International law and self-defense

Framing TdA as “narco-terrorists” is an attempt to justify violence as self-defense under international law. Nations have an inherent right of self-defense if an armed attack occurs by a state or non-state actor under Article 51 of the UN charter.^[1] This right is limited by necessity and proportionality.^[2] The state invoking self-defense needs to show it is “le[ft] no choice of means, and no moment of deliberation.” ^[3] The legal standard of anticipatory self-defense requires an additional element of imminent attack.^[4] Post 9/11, the United States controversially justified anticipatory self-defense based on the perceived threat and the risk of inaction.^[5]

The “narco-terrorist organization” classification increases the perception of threat and creates a necessity. TdA is viewed not as a sophisticated drug operation, but as a malignant actor using violence for a political goal.^[6] The damage from drug trafficking, increased crime, and addiction become imminent threats that demand militaristic action rather than consequences of an illegal drug trade that require social policy. Through this, the Trump administration draws parallels to the justifications utilized post-9/11.^[7] Framing the strikes as a “non-international armed conflict” situates these acts in the domestic sphere, where nations have broad powers to fight crime, even though these strikes took place within international waters.

Critical Race Theory

As of October 24th, Republican Senator Rand Paul expressed concern stating, “It’s kind of ironic that we think these people are so dangerous, we’re going to kill them without any information.”^[8] Yet, the administration knows who they are killing, as they have created an image of a brown Latino immigrant that is synonymous with risk through domestic rhetoric on immigration. These extrajudicial killings are justified through an evolution of the hateful rhetoric surrounding immigration. The claim is that “the United States is being invaded” by “criminal illegals who have no place in our homeland.” ^[9] This renders the image of brown Latino immigrants as a racial category potent with anxiety, risk, and fear because of the potential to corrupt or undermine whiteness.^[10] The image is nothing new; in fact, it draws on the centuries-old colonial hierarchy of Limpieza de Sangre where a “pure” bloodline, associated whiteness with moral righteousness.^[11] On the other hand, an “unpure” bloodline, associated with Mestizaje or Brownness became indistinguishable from moral corruption.^[12]

This image denies Latinos in the US due process and strips away their personhood. Relying on these images, the Trump transposes a threat from the realm of domestic immigration to national security through the language anticipatory self-defense. At the international level, those presumed to be “narco-terrorists” are denied due process, and the law of anticipatory self-defense is weaponized through an imagined construction of “the brown Latino immigrant.” The United States can circumvent preliminary fact-finding determinations in these strikes^[13] and, in doing so, the image of the brown Latino immigrant becomes a tool and shorthand for connecting the already stretched legal justifications in the doctrine of anticipatory self-defense.

 

[1] U.N. Charter art. 51; See also U.N. Charter art. 2(4) for limitations of the threat or use of force.

[2] See Christopher Greenwood, The Caroline, in Max Planck Encyclopedia of Public International Law (Oxford Univ. Press), https://opil.ouplaw.com/display/10.1093/law:epil/9780199231690/law-9780199231690-e261 for the establishment of the self-defense doctrine.

[3] Id at ¶5.

[4] Id at ¶6; see also Donald R Rothwell, Anticipatory Self-Defence in the Age of International Terrorism Special Edition: The United Nations and International Legal Order, UQLawJl 23; (2005) 24(2) University of Queensland Law Journal 337. 

[5] See The National Security Strategy of the United States of America (Sept. 2002), available at https://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/nsc/nss/2002/nss5.html; Rothwell at 346 citing the scholarly debate around the United States’s uses of anticipatory self-defense.

[6] See 18 U.S.C.A. §2331(1) for the US definition of international terrorism; See also Curtis A. Bradley & Jack L. Goldsmith, Congressional Authorization and the War on Terrorism, 118 Harv. L. Rev. 2047, 2049-50 (2005) explaining the war on terror’s departure from traditional warfare and the expansion of presidential power as commander-in-chief under the Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF)

[7] After the most recent strikes, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth stated “These narco-terrorists have killed more Americans than Al-Qaeda, and they will be treated the same…” See Filip Timotija, The Hill (Oct. 28, 2025).

[8] Franco Ordoñez & Ryan Lucas, As strikes on alleged drug boats grow, so do questions about their legality and goal, NPR (Oct. 24, 2025) https://www.npr.org/2025/10/24/nx-s1-5584173/trump-drug-boats-venezuela-maduro

[9] See  Gianfranco Beran, Trump Claims ‘Greatest Invasion in History’ Happening at Southern Border, PBS NEWSHOUR CLASSROOM (July 19, 2024), https://www.pbs.org/newshour/classroom/daily-news-lessons/2024/07/trump-claims-greatest-invasion-in-history-happening-at-southern-border; Dep’t of Homeland Sec., 100 Days of Making America Safe Again (Apr. 29, 2025), https://www.dhs.gov/news/2025/04/29/100-days-making-america-safe-again

[10] See Moon Charania, The Sense of Brown, SOC’Y & SPACE (June 28, 2021) https://www.societyandspace.org/articles/sense-of-brown citing Jose Esteban Muñoz’s Sense of Brown for a critical race perspective on the racialization of Latinidad; See also What is ‘great replacement theory’ and how does it fuel racist violence?, PBS NewsHour (May 16, 2022) https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/what-is-great-replacement-theory-and-how-does-it-fuel-racist-violence for an explanation of great replacement theory.

[11] María Elena Martínez, The Language, Genealogy, and Classification of “Race” in Colonial Mexico, in Illona Katzew & Susan Deans-Smith, Race and Classification: The Case of Mexican America 25, at 26-28 (Stanford Univ. Press 2009).

[12] Id.

[13] See Maj. Megan C. Mallone & Capt. Christine E. Seibert, Anticipatory Self-Defense, JAG Reporter (Dec. 13, 2018) explaining that “ultimately there is no clear answer on what facts must exists to ensure anticipatory self-defense is lawful. The international community will assess a State’s actions after the fact and collectively decide if those actions were justified, or not.”