BOSTON — The families of two Trinidadian men killed in a controversial U.S. military operation in the Caribbean Sea have filed a high-profile wrongful-death lawsuit against the Trump administration. The suit, filed on Tuesday, January 27, 2026, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts, marks the first major federal legal challenge to the administration’s aggressive campaign of lethal strikes against vessels suspected of drug trafficking.
The plaintiffs—the mother of Chad Joseph, 26, and the sister of Rishi Samaroo, 41—allege that their loved ones were not drug smugglers but innocent fishermen who were “murdered in cold blood” by a U.S. missile strike. The lawsuit characterizes the administration’s policy as a “lawless campaign of extrajudicial killings” that violates both domestic and international law.
The Fatal Strike: October 14, 2025
The lawsuit centers on an incident that occurred in the southern Caribbean, just off the coast of Venezuela. On that day, President Trump announced on social media that the U.S. military had conducted a “lethal kinetic strike” on a vessel he described as being affiliated with “narco-terrorist networks.”
According to the complaint:
- The Victims: Joseph and Samaroo were traveling on a small open vessel from Venezuela back to their homes in Las Cuevas, Trinidad.
- The Trip: The men often traveled to the Venezuelan coast for farm work and fishing to support their families.
- The Incident: Around 8:45 p.m., the boat was suddenly engulfed in flames after being hit by a U.S. military missile. All six individuals on board were killed instantly.
“If the U.S. government believed Rishi had done anything wrong, it should have arrested, charged, and detained him, not murdered him,” said Sallycar Korasingh, Samaroo’s sister. “My brother was a hardworking man just trying to get home to his sick mother.”
A “Phony Wartime Rhetoric”
Represented by the ACLU, the Center for Constitutional Rights, and legal scholars from Seton Hall University, the families argue that the Trump administration has created a “legal fiction” to justify these killings.
The administration has relied on a classified Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) opinion which argues that the U.S. is in an “armed conflict” with drug cartels. This designation, the White House claims, allows the military to use lethal force against “enemy combatants” (cartel members) without the need for an imminent threat or an attempt at arrest.
The Lawsuit’s Core Arguments:
- Alien Tort Statute: Foreign nationals are suing the U.S. government for violations of well-recognized human rights norms.
- Death on the High Seas Act: Seeking damages for wrongful deaths occurring in international waters.
- Lack of Authorization: The suit notes that Congress has never authorized a war against drug cartels, making the use of military force a violation of the War Powers Resolution.
“This is killing for sport and killing for theater,” said Baher Azmy, legal director of the Center for Constitutional Rights. “The administration is assuming the prerogative to execute people in international waters based on mere suspicion, completely bypassing the rule of law.”
The Mounting Death Toll
The October 14 strike was just one of dozens. Since the campaign began in September 2025, the U.S. military has conducted at least 36 strikes on small boats in the Caribbean and the eastern Pacific.
The Pentagon confirmed on Monday that the total death toll has reached at least 126 people, including 10 individuals who remain missing at sea following a strike last Friday.
White House Response
The White House and the Department of Defense have remained steadfast in their defense of the operations. Secretary of War Pete Hegseth has previously dismissed allegations of war crimes as “fabricated and inflammatory,” insisting that the strikes are a necessary and legal tool to stop the flow of fentanyl and other narcotics into the United States.
President Trump has frequently praised the military’s “precision and lethality” in these operations. Following the October strike, he posted a video of the engagement, stating that “six male narcoterrorists” had been eliminated and that U.S. intelligence had confirmed the vessel was associated with illicit networks.
What Happens Next?
The case, Burnley v. United States, is expected to be a grueling legal battle. The government is likely to move for dismissal based on “national security” and the “political question doctrine,” which argues that certain executive branch decisions (especially regarding war and foreign policy) are not subject to judicial review.
However, legal experts say this trial could force the administration to finally reveal the secret OLC memo that provides the legal backbone for the strikes—a document the ACLU has been fighting to see for months.