The campaign to establish—falsely—that the Trump administration is committing war crimes has ratcheted up a notch.
The New York Times has published a bombshell story that claims the US committed the war crime of "Perfidy" by disguising an armed military aircraft as a civilian airliner and using it to bomb a Venezuelan drug trafficking boat.
Breaking NYT:
— Kyle Griffin (@kylegriffin1) January 13, 2026
The Pentagon used a secret aircraft painted to look like a civilian plane in its first boat attack, according to officials briefed on the matter.
The laws of armed conflict forbid combatants from feigning civilian status.
That is a war crime called "perfidy."…
This claim is almost certainly wrong. Wrong to the point of absurdity.
The Times' story, with an astonishing SIX reporters assigned to it, is presented as a bombshell that will blow apart any claims that Trump is using legal means to shut down Venezuelan drug trafficking. Even before you get into the details, the story stinks to high heaven. After all, it is no secret that Trump is blowing these boats up, and has any number of tools to do so, few of which would even reveal their presence before the boats explode without warning.
Trump doesn't need to "fool" the drug traffickers by lulling them into complacency. The idea is absurd, but the Times runs with it. A drone strike from tens of thousands of feet up would work, with no need to commit "Perfidy." Nobody is being lulled into believing they are safe when they are drug running.
The Pentagon used a secret aircraft painted to look like a civilian plane in its first attack on a boat that the Trump administration said was smuggling drugs, killing 11 people last September, according to officials briefed on the matter. The aircraft also carried its munitions inside the fuselage, rather than visibly under its wings, they said.
The nonmilitary appearance is significant, according to legal specialists, because the administration has argued its lethal boat attacks are lawful — not murders — because President Trump “determined” the United States is in an armed conflict with drug cartels.
But the laws of armed conflict prohibit combatants from feigning civilian status to fool adversaries into dropping their guard, then attacking and killing them. That is a war crime called “perfidy.”
Retired Maj. Gen. Steven J. Lepper, a former deputy judge advocate general for the United States Air Force, said that if the aircraft had been painted in a way that disguised its military nature and got close enough for the people on the boat to see it — tricking them into failing to realize they should take evasive action or surrender to survive — that was a war crime under armed-conflict standards.
“Shielding your identity is an element of perfidy,” he said. “If the aircraft flying above is not identifiable as a combatant aircraft, it should not be engaged in combatant activity.”
The aircraft swooped in low enough for the people aboard the boat to see it, according to officials who have seen or been briefed on surveillance video from the attack. The boat had turned back toward Venezuela, apparently after seeing the plane, before the first strike.
Two survivors of the initial attack later appeared to wave at the aircraft after clambering aboard an overturned piece of the hull, before the military killed them in a follow-up strike that also sank the wreckage. It is not clear whether the initial survivors knew that the explosion on their vessel had been caused by a missile attack.
Every element of this version of events stinks to high heaven for any number of reasons, not the least of which is that the whole thing took place at night, making the idea that the plane would be disguised as a civilian airliner rather absurd.
Let's consider a more likely circumstance: the aircraft was a P-8 Poseidon or a variant built on the frame of a 737.Such aircraft have been used by the Navy for over a decade, are armed, and designed for use in combat.
I’m not the only one that smells a rat here…https://t.co/jzXQ1Adp0F
— KC-10 Driver ✈️ 👨✈️ B-737 Wrangler (@MCCCANM) January 13, 2026
The military uses aircraft based on civilian airframes in a number of circumstances. The KC-135 fleet is based on the Boeing 707, the KC-10 Extender was based on the DC-10, and the new KC-46 Pegasus is based on the 767. It is not "Perfidy" to use these aircraft. It would be "Perfidy" if they were painted with civilian markings, such as yellow with the lettering "Spirit," no doubt, but I would have to see evidence suggesting that this is happening. It surely is not.
There is no weapons bay on N235JF ( left ), the aircraft they are referring to is likely P-8A 168012 or 168441 ( right ) which have weapons bays, and were working at the same time. https://t.co/O3EOH4LsHW pic.twitter.com/JA2ljd3lkY
— 𝗦𝗥_𝗣𝗹𝗮𝗻𝗲𝘀𝗽𝗼𝘁𝘁𝗲𝗿 (@SR_Planespotter) January 13, 2026
Next, consider how this aircraft is described as flying. Civilian aircraft do not swoop down on drug boats in the midst of a campaign to blow up drug boats. Explain the circumstances where any sane person would conclude that one would. Civilian aircraft do not behave like this, and any person who is knowingly in what amounts to a war zone would not conclude that an aircraft behaving that way was benign.
Regardless of the specific aircraft at issue, three people familiar with the matter acknowledged that it was not painted in the usual military gray and lacked military markings. But they said its transponder was transmitting a military tail number, meaning broadcasting or “squawking” its military identity via radio signals.
Several law-of-war experts said that would not make the use of such an aircraft lawful in these circumstances since the people on the boat probably lacked equipment to pick up the signal.
Among the legal specialists who said the use of a military transponder signal would not solve a perfidy problem was Todd Huntley, a retired Navy captain who formerly deployed with the Joint Special Operations Command as a judge advocate general, or JAG, and directed the Navy’s national security law division.
Captain Huntley said he could think of legitimate uses for such an aircraft that would make it lawful to have in the arsenal for other contexts, including a hostage rescue scenario in which munitions might be needed for self-defense but were not intended for launching offensive attacks.
The Trump administration kept planning for the boat attacks operation closely held, excluding many military lawyers and operational experts who would normally be involved. Moreover, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth has sought to undercut the role of military lawyers as an internal check, including by firing the top service JAGs in February.
The U.S. military operates several aircraft that are built on civilian airframes — including modified Boeing 737s and Cessna turboprops — and can launch munitions from internal weapons bays without visible external armaments. Such aircraft are usually painted gray and have military markings, but military and plane-spotting websites show that a few are painted white and have minimal markings.
Notice the pretzel twist of logic here and mull it over for a minute: none of these people is arguing that it would be Perfidy for the plane to launch weapons from a height where the people on the boat couldn't see the markings that supposedly fooled them; it is only if the plane swoops down low enough for the narcotraffickers to identify it as a civilian plane that there would be a potential war crime. But if this is the case, you have to explain why these men would believe that a civilian plane is swooping down that low, opening its bomb bay doors, and racing at them.
That's a tough mistake to make.
They're arguing that a P-8 Poseidon with radar sensitive enough to spot a periscope, much less a speedboat, and FLIR good enough to PID targets from well above the altitude anyone could make out any markings on the aircraft... and can also *engage* targets from that altitude… https://t.co/djQr8ZxjWb pic.twitter.com/tNn653TXNz
— planefag (@planefag) January 13, 2026
No doubt the Pentagon is doing its best to hide what assets it has based outside the United States, but it is almost inconceivable that they are trying to trick these drug traffickers into believing they are safe on the high seas. After all, the entire campaign has been advertised and bragged about. We see videos of the attacks because the whole point is to discourage these narcotraffickers from smuggling drugs into the US.
One other thing, from a Cornell Law School prof. I can't vouch for his counter-interpretation of the Law of Armed Conflict, but it appears that Perfidy does not apply to unlawful combatants. Correct me if I am wrong about that.
Not "perfidy" & not a war crime. Even if everything reported in this @nytimes story by @charlie_savage et al were regarded as true, this STILL would not qualify as perfidy. Here's why.
— Dr. Brian L. Cox (@BrianCox_RLTW) January 13, 2026
By definition, the unknown aircraft that MAY have flown with no military markings in the… https://t.co/soi0hUOfn0 pic.twitter.com/u4Fu5wY86H
The very idea that the Trump administration has been trying to lull narcotraffickers into complacency is absurd on its face. This has more to do with defending the Seditious Six, and especially Mark Kelly, than anything else.
And, last of all, not one of the "facts" in the story is actually verified. It is all based on accusations with no evidence and pure speculation.
Editor’s Note: Thanks to President Trump and his administration’s bold leadership, the Left's attempted radicalization of American culture has stalled – for now.
Help us continue to report on the administration’s fight against the Academia/Hollywood woke elites. Join Hot Air VIP and use promo code FIGHT to get 60% off your membership!
Join the conversation as a VIP Member