In the lead-up to the U.S. military’s controversial airstrikes against suspected drug trafficking vessels, former Justice Department official Emil Bove advocated for a drastic measure: simply “sinking the boats” instead of pursuing legal actions against those onboard. This information comes from three anonymous witnesses who revealed internal discussions at the Justice Department, highlighting Bove’s stance during meetings from November 2024 to February 2025 regarding maritime drug cases.
Bove, who served as the acting deputy attorney general, reportedly made his remarks during a time when the focus on maritime drug enforcement was shifting dramatically under the Trump administration. This change marked a departure from the historically conventional approach of seizing vessels, confiscating drugs, and arresting suspects. Following Bove’s relocation to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, military strikes began on September 2, 2025, leading to significant casualties, with over 80 fatalities from 21 operations reported by mid-November. The Pentagon described these operations as targeting “narco-terrorists,” sparking debate among legal experts who warn that such extrajudicial actions could potentially constitute war crimes.
The Justice Department has dismissed the witnesses’ accounts as coming from disgruntled employees but has not contested Bove’s remarks. Bove declined to comment through a court spokesperson. Additionally, the Justice Department confirmed that a classified legal opinion was drafted earlier in the summer to support the use of military force against drug trafficking operations.
The military actions in the Caribbean have gained scrutiny regarding both their legality and their moral standing. This concern was heightened following a recent operation where survivors from a targeted vessel were rescued, presenting complicated questions about their legal status amid an ongoing military conflict against what the administration identifies as a “narcoterrorist” threat linked to Venezuela.
Both domestic and international responses have stirred concern over the implications of these military operations. Senate Democrats are pressing for access to the classified opinions that guide these actions. Meanwhile, the notion of the “Bove doctrine,” as derived from Bove’s comments, is capturing attention as it suggests a significant shift in how drug-related offenses might be handled moving forward.
While Bove’s assertions signal a substantial change in tackling drug-related crime, there remains hope that through both military and diplomatic avenues, a strategy can emerge that emphasizes justice and cooperation over militaristic aggression. The ongoing discussions signify an urgent need to pursue a balanced approach to the drug crisis, advocating for measures that intertwine law enforcement with humanitarian efforts to address the complexities of drug-related challenges effectively.