U.S. Strike Near Venezuela Raises New Legal Questions After Reports of Disguised Military Aircraft

The Biden administration is facing renewed scrutiny over a U.S. military strike in the Caribbean last fall after new reporting revealed that the aircraft involved may have been deliberately disguised to appear civilian — a tactic that legal experts say could constitute a violation of the laws of armed conflict.

The strike, which occurred in September near Venezuelan waters and targeted a vessel the Pentagon described as carrying suspected narcotics traffickers, has already been the subject of controversy. Video footage reviewed by members of Congress appeared to show two unarmed survivors clinging to a disabled boat before they were killed in a follow-up strike — an action some lawmakers and legal scholars argued could amount to an unlawful killing.

Now, according to a report published this week by The New York Times, the episode has taken on new legal significance. Defense officials briefed on the operation said the aircraft used in the strike was painted without standard military markings and carried its weapons internally, giving it the outward appearance of a civilian plane.

That detail has triggered concern among current and former military lawyers, who say the tactic — if accurately described — may fall under the prohibition against perfidy, a war crime under the Geneva Conventions.

A Rarely Discussed Prohibition

Perfidy, while unfamiliar to most civilians, is well known within the law of armed conflict. It refers to acts in which a combatant feigns protected civilian status in order to carry out an attack — a practice outlawed because it erodes the distinction between civilians and military forces, placing innocent people at greater risk.

“Disguising a military aircraft as a civilian one for the purpose of conducting a strike would be considered unlawful under current armed conflict standards,” said Maj. Gen. Steven Lepper, a retired Air Force officer who previously served in the Judge Advocate General’s Corps, in comments to the Times.

The concern, experts say, is not merely academic. International humanitarian law depends on visibility and distinction. When military forces intentionally blur those lines, it can lead adversaries to treat civilian aircraft as legitimate targets — a danger the Geneva Conventions were designed to prevent.

Conflicting Interpretations Inside Government

Defense officials, speaking on condition of anonymity, acknowledged that the aircraft lacked the usual military gray paint and visible weapons. They noted, however, that the plane’s transponder was broadcasting a military identification code.

That explanation has failed to satisfy many legal analysts. Several noted that the people aboard the targeted boat — described by U.S. officials as suspected traffickers — would almost certainly not have possessed the equipment necessary to detect or interpret transponder signals.

“Broadcasting a military tail number is irrelevant if the opposing party has no way to receive it,” said one former Pentagon legal adviser, who now teaches international law and spoke privately because of ongoing professional relationships with the Defense Department.

On social media, prominent legal commentators and former military officers echoed that concern. Several argued that the key issue is not what U.S. forces knew, but what the targets could reasonably perceive.

Questions About the Conflict Itself

The legal stakes are heightened by a more fundamental dispute: whether the United States was engaged in an armed conflict at all.

The administration has framed the strike as part of a broader campaign against transnational criminal organizations, particularly narcotics trafficking networks operating out of Venezuela. Critics counter that drug interdiction, even when violent, does not automatically constitute an armed conflict under international law.

“If this was not an armed conflict, then lethal force against fleeing or incapacitated individuals raises serious human rights concerns,” said a former State Department legal official. “If it was an armed conflict, then the laws of war apply — including the prohibition on perfidy.”

Either framework, some experts say, presents legal risks for the government.

Congressional Reaction

The incident drew renewed attention after Representative Jim Himes of Connecticut, the ranking Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, said he was disturbed by footage of the strike shown to lawmakers in December.

“You have two individuals in clear distress, with no means of escape, who were killed,” Mr. Himes said at the time. “That raises profound questions about proportionality and necessity.”

Since the latest reporting emerged, several lawmakers have privately called for a classified briefing to clarify the circumstances of the aircraft’s use. No public hearings have been scheduled.

Why This Aircraft?

One unresolved question is why such a tactic would have been used at all. Modern U.S. forces routinely rely on unmanned aerial vehicles, including MQ-9 Reaper drones, which can loiter undetected at high altitude without risking pilot lives or requiring visual deception.

“If the objective was surveillance or a precision strike, there were lawful and conventional options available,” said a retired naval aviator who reviewed the reporting. “That’s what makes this so puzzling.”

Some analysts speculate that the aircraft choice may have been driven by operational secrecy or speed. Others suggest that legal advisers may not have been fully involved in planning — a possibility the Pentagon has not addressed publicly.

Silence Amid a Crowded News Cycle

Despite the seriousness of the allegations, the story has received limited sustained attention outside legal and defense circles. Media analysts note that it comes amid a flood of competing headlines, from global conflicts to domestic political turmoil.

On social platforms, journalists and commentators expressed concern that the issue could fade without accountability. Several pointed out that the Pentagon has not released the full strike video or an independent legal assessment of the operation.

“There’s a pattern here,” wrote one former war correspondent on X. “Complex stories involving U.S. conduct, classified details, and obscure legal standards often disappear before the public fully understands what’s at stake.”

What Comes Next

At present, no formal investigation has been announced by the Defense Department or the Justice Department. International mechanisms, such as the International Criminal Court, have limited jurisdiction over U.S. personnel, and Washington has historically rejected their authority.

Still, legal experts say the episode could have long-term consequences, even if no charges are brought.

“Every time a powerful country appears to bend or ignore the rules, it weakens the entire system,” said one international law scholar. “Those rules exist not to protect enemies, but to protect civilians — and ultimately, to protect our own forces.”

For now, the strike remains officially justified as a lawful counter-narcotics operation. But as more details emerge, the questions surrounding it — about deception, legality, and accountability — are unlikely to disappear entirely, even if they slip from the headlines.