that the government has designated as terrorist groups.

For troops executing those missions, the clash between the administration’s position and Saul’s findings creates a nasty legal bind. Military personnel could theoretically face responsibility for carrying out orders they know are manifestly unlawful, but refusing an order considered lawful can bring immediate punishment and destroy a career.

Wes Bryant, a former Air Force special operator who later led civilian harm assessments at the Pentagon, said the process is more complicated than simply ordering a junior service member to fire. Bryant served as a terminal air controller in combat operations, personally controlled hundreds of strikes, and helped coordinate thousands more.

Intelligence personnel, strike controllers, commanders, and military lawyers can participate before a weapon is fired during a deliberate strike. “Everyone has a stake in the targeting process,” Bryant said. “Anyone can stand up, anyone can raise a hand, raise a voice and say, ‘No, this is wrong. I’m not comfortable with it. Here’s why.’”

The picture becomes murkier during time sensitive maritime operations. Bryant said a helicopter door gunner might know little about the intelligence supporting a mission beyond being told that the targets are some kind of drug traffickers.

Those troops also may not decide whether a vessel is destroyed. Bryant said officers commanding the air and maritime elements would communicate directly with a more senior task force commander aboard the ship, including over orders to destroy an empty vessel after its occupants had been removed.

Bryant argued that the public record surrounding the strikes, combined with Saul’s findings, should give service members enough reason to refuse participation. He nevertheless acknowledged that a situation appearing obvious outside the military can look far less clear to the person receiving the order.

He contrasted the boat missions with an order to attack a village filled with women and children, where troops would be more likely to recognize wrongdoing and object. Boat strike personnel have instead been told that the targets are drug traffickers and members of terrorist organizations.

Under military law, orders are generally presumed lawful, and service members who refuse them risk punishment under the Uniform Code of Military Justice. Rachel VanLandingham, a retired Air Force lieutenant colonel and former chief of international law at U.S. Central Command, said most troops face a complicated legal position.

VanLandingham said troops must refuse orders that are clearly unlawful or that they know are unlawful. Yet refusal can lead to military prosecution or, more likely, career ending administrative action without a military judge ever deciding whether the order itself was legal.

The administration’s legal review further complicates that standard because troops are told through their chain of command that the operations were reviewed and found lawful. VanLandingham said international condemnation does not overcome that legal process or create a duty for an individual service member to disobey boat strike orders.

U.S. Southern Command disputed Saul’s findings and said its operations “have been conducted lawfully, fully complying with the law of armed conflict.” The command said targeting decisions undergo “established processes” and asserted that every person killed was a confirmed member of a designated terrorist organization actively transporting illicit materials.

Congress has not authorized military force against the traffickers, according to the Lead Inspector General overseeing Operation Southern Spear. The command also did not answer questions about guidance for refusing unlawful orders or whether troops had raised concerns, while later strikes pushed the reported campaign total to 70 and the death toll to 234.