Trump and Hegseth's Boat Strikes Are International Terrorism

There has been much heated discussion of the United States Navy’s attacks, ordered by the President Donald Trump and Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth, against numerous unidentified boats and their unidentified occupants. Many have characterized these lethal strikes as crimes under international law, which is valid position. However, what is less understood and more relevant is that the attacks are crimes under United States law and that they also constitute “international terrorism” as that term is defined in United States law.

Title 18 USC §2331 defines international terrorism as “violent acts or acts dangerous to human life” that:

1. “Involve violent acts or acts dangerous to human life…;”
2. Either are a crime under United States law regardless of where they are committed or would be a crime if committed within the United States; that
3. "Appear to be intended... to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or... to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction [or] assassination...; and”
4. “Occur primarily outside the territorial jurisdiction of the United States."

The first, third, and fourth of those conditions are clearly met by the attacks off the coast of Venezuela because:

• 1) It is unquestionably true that the attacks on the boats have been violent and dangerous to human life because they have killed over 100 people;
• 3) Despite Trump’s and Hegseth’s ridiculous claim that the destruction of the boats and their occupants is necessary to stop the flow of fentanyl into the US, the real reason, as disclosed by White House Chief of Staff Susie Wiles, is that they were using the attacks to force Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro from power, i.e. “to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or... to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction [or] assassination…;” and
• 4) They have occurred in international waters far outside the territorial jurisdiction of the United States.

It is the second condition, i.e. whether the attacks (a) are a crime under United States law wherever they are committed or (b) would be a crime if committed in the United States, that determines whether they meet the definition of international terrorism under the law. If either or both are true, the condition is met.

As to the first alternative, i.e. whether the attacks are a violation of federal criminal law that applies regardless of where the attacks occur, the relevant federal criminal law is 18 USC § 2280. It provides that a person “who unlawfully and intentionally… performs an act of violence against a person on board a ship if that act is likely to endanger the safe navigation of that ship" or who "destroys a ship" commits a crime punishable by a fine or a prison sentence of "not more than 20 years, or both,” and if a death results from the violence or destruction, by a sentence of death or life imprisonment. The law’s definition of “ship” includes “a vessel of any type whatsoever,” i.e. the boats are ships within the meaning of the law. Finally, there is jurisdiction under the law when a person who commits the action is a “national of the United States.”

It is indisputable that the attacks constitute acts of violence against the people on the boats and that all of the boats have intentionally been destroyed. And even though Trump, Hegseth, and others have claimed that the attacks are lawful, their arguments do not stand up to even mild scrutiny. Their claim of lawfulness is based on a fictional state of war against the US, but there is in fact no war, no direct threat to the United States or its citizens, and no authorization by Congress for use of deadly force. Therefore, the attacks are clearly unlawful. Finally, Trump, Hegseth, and those in the chain of command who participated in ordering and commission of the attacks are nationals of the United States, so they fall within the jurisdiction of USC § 2280. Because the attacks have caused the death of those on the boats, the maximum penalty is death or life imprisonment, which means it is a Class A felony per 18 USC § 3559. Therefore, the attacks are a crime under United States law.

The attacks on the boats also meet the alternative standard that they “would be a criminal violation if committed within the jurisdiction of the United States.” That is, the intentional killing of people without due process, i.e. unlawfully, is the crime of murder pursuant to 18 USC §1111(a).

It is shameful for our country and our people that international terrorism is being openly committed by our government in our name.

The conclusion is that the attacks clearly constitute crimes of violence against maritime navigation and murder under United States law. Therefore, the attacks are acts of international terrorism per 18 USC §2331. That is, Trump, Hegseth, and those in the chain of command that furthered the implementation of these attacks are international terrorists. And because the attacks are being made by the United States armed forces in the name of the United States government, it follows that the United States is now a state sponsor of international terrorism.

Even though the Supreme Court has given Trump immunity and impunity, and even though the Department of Justice under Pam Bondi will never prosecute Hegseth, et al., under 18 USC § 2280 or for murder, that does not affect the conclusion that the attacks on the boats are acts of international terrorism as defined by 18 USC §2331, and that the United States is now a state sponsor of international terrorism. The facts speak for themselves.

I believe it is important that the American people recognize that the attacks on the boats constitute international terrorism under United States law and that the United States has thus become a state sponsor of international terrorism. The United States government has condemned, and continues to condemn, foreign governments, e.g. Iran, as alleged state sponsors of international terrorism. That the United States government has now become the world’s most egregious state sponsor of international terrorism makes those condemnations of other countries utter hypocrisy.

It is shameful for our country and our people that international terrorism is being openly committed by our government in our name. It falls on us, the American people, to hold the president and secretary of defense to account by strongly voicing our objection to their acts of international terrorism and by electing a Congress in 2026 that will impeach and convict them for their crimes. Only then can the United States begin to expunge the stain of being a state sponsor of international terrorism.