Washington, D.C. – The United States may have committed an act of perfidy during a Caribbean boat strike last year, according to allegations detailed in a report by The New York Times, which cited officials briefed on the military operation.
Allegations Center on Use of Civilian-Looking Aircraft
According to the report, the Pentagon used an aircraft that appeared to be a civilian plane, with its weapons not visible, during a September strike on a suspected drug-trafficking boat in the Caribbean. Officials told the outlet that the aircraft’s outward appearance could raise serious questions under international humanitarian law.
The targeted boat was struck four times—twice to kill those onboard and twice more to sink the vessel—resulting in 11 deaths, an official previously told The Hill. The strike, and a subsequent follow-up attack that killed survivors clinging to wreckage, has drawn growing scrutiny from lawmakers and legal experts.
Lawmakers and Former Officials Raise War Crime Concerns
Last month, several Republican lawmakers demanded additional details about the follow-up strike. Sen. Mike Rounds (R-S.D.), a member of the Senate Intelligence Committee, said the incident appeared to violate international law.
Former Air Force Secretary Frank Kendall went further, describing the follow-up attack that killed survivors as “a textbook example of a war crime.”
Despite those concerns, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth has defended the operations, saying the strikes were “lawful” and intended to be “lethal, kinetic strikes.”
Legal Definition of Perfidy Explained
The New York Times cited legal specialists who said the use of an aircraft that appeared civilian could fall under the definition of perfidy if confirmed. Under international law, perfidy involves deceiving an adversary into believing they are protected under humanitarian rules, then attacking them.
The International Committee of the Red Cross defines perfidy as acts such as feigning civilian status, pretending to surrender, or faking injury to gain an advantage before launching an attack. The organization states that killing or injuring adversaries through such deception is prohibited.
While “ruses of war”—certain forms of deception—are allowed, both the Red Cross and U.S. Department of Defense guidance explicitly list feigning civilian status and then attacking as prohibited conduct.
Pentagon and White House Push Back
Department of Defense guidance emphasizes that “absolute good faith with the enemy must be observed,” prohibiting killing or wounding by resorting to perfidy. However, the guidance also allows some deceptive tactics that do not involve betrayal of protected status.
White House spokeswoman Anna Kelly told The New York Times that the September attack was “fully consistent with the law of armed conflict.” The statement aligns with the Trump administration’s broader position that the strikes are legal.
Nexstar reported that it contacted the White House for comment but did not receive a response by the time of publication.
Administration Defends Escalation of Boat Strikes
Speaking Monday to Lockheed Martin workers in Fort Worth, Texas, Hegseth praised the campaign, saying, “There haven’t been many boats sunk recently, because we can’t find boats to sink because no one wants to get into a narco boat.”
Administration officials have argued the strikes were justified because the boats allegedly carried members of Tren de Aragua, a Venezuelan gang designated by President Donald Trump as a foreign terrorist organization.
Since the September incident, the U.S. military has conducted at least 35 boat strikes, killing 115 or more people, according to previous reporting by The Hill.
Ongoing Debate Over Armed Conflict Classification
President Trump has framed the operations as part of an “armed conflict” with drug cartels, arguing the strikes are a necessary escalation to curb drug trafficking into the United States. Legal experts, however, continue to debate whether international humanitarian law governing armed conflict applies—and whether the alleged tactics cross prohibited legal boundaries.
As scrutiny intensifies, questions remain over the aircraft used, the rules of engagement applied, and whether the strikes complied with international law.
