Tragic Strike on Return Voyage

On October 14, 2025, a U.S. military missile strike destroyed a small boat in the Caribbean Sea near the Venezuelan coast, killing six people on board. Among the dead were 26-year-old Chad Joseph and 41-year-old Rishi Samaroo, both Trinidad and Tobago nationals who had been returning home after fishing and farm work in Venezuela. The U.S. government classified the targeted vessel as linked to drug trafficking, labeling those killed as “narcoterrorists.”

However, according to the families and their legal representatives, neither man had ties to drug cartels or criminal organizations. They were civilian workers — a husband, father, and siblings’ loved ones — simply trying to return to their homes in Las Cuevas, Trinidad and Tobago. 

Federal Lawsuit Challenges Legality

On January 27, 2026, the families of Joseph and Samaroo filed a wrongful-death lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts, claiming the strike was “unlawful and extrajudicial.” Represented by civil rights groups including the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and the Center for Constitutional Rights, the suit invokes two federal statutes: the Death on the High Seas Act and the Alien Tort Statute, which allow suits for wrongful deaths and human rights violations occurring outside U.S. territory. 

Attorneys argue the strike occurred outside any declared armed conflict, meaning it did not fall under the laws of war that sometimes justify military actions. Since there was no active war involving the U.S. and the drug cartels, the legal team contends that the killings instead should be judged under international human rights law and U.S. statutes protecting the right to life — making them extrajudicial killings rather than lawful military acts. 

Broader Campaign of Boat Strikes

The lawsuit marks the first legal challenge to the Trump administration’s broader campaign of small-boat strikes in the Caribbean and eastern Pacific Ocean. According to government data cited in court filings, at least 36 such strikes have been carried out since September 2025, destroying numerous vessels and killing more than 120 people. 

Critics — including legal scholars and human rights advocates — have raised concerns about the lack of transparency, oversight, and legal justification for these operations. Though the U.S. government claims these strikes are part of efforts to disrupt drug cartels and “narcoterrorists,” lawsuits and media reports indicate that the identities and alleged affiliations of people killed are often unverified before lethal force is used. 

Reactions and Legal Debate

Plaintiffs’ lawyers and rights groups describe the lawsuit as a crucial test of executive authority and accountability. The suit states the killings were “premeditated and intentional” and lacked meaningful legal basis — framing them as violations of international law and U.S. human rights protections. 

By contrast, officials cited in media reports and government statements justify the campaign as necessary to combat transnational drug trafficking, asserting that lethal force is appropriate when dealing with threats at sea. However, opponents argue that due process and established maritime law should guide actions against suspected criminal or terrorist actors, especially where civilians may be present. 

SOURCES: ABC NEws, ABC Australia, ACLU, NBC News