GLOBAL - A classified United States Justice Department legal opinion that justifies lethal boat strikes against drug cartels as an act of ‘collective self-defense’ is generating significant debate on its implications for international law and security partnerships, including those with Kenya. The memo, drafted by the Office of Legal Counsel (OLC), diverges sharply from President Donald Trump's public narrative, which frames the strikes as a measure to prevent American overdose deaths.

According to three sources familiar with the document, the OLC opinion provides the legal backbone for 21 naval strikes that have killed over 80 people in the Caribbean. It argues that these cartels are engaged in armed violence against US allies, such as Mexico, and that cocaine shipments finance this violence. This reasoning allows the US to treat the vessels as legitimate military targets and any casualties as enemy or collateral damage, fundamentally shifting the approach from law enforcement to military action.

President Trump, however, has consistently presented a different justification to the public, stating the operations are necessary to save American lives from drug addiction. On multiple occasions, he has declared the US to be in an “armed conflict” with the cartels, vowing to “wage war” on them. This public rhetoric, focused on domestic impact, masks the administration's more controversial legal claim: that it can act in collective self-defense of other nations against non-state criminal enterprises.

Implications for Kenya and East Africa

For Kenya, a critical hub for international trade and a known transit route for narcotics, this legal precedent is not a distant affair. The nation faces its own complex maritime security threats in the Western Indian Ocean, including piracy, illegal fishing, and trafficking of drugs, arms, and people. The US's novel application of 'collective self-defense' could influence how future multinational security operations are conducted in the region.

Kenya and the United States maintain a close partnership on counter-narcotics, formalized through a Memorandum of Understanding signed on Wednesday, July 16, 2025, between the National Police Service and the US Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA). This agreement focuses on joint operations, intelligence sharing, and dismantling transnational criminal networks. The DEA has lauded the cooperation, particularly along Kenya's coast, as vital for tackling major narcotics cases. The US has long identified Kenya as a key partner in its objective to “interdict the flow of narcotics to the US.”

The new US legal posture, however, blurs the line between law enforcement cooperation and military intervention. Legal experts question the basis for the collective self-defense claim, noting the lack of public evidence that cartels are waging conventional war rather than operating as profit-driven criminal syndicates. Furthermore, under Article 51 of the UN Charter, the right to collective self-defense has traditionally been understood to apply to the defense of other states, not non-state partners, from an armed attack by another state.

A Contentious Legal Frontier

The OLC memo reportedly relies on confidential requests for assistance from allies who fear cartel reprisals. However, critics argue this creates an open-ended justification for lethal action without the due process typically afforded to criminal suspects. The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) has filed a Freedom of Information Act request for the memo, stating that the strikes could constitute “murder, pure and simple” if not legally sound.

This reclassification of drug traffickers from criminals to ‘unlawful combatants’ could set a precedent that other nations, including Kenya, might observe or be encouraged to adopt when dealing with transnational threats. As Kenya enhances its maritime security capabilities, partly through partnerships with global powers like India and the US, the legal frameworks governing the use of force at sea are of paramount importance. The US administration's expansive interpretation of self-defense against non-state actors introduces a potent but legally contentious tool, the future application of which will be watched closely from Nairobi to Washington D.C.