Already a subscriber? Make sure to log into your account before viewing this content. You can access your account by hitting the “login” button on the top right corner. Still unable to see the content after signing in? Make sure your card on file is up-to-date.

According to a new report by The New York Times and corroborated by other outlets, the US military used a secretly modified aircraft disguised as a civilian plane in a September 2025 strike on a suspected drug-smuggling boat near Venezuela, which could amount to a war crime under international law.

Some shit you should know before you dig in: Last year, the United States began striking suspected drug-smuggling vessels (often referred to as “narco-subs”) in the Caribbean and eastern Pacific as part of a maritime campaign justified under counterterrorism operations. The US government claims these operations are legally sanctioned because the targets are designated as “narcoterrorists” affiliated with drug cartels the Trump administration labeled as terrorist organizations. Officials have likened the strikes to those conducted against groups like ISIS, framing the campaign as a wartime effort against non-state actors threatening national security. However, critics argue the government has provided scant evidence to support its claims that those killed were engaged in drug trafficking or linked to terrorist networks.

What’s going on now: According to The New York Times, the aircraft used in the September 2 strike was deliberately altered to appear non-military. The plane was reportedly painted without visible military markings and carried its missiles inside the fuselage rather than under the wings, making it appear indistinguishable from a civilian aircraft to anyone on the boat below. Sources told the newspaper the aircraft flew low enough for the people on the vessel to see it, meaning they may not have realized they were being targeted by a military force until the missiles hit.

This matters because disguising a military asset as a civilian one can qualify as a war crime known as “perfidy.” In simple terms, perfidy means tricking an enemy into thinking they are safe or protected (such as by appearing civilian) so they lower their guard, and then attacking them. International humanitarian law bans this because it endangers real civilians. Legal experts quoted by the Times argue that if the disguise was intended to deceive the boat’s occupants into not fleeing, surrendering, or taking defensive action, it could meet the legal threshold for a war crime.

The Times also links the disguise issue to the controversial “double-tap” nature of the strike. After the first missile hit the boat, two survivors were reportedly seen clinging to wreckage and even waving at the aircraft overhead, behavior some experts say suggests they did not realize they were dealing with a combat aircraft. A second strike then killed them, raising additional concerns because international law generally prohibits attacking shipwrecked or defenseless survivors, even during armed conflict.

As of now, the US government has not directly addressed the allegation that the aircraft was disguised in a way that could constitute perfidy. The Pentagon told the Times that all aircraft used by the military undergo legal review to ensure compliance with domestic and international law, including the laws of armed conflict. The White House defended the strike more broadly as a lawful action against narcotics trafficking and violent cartel activity.