The Pentagon deployed a secret aircraft disguised as a civilian plane in its initial strike on a boat suspected of smuggling drugs, resulting in the deaths of 11 people last September, according to officials briefed on the operation, The New York Times reported Monday.
The aircraft, which carried munitions internally rather than visibly under its wings, was not painted in standard military gray and lacked military markings, raising concerns about potential violations of the laws of armed conflict, the report said.
Legal specialists told the Times that such a nonmilitary appearance could constitute “perfidy,” a war crime under international law, as it prohibits combatants from feigning civilian status to deceive adversaries before attacking.
Retired Maj. Gen. Steven J. Lepper, a former deputy judge advocate general for the U.S. Air Force, said: “Shielding your identity is an element of perfidy. If the aircraft flying above is not identifiable as a combatant aircraft, it should not be engaged in combatant activity.”
The plane flew low enough for those on the boat to see it, per officials who viewed surveillance video. The vessel turned back toward Venezuela after spotting the aircraft, before the first strike hit.
Two survivors from the initial attack appeared to wave at the plane after climbing onto overturned hull wreckage, but were killed in a follow-up strike that also sank the remains.
The Trump administration has defended the boat strikes as lawful, asserting that President Trump determined the U.S. is in an armed conflict with drug cartels, rendering the targets combatants.
New York Times reporter Charlie Savage highlighted the issue in a post: “U.S. Attacked Boat With Aircraft That Looked Like a Civilian Plane. Even accepting the Trump administration’s claim that there is an armed conflict with suspected drug runners, the laws of war bar ‘perfidy.’”
U.S. military manuals emphasize avoiding perfidy, noting that combatants must distinguish their forces from civilians and prohibit feigning civilian status to lull adversaries into neglecting precautions.
The military has since shifted to using identifiable aircraft, such as MQ-9 Reaper drones, for subsequent strikes. In an October attack, two survivors swam away from wreckage and were rescued, avoiding a follow-up strike.
Pentagon press secretary Kingsley Wilson said: “The U.S. military utilizes a wide array of standard and nonstandard aircraft depending on mission requirements. Prior to the fielding and employment of each aircraft, they go through a rigorous procurement process to ensure compliance with domestic law, department policies and regulations, and applicable international standards, including the law of armed conflict.”
White House spokeswoman Anna Kelly defended the September strike as “fully consistent with the law of armed conflict,” directed against “narcotics trafficking and violent cartel activities.”
While the aircraft transmitted a military transponder signal, experts like retired Navy Capt. Todd Huntley said this would not resolve perfidy concerns, as boat occupants likely lacked equipment to detect it.
The U.S. has conducted at least 35 boat attacks, killing at least 123 people, amid broader criticism from legal experts that the operations violate laws against targeting civilians without imminent threat.
Geoffrey Corn, a retired Army lieutenant colonel and law professor at Texas Tech University, said: “The critical question is whether there is a credible alternative reason for using an unmarked aircraft to conduct the attack other than exploiting apparent civilian status to gain some tactical advantage.”
The administration’s planning for the attacks excluded many military lawyers, and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth has moved to reduce the role of judge advocate generals as internal checks.
