While parts of the U.S. government remain non-operational due to a shutdown, U.S. forces have mounted a series of deadly strikes against alleged drug-smuggling boats in the Caribbean and Pacific — actions that raise serious questions about legal authority and global standing.

Series of strikes in Caribbean and Pacific

The U.S. military has conducted at least seven strikes since early September against vessels the government alleges were smuggling narcotics. One recent operation in the eastern Pacific killed five people in two separate attacks, marking a shift in geography and intensity.

Source: Reuters

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth and President Donald Trump characterized the strikes as part of a campaign to treat drug-trafficking vessels as “narco-terrorists.”

Source: The Guardian

Legal and accountability gaps

Several foreign governments and United Nations experts have condemned the strikes as potentially unlawful under international law. Colombian President Gustavo Petro called one strike “murder,” saying the U.S. acted without proper legal basis.

Source: The Guardian

Maritime and international humanitarian law specialists argue that lethal force on vessels in international waters requires clear evidence of self-defense or a threat to life, neither of which has been publicly substantiated by the U.S. government.

Source: AFSC – 5 Things to Know About U.S. Attacks in Caribbean

Credibility concerns amid shutdown

These military actions are unfolding while the U.S. federal government is partially shut down — leaving many programs unfunded and numerous federal workers furloughed. With Congress unable to fully convene and representatives unable to act for large segments of the population, critics say it further erodes trust in U.S. institutions at home and abroad.

Domestic shutdowns may signal internal dysfunction, but the decision to launch overseas lethal operations during this period raises questions about priorities and governance. When the country is effectively under-represented in its own legislative body, the projection of military force elsewhere becomes harder to reconcile.

Broader implications for U.S. leadership

Strategic analysts warn the strikes could undermine U.S. credibility in diplomatic forums, especially in Latin America, where many nations value sovereignty and legal process. The U.S. posture may now be seen as one where American military force is deployed without clear multilateral support or oversight.

Such a dynamic can weaken alliances, fuel anti-U.S. sentiment and complicate future cooperation on regional issues such as narcotics trafficking, migration and climate resilience.

What happens next

The U.S. government has not released detailed evidence to justify each strike, and Congress has yet to hold a public oversight hearing on the operations. The shutdown may delay such scrutiny further. Meanwhile, foreign governments and international bodies may seek legal recourse or diplomatic condemnation — testing how much the U.S. can act unilaterally before its global legitimacy erodes.

The United States may be enforcing its version of law on the high seas — but when its own house is closed, its claim to global leadership is weakened.