Open Letter to USA Government, UK Government and EU on the Escalation of Persecution and the Erosion of Atrocity-Prevention Norms

The Failure to Uphold the Budapest Memorandum 1994

From: Independent researchers and legal analysts monitoring atrocity risks in the Western Hemisphere and Europe
To:

• The President of the United States

• The Secretary of Defense and the Attorney General

• Chairs and Ranking Members of the U.S. Senate and House Committees on Armed Services, Judiciary, and Foreign Affairs

• The Secretary-General of the United Nations and the Special Advisers on the Prevention of Genocide and on Extrajudicial, Summary, or Arbitrary Executions

• The Secretary-General of the Organization of American States and the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights

• The Governments of the United Kingdom, Ukraine, and the Russian Federation (as signatories to the 1994 Budapest Memorandum)

• The European Council, European Commission, and national parliaments of EU Member States

Date: 27 October 2025
Subject: Warning of advancing Stage 8 Persecution, Stage 9 Extermination, and Stage 10 Denial by the United States, and parallel lower-scale genocidal dynamics emerging in European political and media discourse

---

I. Purpose and Summary

This letter accompanies two investigative reports—

1. Domestic Patterns of Persecution in the United States (2025), and

2. Unlawful Killings at Sea: The 2025 Caribbean Maritime Strike Campaign.

Both document conduct corresponding to Stages 8–10 of Dr Gregory Stanton’s genocide model: persecution, extermination, and denial. We further note with alarm that the United Kingdom and several European states are showing tolerance for earlier stages—dehumanisation, organisation, and polarisation—particularly in the minimisation of Russian genocidal rhetoric and crimes in Ukraine.

---

II. Legal and Moral Context: The Budapest Memorandum

The 1994 Budapest Memorandum bound its signatories—the United States, the United Kingdom, and the Russian Federation—to uphold the sovereignty and security of Ukraine and to refrain from aggression.
By ignoring or excusing Russia’s campaign of cultural erasure, deportations, and systematic civilian targeting, and by adopting dehumanising language toward Ukrainians, migrants, and refugees, European governments and media outlets are failing the preventive obligations that flow from that agreement and from Article 1 of the Genocide Convention.
The Memorandum’s credibility depends on its guardians enforcing its spirit within their own jurisdictions as well as abroad.

---

III. Findings

United States (Stages 8–10)

• Persecution: policies and practices targeting migrants, detainees, and minorities by nationality and identity.

• Extermination: lethal maritime operations killing Latin American civilians under false “narco-terrorist” labels.

• Denial: official euphemisms, secrecy, and celebration of extrajudicial killings.

United Kingdom and Europe (Stages 3–6)

• Dehumanisation & Polarisation: growing portrayal of Ukrainians, migrants, and dissidents through tropes of “propaganda pawns” or “burdens,” echoing Russian narratives.

• Organisation & Preparation: political actors and media outlets providing platforms for Russian state proxies, legitimising genocidal framing of Ukrainians as Nazis or subhumans.

• Moral Hazard: selective outrage—condemning atrocities rhetorically while enabling narrative laundering through think-tanks and “peace” movements financed or amplified by Kremlin-linked networks.

Together, these trends represent a trans-Atlantic erosion of genocide-prevention norms. A democracy that excuses dehumanisation abroad or replicates it domestically advances the same process it claims to oppose.

---

IV. Required Actions

1. Immediate U.S. compliance review of maritime and domestic operations for violations of the Genocide Convention and ICCPR Art. 6.

2. Parliamentary and Congressional hearings on atrocity-prevention obligations under the Budapest Memorandum.

3. European media-ethics inquiry into dissemination of Russian dehumanising narratives and calls for collective punishment.

4. Joint trans-Atlantic task force on counter-dehumanisation rhetoric, with civil-society monitoring.

5. Public disclosure of victims’ identities and full transparency regarding targeting authorisations.

6. International oversight: invitation to UN and OAS rapporteurs for immediate investigation.

7. Reaffirmation by all Budapest signatories of their duty to protect against, not participate in, genocidal processes.

---

V. Final Warning

Genocide is not an event but a continuum. The same sequence of classification, dehumanisation, persecution, and extermination that began in occupied Ukrainian territories is being mirrored—at lower intensity but with growing impunity—across the Atlantic.

If democratic states justify their own persecution while ignoring Russia’s, they dismantle the legal and moral firewall that the Budapest Memorandum was meant to uphold. A guarantor that imitates the aggressor becomes complicit in the collapse of deterrence.

We therefore call upon the United States, the United Kingdom, and the European Union to re-commit to the prevention of atrocity crimes in both policy and language—to stop the persecution at home, confront genocidal behaviour abroad, and restore the credibility of the international order they once pledged to defend.

Respectfully submitted,

Attachments:

• Domestic Patterns of Persecution in the United States (2025)

• Unlawful Killings at Sea: The 2025 Caribbean Maritime Strike Campaign

---

Memorandum: Persecution and Extermination Events in the U.S. (Jan. 1, 2025 – Present)

Stage 8 (Persecution) and Stage 9 (Extermination) Events in the United States (2025)

Introduction

This memorandum documents all known U.S. domestic events from January 1, 2025 to present that correspond to Stage 8: Persecution or Stage 9: Extermination in Dr. Gregory Stanton’s Ten Stages of Genocide framework[1][2]. Under Stanton’s definitions, Stage 8 (Persecution) involves the systematic targeting of victim groups through identification, mass arrests, concentration into camps or ghettos, torture, and other atrocities, often under color of law[1]. Stage 9 (Extermination) is the culmination of genocide: the intentional destruction of a group, in whole or in part, typically by mass killing, which perpetrators view as “extermination” of sub-humans[2]. This report focuses exclusively on events within the United States and identifies persecuted groups (e.g. migrants, transgender people, religious and racial minorities, political dissidents, etc.), describing each event with date, location, description of acts, government or institutional involvement, outcomes, and a categorization as Stage 8 or Stage 9 with rationale.

Importantly, these events are analyzed in light of U.S. law and international law. The United States Constitution guarantees equal protection, due process, and fundamental rights (e.g. First Amendment free exercise and speech; Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment due process/equal protection; Eighth Amendment prohibiting cruel and unusual punishment). Statutes such as the Civil Rights Act and federal hate crimes laws criminalize persecution of protected groups. Internationally, the U.S. is bound by treaties including the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) (protecting the right to life, freedom from torture, and nondiscrimination[3][4]), the Convention Against Torture (CAT) (absolutely prohibiting torture[5]), and is a party to the Genocide Convention, which defines genocide as certain acts (e.g. killing, serious harm) committed with intent to destroy a national, ethnic, racial, or religious group[6]. Genocide and torture are also crimes under U.S. law (e.g. 18 U.S.C. § 1091 (genocide) and 18 U.S.C. § 2340A (torture))[7][5]. Each event below is thus accompanied by citations to factual sources and relevant legal frameworks.

Stage 8 Events (Persecution)

A. Persecution of Migrants and Asylum-Seekers (2025)

1. January 2025 – Ongoing: “Mass Deportation” Agenda and Nationwide ICE Crackdowns. Following the January 20, 2025 inauguration of President Donald Trump’s second term, the administration launched an aggressive campaign against undocumented immigrants, with explicit high-level plans to arrest and remove millions. The administration set a goal of 3,000 arrests per day and 1 million deportations per year, backed by unprecedented expansion of immigration enforcement personnel and funding[8][9]. By July 4, 2025, Congress passed the “One Big Beautiful Bill Act,” infusing an additional $170 billion into immigration enforcement and making ICE the best-funded federal law enforcement agency in U.S. history[8]. Federal agents from multiple agencies (ICE, Border Patrol, U.S. Marshals, even the National Guard) were re-assigned to immigration duties[10][11]. The Justice Department prioritized immigration prosecutions over other crimes and even revoked legal status from some immigrants (e.g. stripping nearly 1 million of Temporary Protected Status and ambushing others with loss of visas)[9][12]. Oversight safeguards were dismantled – for example, DHS curtailed its Office of Civil Rights and Civil Liberties’ role, and ICE stopped reporting data on transgender detainees[13][14]. These actions created a “maelstrom of fear and chaos” in immigrant communities[15]. Immigrants (even those with legal status) became afraid to participate in daily life, as no place was off-limits for enforcement: prior restraints on ICE raids at schools, hospitals, or churches were scrapped[16]. There are documented cases of U.S. citizens and lawful residents mistakenly detained or ordered to “self-deport” due to aggressive tactics (e.g. thousands of U.S. citizens received erroneous letters telling them “it is time for you to leave” the country)[17]. This nationwide campaign constitutes Stage 8: Persecution, as a targeted civilian population (migrants) is being systematically identified, rounded up, and subjected to deprivation of liberty and cruel treatment on the basis of group identity. These practices violate due process and equal protection rights, and likely infringe ICCPR Articles 13, 9 and 17 (arbitrary detention and expulsion), as well as the Refugee Convention’s non-refoulement principle for asylum-seekers. The intent – to terrorize immigrants into “self-deporting” or to physically remove them – aligns with Stanton’s persecution stage[1], and creates conditions that can escalate toward extermination.

2. Early June 2025: Los Angeles County ICE Raids (“Siege of Los Angeles”). In the first week of June 2025, federal authorities conducted a massive series of immigration raids across the Los Angeles metropolitan area, home to the nation’s largest undocumented population (estimated ~1 million in L.A. County)[18]. From June 6 onward, heavily armed ICE and Border Patrol teams, some wearing masks and tactical gear, fanned out through neighborhoods – arresting people at workplaces, on the street, and even outside schools. Specific incidents reported between June 6–11 include: agents raiding a car wash in South Gate, snatching a flower vendor off a street corner, handcuffing a man outside a Bell Gardens store, and grabbing two men in a bakery parking lot in Rosemead[19][20]. These raids were sweeping and often appeared arbitrary – witnesses saw people “plucked out of a crowd for no discernible reason” other than apparent ethnicity[19][20]. Entire communities were paralyzed in fear: Many immigrant families stopped going to work or school, and streets in affected areas fell empty and quiet[21][22]. Community leaders described the raids as having “upended life in L.A. County” – even U.S. citizens were afraid to go outside lest they be mistakenly swept up[23][24]. Indeed, multiple U.S. citizens were reportedly detained by ICE during these operations before eventually being released[25], underscoring the indiscriminate nature of the crackdown. Local activists and officials (such as L.A. City Council members) decried the raids as “terror spreading across Los Angeles” and mobilized rapid-response networks to monitor ICE movements and assist families[26][27]. The Los Angeles Times documented how children were afraid to attend school for fear their parents would be gone when they returned, and how even businesses unrelated to immigration saw devastating impacts (one local business’s orders dropped to zero because workers and customers stayed home)[28][29]. Clashes also occurred between protesters and law enforcement: local police (LAPD and LA County Sheriffs) were deployed alongside federal agents, leading to viral incidents of police violence against protesters that raised “questions about the role of local law enforcement in quelling the unrest”[30][31]. This week-long campaign in Los Angeles is a textbook Stage 8 (Persecution) event: a targeted ethnic group (Latino/a immigrants) was systematically hunted, detained, and terrorized by government forces, resulting in widespread human rights violations. The acts (mass arrests without individualized warrants, families separated, community members thrown into detention) meet the persecution threshold under Stanton’s framework[1]. Legally, these raids implicate Fourth and Fifth Amendment rights domestically, and violate international standards (ICCPR Art. 9 liberty/security; Art. 17 privacy/family; and the Convention on the Prevention of Genocide’s mandate to prevent acts causing serious mental harm to a group[6]). Notably, the indiscriminate nature – evidenced by U.S. citizens and legal residents caught in the dragnet – underscores the institutional intent to target a racial/ethnic community rather than specific wrongdoers[23][24]. Such intent is a key factor in persecution and potential genocidal processes.

3. July 10, 2025: Violent Raids on California Farms (Carpinteria & Camarillo) – Death of a Migrant Worker. On July 10, 2025, a major immigration enforcement operation in California resulted in violent clashes and a civilian death[10][32]. ICE agents, aided by National Guard troops and U.S. Marshals, conducted coordinated raids on two large farms (legal marijuana cultivation sites) in Carpinteria and Camarillo (northwest of Los Angeles)[10][33]. The farms employed numerous undocumented migrant laborers, and agents arrived en masse to arrest these workers (over 360 suspected undocumented migrants were detained in total)[10][33]. The raids provoked significant resistance from local community members and pro-immigrant demonstrators who rushed to the scenes: in Camarillo, demonstrators formed blockades, throwing rocks and bottles at agents in an attempt to halt the arrests[33][34]. According to a court filing, one protester may have discharged a firearm toward agents (though no law enforcement personnel were injured)[34]. Federal agents responded with considerable force – deploying rubber bullets, stun grenades, and smoke canisters against the crowd[35]. In the chaos, a migrant farmworker (one of the targets) fell from a greenhouse roof while trying to flee and later died from his injuries[35][32]. This casualty underscores the lethal stakes of these operations. Two days prior, on July 8 in San Francisco, another ICE action led to a viral incident: an immigrant protester attempting to stop an arrest climbed onto an ICE vehicle and was carried on the roof of an SUV for dozens of meters as agents drove off, illustrating the physical danger and recklessness in these enforcement tactics[36][37]. Taken together, the July 2025 farm raids exemplify Stage 8 persecution, with elements edging toward Stage 9: a militarized roundup of a targeted civilian group (migrant farm workers), using violence and causing death. The government’s involvement is direct – federal and state agents coordinated the operation – and the outcome included mass detentions and at least one death. While the death was not necessarily an intentional killing by the state, it occurred during a deliberate campaign to subjugate and expel a group, satisfying Stanton’s persecution criteria (victims identified, “concentrated” under armed guard, and subjected to harm)[1]. Legally, the excessive force and resulting fatality raise grave issues under constitutional law (Fourth Amendment seizures, Due Process) and international law (the right to life in ICCPR Art. 6 was jeopardized, and the methods employed arguably constitute “cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment” under CAT and ICCPR Art. 7[3][5]). This event shows how quickly persecution can produce atrocities: a terrified worker, facing arrest for his mere existence in the U.S., fell to his death – effectively a state-caused killing. Should evidence emerge that authorities were callously indifferent or intended such outcomes (e.g. forcing dangerous escapes), Stage 9 (extermination) could be implicated. At minimum, the Carpinteria/Camarillo raids represent persecutory violence with lethal consequence.

4. 2025: Transfer of Detainees to El Salvador “Black Site” Prison (CECOT) under Alien Enemies Act. In one of the most extreme developments of 2025, the U.S. government began secretly transferring certain immigration detainees to a megaprison in El Salvador – a facility notorious for abuse – on unproven allegations of gang affiliation. In early 2025, invoking the rarely used “Alien Enemies Act,” the Trump administration struck a deal with El Salvador to send select detainees to the Terrorism Confinement Center (CECOT), a sprawling high-security prison commonly regarded as a human rights “black hole”[38]. Those targeted were primarily Venezuelan and Central American asylum-seekers, whom the administration accused (often without evidence) of belonging to gangs supposedly “invading” the U.S.[38][39]. By March 2025, dozens of these men had been abruptly removed from U.S. custody and flown to CECOT. There, they were held incommunicado, unable to contact family or lawyers[40]. Investigative reports and court filings revealed shocking treatment upon arrival: El Salvador prison guards shaved the men’s heads, stripped them naked, and beat them, while taunting them – one detainee protested, “I’m not a gang member. I’m gay. I’m a barber,” to no avail[41]. For days, families of some disappeared detainees had no idea where their loved ones were – until a propaganda video surfaced, showing rows of men with shorn heads in CECOT, through which a U.S. family recognized their missing relative[42][43]. U.S. officials insisted all those sent to CECOT were dangerous gang members, but provided no due process for the individuals to contest these claims[44]. Litigation by human rights groups ensued, and in April 2025 the U.S. Supreme Court intervened, ruling that basic due process must be provided before such transfers[45]. The Court’s emergency decision forced a temporary halt to new CECOT transfers and required the government to give detainees a fair chance to contest the gang accusations[45]. However, those already in CECOT continued to languish there for months amid legal battles[46][47]. This policy represents Stage 8 persecution of a severe nature: the U.S. government identified a subset of asylum-seekers (many political refugees from regimes like Venezuela) and subjected them to extrajudicial exile and torture. By deliberately sending these individuals to a foreign prison “known for torture and abuse”[48], U.S. officials inflicted serious bodily and mental harm on them as punishment for their membership in a particular social group (migrants of certain national origin and presumed gang affiliation). The intent was to make an example of them and deter other migrants – effectively leveraging terror. Such conduct flagrantly violates international law: it constitutes refoulement (sending asylum-seekers to likely persecution, forbidden by the Refugee Convention and CAT Art. 3) and violates CAT’s core prohibition by outsourcing torture[5]. It also likely meets the Genocide Convention’s definition of genocidal act “causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group” if done with intent to destroy part of a national group[6] – here, the U.S. invoked wartime language (“enemy invasion”) to justify treating migrants as a group to be eliminated[38][7]. While the numerical scale of this CECOT transfer was limited, its qualitative barbarity – essentially a modern-day deportation to concentration camp – echoes Stage 9. Indeed, one federal judge remarked that the “disappearing” of these men without trial was “contrary to the most basic principles of American justice” (an implicit recognition of its alarming, genocidal nature). Only court intervention prevented further transfers; but the episode stands as a stark warning of how persecution can slide into outright atrocity.

Legal note: The above migrant-related events implicate various laws. Constitutionally, the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause applies to “persons” on U.S. soil (including non-citizens) – mass raids and detentions without individualized hearings strain due process, and abusive treatment in custody violates the Eighth Amendment (cruel and unusual punishment) or Fifth Amendment substantive due process standards. Under international law, these acts breach ICCPR Art. 7 (torture/ill-treatment) and Art. 9 (arbitrary detention)[3], and for asylum-seekers, the 1967 Protocol/Refugee Convention by penalizing refugees and returning them to danger (non-refoulement). The extreme measures (e.g. CECOT transfers, fatal neglect at the border) arguably constitute “persecution” as a crime against humanity (when part of a systematic attack on a civilian population) and could meet elements of genocide if a protected group (national, ethnic, etc.) is targeted with intent to destroy it “in part” – for instance, the administration’s rhetoric of immigrants as an “invading army” and use of the Alien Enemies Act have a troubling genocidal undertone[38][7]. Notably, 18 U.S.C. § 1091 makes it a federal crime to commit genocide (defined in U.S. law consistently with the Genocide Convention)[7], and 18 U.S.C. § 2340A criminalizes torture by U.S. nationals anywhere. These statutes underscore that if intent to destroy a group or to torture can be proven, responsible officials could be legally liable.

B. Persecution of Transgender People and LGBTQ+ Individuals (2025)

1. January 20, 2025: Federal Erasure of Transgender Identity (Executive Order 14168). On his inauguration day, President Trump signed Executive Order 14168, a sweeping directive that effectively erased federal recognition of transgender and non-binary people[49][50]. This order redefined “sex” in all federal programs strictly as biological sex assigned at birth (“male” and “female” determined by reproductive anatomy)[51]. It banned any use of gender identity in federal records, mandates, or policy – instructing agencies to purge materials that “promote gender ideology”[52]. Self-designation of gender on U.S. passports and other documents was eliminated[52], forcing trans individuals to revert to birth-assigned sex markers. The order further barred transgender people from single-sex facilities in accordance with their gender identity across all federally funded spaces (from prisons to homeless shelters)[53], and prohibited federal funding for gender-affirming healthcare (cutting off coverage for transition-related care in Medicare, Medicaid, veterans’ healthcare, etc.)[54]. Agencies like the Bureau of Prisons were directed to cease hormonal treatments or accommodations for trans inmates[53]. The Attorney General was ordered to “correct” any interpretation of civil rights law (notably the Bostock decision) that protected gender identity, effectively green-lighting anti-trans discrimination in employment, education, and healthcare[55]. This Executive Order, which took immediate effect, had massive persecutory impact: within weeks, transgender federal employees began being fired or reassigned under new “loyalty” policies (a “purge” of transgender people from government roles was reported)[56]. The CDC, FDA, and HHS removed public health information on LGBTQ+ topics from their websites under the mandate to eliminate “gender ideology” content[56]. In July 2025, The Lancet published an investigation revealing that roughly half of U.S. health datasets were covertly altered post-Order to remove references to gender identity or transgender health[57]. Taken together, EO 14168 instantiated Stage 8 persecution at the highest level of government: an entire class of people (transgender Americans) was officially stigmatized, stripped of recognition, and denied basic rights and services. By Stanton’s definition, persecution includes promulgation of laws that fundamentally deny the human rights of a group[1]. Here, the U.S. government not only discriminated but took active steps to “eliminate” the public presence of the group – literally removing names and data, a bureaucratic analog to cultural genocide. This violates domestic and international legal protections: Equal protection (Fourteenth Amendment) and statutory civil rights (Title VII, etc.) forbid sex-based government discrimination – the Order sparked multiple lawsuits, and indeed courts issued temporary restraining orders against some provisions (e.g. halting immediate cutoff of funds for trans healthcare and blocking forced detransition of incarcerated individuals)[58]. Internationally, ICCPR Articles 2 and 26 demand nondiscrimination on grounds of sex, and Article 7 protects persons from degrading treatment – denying medically necessary care and dignity to trans persons can qualify as such[59][3]. Furthermore, Article 27 ICCPR** protects minority groups’ rights to culture; here a minority (trans community) is being targeted for erasure. EO 14168, as the cornerstone of a broader anti-trans agenda, was a clear persecutory act setting the stage for further abuses.

2. 2025 – “Transgender Genocide” Campaign: Laws, Rhetoric, and Violence against Trans People. Beyond the initial order, the Trump administration and aligned state governments engaged in a broad campaign to persecute transgender people throughout 2025. Key events and policies include:

3. Healthcare Bans and Forced Detransition: By mid-2025, at least 22 states (including Florida, Texas, and others) had enacted laws banning gender-affirming care for minors, and some extended these bans to adults under Medicaid or state insurance. The federal government compounded this by threatening to withhold Medicare/Medicaid funds from any provider or state offering gender-affirming care[54]. This resulted in the shuttering of clinics and cancellation of medically recommended treatments for countless trans youth and adults – effectively denying life-saving care (given the well-documented reduction in suicide risk from such care). For example, in September 2025, the University of Texas at Austin announced it would stop providing hormone therapy to trans students entirely, citing legal compliance with the new federal line[60][61]. Several families of trans youth were investigated by state child services merely for affirming their child’s identity (a Texas policy from 2022 was revived and encouraged by the administration). This infliction of serious bodily and mental harm – causing untreated dysphoria, depression, and self-harm – is characteristic of Stage 8 persecution, and arguably meets the Genocide Convention’s criteria (causing serious harm with intent to destroy a group)[62][6]. It blatantly violates CAT and ICCPR obligations by inflicting severe suffering for a discriminatory purpose (which qualifies as cruel or inhuman treatment)[5].

4. Censorship and Cultural Erasure: Federal agencies and even arts institutions moved to censor LGBTQ+ expression. The National Endowment for the Arts, under pressure, began requiring grant recipients to pledge not to “promote gender or LGBTQ+ diversity”[63][64]. Federally-run museums removed exhibits by or about transgender people – notably, the Smithsonian’s National Portrait Gallery, in July 2025, removed a painting of the Statue of Liberty depicted as a Black trans woman, calling it inappropriate[65][66]. Private museums and publishers followed suit out of fear, destroying books on gender and canceling events by trans authors[67][68]. In academia, professors were fired for discussing gender theory contrary to the administration’s stance, and universities preemptively barred trans students from certain housing and sports to avoid federal retaliation[60][61]. NASA even took down internal Pride employee resources and warned staff that any display of Pride flags could result in suspension[69]. These acts aim to eliminate the visibility and culture of the transgender community, a hallmark of persecution (parallel to earlier stages of other genocides where the target group’s culture is stamped out). While not murders, these steps facilitate an atmosphere in which the group’s “social death” is pursued – a precursor to physical destruction.

5. Law Enforcement and Incarceration Abuses: Transgender individuals in state custody faced heightened abuse in 2025. The federal Bureau of Prisons, under EO 14168, moved to transfer all trans prisoners into facilities matching birth sex regardless of risk, until enjoined by courts[58]. In the immigration detention system, abuse was rampant: a September 2025 civil rights complaint (RFK Human Rights v. DHS) exposed that at the South Louisiana ICE Processing Center (Basile, LA), an officer (Assistant Warden Manuel Reyes) ran a punitive forced-labor program specifically targeting trans detainees[70][71]. Four detainees (three trans men and one non-binary person) reported that from 2023–2025 they were sexually assaulted, groped, beaten, denied medical care, and coerced into grueling manual labor by staff[71][72]. They were forced to push heavy cinder blocks back and forth for no reason, scrub floors with harsh chemicals without protection, and perform other exhausting tasks “for little or no compensation – sometimes just a soda or a bag of chips”[72][73]. When they protested or requested protective gear, guards mocked them, saying “If you wanna be a man, I’ll treat you like a man” and “aren’t you strong enough?”, explicitly punishing their gender identity[74][75]. Those who refused or spoke out were thrown in solitary confinement and beaten (one trans detainee was handcuffed and physically assaulted in retaliation)[76][77]. The complaint and press investigation indicate that ICE leadership knew of these abuses and did nothing, and that such treatment of trans detainees is “pervasive across ICE facilities, particularly those for women”[78][77]. DHS officials publicly denied the allegations as “another hoax” and claimed no one was forced into labor or abused[79], but their blanket denials were contradicted by a “disturbing paper trail” of internal reports ignored by ICE[80]. This pattern – targeting incarcerated trans people for especially cruel, dehumanizing treatment – clearly constitutes Stage 8 persecution. The victims are identified by group (transgender) and subjected to torture-like conditions (forced labor, sexual abuse) because of that identity[74][75]. Under U.S. law, such conduct violates the 8th Amendment (for criminal inmates) and 5th Amendment due process (for civil detainees) guarantees of humane treatment. It also triggers Prison Rape Elimination Act (PREA) standards, which appear to have been blatantly flouted. Internationally, it is a direct breach of CAT Article 2’s absolute prohibition on torture or cruel treatment[5]. The fact that federal authorities ceased tracking data on trans detainees in 2025 (flouting a legal reporting requirement) suggests a willful attempt to cloak these human rights violations[14]. This is an alarming indicator on Stanton’s scale – secrecy and denial often accompany the later stages of genocidal process.

6. Stochastic Violence and Eliminationist Rhetoric: Government persecution was accompanied by a surge in anti-trans hate speech and private violence, tacitly encouraged by officials. In speeches and social media, high-ranking figures portrayed transgender people as predators, “terrorists,” and a threat to children. For instance, after the assassination of a prominent right-wing commentator (Charlie Kirk) in August 2025, conservative pundits immediately and baselessly blamed “the trans movement” for the murder, with one commentator tweeting that if a trans person were responsible, “there can be no mercy for that species any longer… we’ve tolerated far too much from those creatures”[81][13]. This dehumanizing language (calling trans people “creatures” and “species”) mirrors classic incitement in genocides (e.g. “cockroaches” in Rwanda) and strongly signals Stage 8 (Dehumanization fueling Persecution) edging into Stage 9. The Heritage Foundation urged the FBI to label “transgender extremists” as domestic terrorists[82], effectively seeking state repression of transgender activism. Meanwhile, violence against transgender individuals continued: 2025 is on track to be one of the deadliest years for trans Americans in terms of hate-motivated killings (as of October, at least 28 trans people – mostly trans women of color – have been murdered across the U.S., according to LGBTQ advocacy groups, reflecting a trend of violent bias). These are usually individual attacks, but collectively they form a pattern of extermination on a smaller scale. The administration’s open hostility provides cover for such crimes. Indeed, multiple international human rights organizations (e.g. the Lemkin Institute for Genocide Prevention) have sounded formal alarms: in June 2025 the Lemkin Institute issued a “Red Flag Genocide Alert” for the United States’ anti-trans agenda, warning that the situation has escalated from persecution toward the threshold of genocidal intent[83]. They cited the combination of demonizing propaganda, legal measures intended to erase the group, and increasing violence as meeting several criteria for genocide preparation and persecution.

Categorization: The persecution of transgender people in 2025 is unquestionably Stage 8. There is a coordinated, state-driven effort to deny this group’s existence and rights, through laws, policies, and physical abuses. Victims are identified and targeted solely for who they are, fulfilling Stanton’s persecution stage (e.g. “[when] victims are identified… arrested… and concentrated into prisons… where they are tortured and murdered”[1] – we see arrests, prisons, and torture here). While Stage 9 (Extermination) – actual mass killing – has not been officially declared or authorized, some aspects border on it: the combination of extreme dehumanization, encouragement of vigilantism, and deliberate denial of life-saving care indicates an intent “to destroy” the community in a significant part (whether by driving them to suicide, forcing them underground, or eliminating their future existence). Activists increasingly refer to this as a “transgender genocide” in progress[84]. Under international law, because “transgender” is not (yet) a protected group in the Genocide Convention (which covers national, ethnic, racial, religious groups[6]), these acts are more straightforwardly classified as Crimes Against Humanity – namely persecution on grounds of gender and inhumane acts causing great suffering. The ICC’s Rome Statute (Art.7) now recognizes persecution based on gender as a crime against humanity, and scholarly analyses argue that the U.S. anti-trans campaign qualifies[85]. From a domestic legal standpoint, these policies also likely violate constitutional equal protection (discrimination on the basis of sex and transgender status, which courts have held is sex-based discrimination), as well as First Amendment rights (censoring speech about gender). Several elements – such as officials’ knowing promotion of falsehoods that trans people are violent – could even fall under ICCPR Article 20(2), which obligates states to prohibit “any advocacy of… hatred… that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility, or violence”[86][4]. The U.S. has reservations on that clause, but the principle is noted. In sum, the campaign against transgender people in 2025 is a state-sanctioned persecution (Stage 8) that carries worrying signs of an intent to go further, drawing widespread legal condemnation.

C. Persecution of Racial and Religious Minorities

1. Ongoing Pattern (2025): Systemic Violence against Black Americans – Police Killings and Vigilantism. Although not a single event, the continuing epidemic of violence against Black people by law enforcement and white supremacists in the U.S. warrants inclusion as an ongoing Stage 8 scenario. The year 2025 has seen numerous instances of unarmed Black Americans killed or brutalized by police under questionable circumstances (for example, the fatal police shooting of a Black motorist in Aurora, CO on Aug. 30, 2025 sparked outrage and civil rights investigations[87]). Such incidents form part of a broader historical pattern: as one legal scholar observed, these seemingly independent killings of Black Americans across various cities actually represent a “widespread, systemic plan of attack against a civilian population” – satisfying the definition of crimes against humanity[88][89]. Indeed, an International Commission of Inquiry in 2021 found “a pattern and practice of racist police violence in the U.S., in the context of a history of oppression dating back to the extermination of First Nations people… and structural racism”[90]. This language explicitly links current anti-Black violence to genocidal processes (the genocide of Native Americans is acknowledged, and the ongoing harms to Black Americans are viewed in that continuum). In 2025, the U.S. has not undertaken significant reforms; impunity for police officers remains a concern, and Black communities feel under siege. While government policy in 2025 is not overtly genocidal toward Black Americans, the failure to prevent or punish systemic violence itself can be seen as a form of persecution/denial stage. Activists submitted petitions to international bodies arguing that the U.S. government’s tolerance of this violence amounts to persecutory intent. For instance, the We Charge Genocide petition of 1951 (alleging genocide against Black Americans) was cited in contemporary analysis as still relevant, even if its legal characterization is debated[91][92]. In sum, the daily realities of disproportionate police shootings, mass incarceration, and racist hate crimes against African Americans are a backdrop of Stage 8 (discrimination and persecution), with some activists arguing it rises to Stage 9 (gradual destruction “in part” of a racial group). Notably, U.S. law contains no exception for such widespread violations: the Constitution’s Equal Protection Clause and federal civil rights laws (42 U.S.C. §1983, etc.) are meant to curb state violence. Internationally, these patterns violate CERD (Race Discrimination Convention) obligations and possibly the Genocide Convention if intent to destroy can be inferred. While it is difficult to prove genocidal intent in this context, the effect on Black communities – terror and mortality – is undeniable. Therefore, this ongoing situation is noted as a Stage 8 persecutory environment, one which international observers have deemed serious enough to compare to crimes against humanity[88][89].

2. Anti-Religious Minority Hate Crimes (2024–2025 Spike). The period 2024–2025 saw a sharp increase in hate crimes targeting religious minorities in the U.S., especially Jews and Muslims, raising concern of Stage 8 persecution at a community level. According to FBI data released in August 2025, 2024 had the second-highest number of hate crimes on record, with religion-based hate crimes rising significantly[93]. Notably, nearly 69% of religion-motivated hate crimes in 2024 targeted Jewish people, even though Jews are just 2% of the U.S. population[94][95]. This trend has continued into 2025, exacerbated by global events (e.g. conflicts in the Middle East leading to both antisemitic and Islamophobic incidents domestically). For example, in early October 2025, a series of vandalisms and arsons struck houses of worship: a Minneapolis mosque was firebombed and later vandalized in what authorities labeled hate crimes[96], and synagogues in several states received violent threats around the Jewish high holidays. In one particularly heinous incident (late 2024, though outside our strict 2025 window, it underscores the climate), a far-right extremist in Illinois stabbed a 6-year-old Muslim boy to death and severely wounded his mother solely because they were Palestinian-American, an act the Department of Justice called “hate-fueled violence”. These incidents are exterminationist in intent on an individual scale – the perpetrators seek to kill members of the minority faith, which is literally Stage 9 behavior, though not (yet) state-sponsored. The U.S. government’s role has been more in failing to fully curb this violence rather than actively perpetrating it. However, some institutional acts of persecution have occurred: the previous administration’s “Muslim Ban” (2017–2021) set a tone of religious persecution, and in 2025 there were reports of renewed extreme surveillance of American Muslim communities by federal agencies (e.g. expanding the “Countering Violent Extremism” program in mosques under the guise of anti-terrorism). Muslim advocacy groups filed complaints that these practices effectively treat all Muslims as suspects – a form of collective persecution. Likewise, the spike in antisemitism has seen insufficient protective response in some locales, leaving Jewish communities fearful to gather openly. Stanton’s Stage 8 does not require the government to be the direct attacker; tacit allowance of pogrom-like conditions can also qualify. The U.S., by law, is obliged to protect religious freedom (First Amendment) and equal protection. Internationally, Article 27 of the ICCPR guarantees religious minorities the right to practice their faith free from fear[4]. The Genocide Convention explicitly protects religious groups[6], meaning that any concerted violent attacks with intent to destroy such a group in whole or part would legally be genocide. While we have not (thankfully) documented a coordinated genocide against a religious minority in the U.S. in 2025, the ingredients are present: hate propaganda (Stage 7: Polarization) is rampant online and in extremist media, and violent incidents (Stage 9 acts) have occurred. This necessitates vigilance. In this report, these trends are classified as persecution (Stage 8), since the violence, intimidation, and societal othering of religious minorities are widespread enough to be considered an organized or condoned pattern. Should the state explicitly endorse or participate in such violence, it would cross into Stage 9.

3. Political Dissidents and Protesters – Repressive Measures (2025). Under the guise of “law and order,” authorities in 2025 also targeted certain political dissident groups, overlapping with persecuted minority communities. For instance, as described above, pro-immigrant protesters in Los Angeles and elsewhere were met with disproportionate force – one protester was punched in the head by a police officer during a peaceful rally in Covington, KY on July 17, 2025, and another nearly killed by being carried atop a moving ICE vehicle in California[97][37]. In Texas, on July 4, 2025, a protest by a left-wing armed group at a detention center (though itself involving illegal actions) led to harsh federal charges – 10 activists were charged with attempted murder of federal officers after a chaotic confrontation at an ICE facility, an event used by the government to label immigrant-rights groups as “terrorists”[98][99]. More broadly, the Trump administration has sought to criminalize dissent: it resurrected the use of “felonious rioting” charges to prosecute protesters at anti-Trump demonstrations. Notably, it also investigated and prosecuted officials and citizens who aided undocumented immigrants or protested ICE. The American Immigration Council reports that by mid-2025, multiple local officials (including a judge and a city councilor) had been federally charged for “interfering” with ICE operations, and at least one immigrant-rights advocate was arrested simply for filming an ICE courthouse arrest[100][101]. Such legal actions send a clear message of intimidation against political dissidence, particularly targeting those who oppose the administration’s policies. This selective repression of dissidents correlates with Stage 8 as well: Stanton notes that in the Polarization and Preparation stages, moderates or dissenters are often silenced[102]. By Stage 8, the regime may effectively persecute political opponents alongside the primary target group, to remove any resistance. In 2025 we see early signs of this: labeling anti-fascist or anti-racist groups as “terrorists,” using heavy-handed charges (like seditious conspiracy or domestic terrorism enhancements) against protesters, etc. Legally, this contravenes the First Amendment rights of speech and assembly of those individuals, as well as equal protection if enforcement is biased. Internationally, ICCPR Art. 21 and 22 protect the right to peaceful assembly and association, and Art. 19 protects free expression; clamping down violently on protesters and activists violates these norms. While not on the same scale as the other persecutions, these actions form part of the overall authoritarian environment enabling other Stage 8 crimes. If left unchecked, persecution of dissidents can slide into more overt violence (e.g. extrajudicial detentions or killings of journalists or activists, as seen in other countries).

Summary of Stage 8: The events above demonstrate that, within the United States in 2025, multiple groups have been subjected to state and state-enabled persecution. Migrants (especially of certain national/ethnic origins) have been rounded up, detained en masse, and subjected to lethal neglect and abuse – satisfying Stage 8 beyond doubt. Transgender individuals have been stripped of rights and dignity by law, subjected to violence in detention, and vilified, also meeting Stage 8 criteria. Racial and religious minorities face a mix of private and public persecution – from police violence to hate crimes – amounting to pervasive oppression. Political dissidents who stand up for those groups or oppose the regime are beginning to feel the weight of repression as well. In Stanton’s model, these processes do not occur in isolation; they reinforce each other[103][102]. The “Othering” of migrants and LGBTQ+ people, for instance, is often intertwined with racist and theocratic ideologies. It is important to recognize that Stage 8 is often the last stage before outright genocide – all preventative legal and civil society mechanisms need to be urgently invoked at this stage to halt escalation.

Stage 9 Events (Extermination or Mass Killing)

In the United States from January 2025 to present, no government-announced program of mass killing against a specific group has occurred. However, there have been discrete incidents of targeted lethal violence that fall under Stage 9 (extermination) on a smaller scale, as well as policies creating conditions that predictably lead to deaths among the targeted groups. Below we detail such events, while noting that in the U.S. context these have (so far) been either isolated acts by non-state actors or collateral outcomes of persecutory policies – rather than a formal, centralized genocide plan. Nevertheless, these incidents are critical to document, as they fulfill the actus reus of Stage 9 and could mark the transition from persecution to extermination if frequency or state involvement increases.

1. Deaths of Migrants Due to Deadly Deterrence Tactics (2025). As mentioned in Section A, U.S. border enforcement in Texas under “Operation Lone Star” (Gov. Abbott) has employed tactics so hazardous that multiple migrant deaths have resulted – arguably intentionally or with depraved indifference. A stark example occurred on January 13, 2024 (preceding our range by just weeks, but its effects linger into 2025): Texas authorities installed miles of concertina razor wire and floating buoy barriers along the Rio Grande to block migrant crossing. That day, a family of asylum seekers (mother Victerma de la Sancha, 33, and her children Yorlei, 10, and Jonathan, 8) drowned in the river near Eagle Pass, TX[104][105]. Witnesses reported that the family became stuck between the river’s strong current and the rows of razor wire, unable to reach U.S. soil, and Texas National Guard troops onshore looked on without rendering aid[106][104]. In fact, Texas officers had barred U.S. Border Patrol rescue teams from entering the area by claiming jurisdiction, directly impeding potential lifesaving efforts[105][107]. These drownings were not an isolated tragedy: humanitarian monitors have noted that dozens of migrant bodies have been recovered in that sector of the border since the barriers were erected[108]. Razor wire has caused deep wounds, and the “saw-bladed” buoys have forced migrants into more dangerous river currents[109][110]. Texas officials, in internal communications revealed in July 2023, even instructed troops to push migrants (including children) back into the river and deny them water in extreme heat – instructions that, if carried out in 2025, could constitute attempted murder. These practices demonstrate a willingness to let people die as a deterrent, effectively using extermination by attrition. While the direct perpetrators are state-level authorities, the federal government in 2025 largely tolerated or legally sparred with Texas over these tactics (the Supreme Court in late 2024 upheld federal agents’ right to cut the wire[111][112], and the DOJ sued Texas over the buoys, but the barriers remained for months). The willful disregard for migrant lives here aligns with Stage 9: the victims (migrants, largely of particular national origins) are not randomly killed, but die as a result of a policy deliberately inflicting deadly conditions on them[1]. Under the Genocide Convention, “deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction” is an act of genocide (Art. II(c))[113][114]. A strong argument can be made that Texas’s border barrier strategy meets this definition: it knowingly creates lethal conditions (drownings, heat exhaustion, lacerations) for that group. At minimum, these deaths are extrajudicial executions by omission, violating the migrants’ right to life (ICCPR Art. 6)[115][116] and protections under the Refugee Convention. They reflect Stage 9 thinking: officials treating migrant lives as so negligible that their loss is a “cleansing” of the border. This is a grave warning sign of extermination logic taking hold in policy.

2. Extremist Mass Shooting at Jacksonville, FL (August 26, 2023) – Contextual Precedent: No mass racist shooting with multiple fatalities has yet occurred in 2025, but it is relevant to note the late 2023 Jacksonville Dollar General shooting (though just outside our date range) as it exemplifies Stage 9 racial extermination ideology spilling into violence. In that incident, a white supremacist gunman explicitly targeted Black people, killing three Black shoppers. He left behind writings indicating he wanted to kill as many Black people as possible – a clear genocidal intent on a micro scale. The reason to mention this is that the conditions in 2025 mirror those that bred such attacks: white nationalist propaganda is prevalent (e.g. Patriot Front distributing materials and holding Whites-only “relief” efforts[117][118]), and hate crimes data show sustained high levels of racially motivated attacks[93]. Thus, while 2025 (to date) has not seen a high-fatality hate massacre, the FBI and DHS have warned of the continued threat of domestic violent extremists (DVEs) with racist or anti-LGBTQ ideologies. In Stanton’s terms, these extremists are attempting “extermination” even absent state sponsorship. If one or more such attacks were to occur, they would clearly be Stage 9 events. Law enforcement foiled several plots in 2025 – for example, in October, two neo-Nazis were arrested in Pennsylvania for allegedly planning to bomb a synagogue (an act which, had it occurred, would belong in this section as Stage 9 against a religious group).

3. Targeted Killing of LGBTQ Individuals by Hate Crime (Ongoing). An often overlooked slow-motion extermination is the continued homicide rate of LGBTQ (particularly transgender) individuals by hate-motivated attackers. As previously noted, at least 28 transgender Americans have been murdered in bias-related incidents in 2025 so far. Each of these is a personal tragedy and a crime; collectively, they form a pattern of attempting to “erase” the trans community through lethal violence. One case in July 2025: a trans woman in Chicago, who had been an outspoken activist, was shot dead by an assailant shouting anti-trans slurs – an apparent hate killing meant to terrorize others like her. While local authorities prosecuted it as a hate crime, federal authorities have not intervened systematically. These murders fulfill the definition of Stage 9 on an individual level – they are intentional destruction of members of a group (often motivated by the belief that the victim’s very existence is intolerable, echoing the killers’ view of “extermination”[2]). When a government spreads demonizing rhetoric (as with trans people) and then such killings spike, it suggests a link between Stage 8 persecution and freelance Stage 9 violence. The U.S. has hate crime laws (18 U.S.C. § 249) that provide enhanced penalties for bias-motivated killings, and the DOJ has indeed brought some charges (in 2024, it charged the Club Q shooter with hate crimes, for example). But a pattern that could amount to “systematic attack” (if organized groups or incitement are behind it) might elevate the legal characterization to crimes against humanity. Human rights advocates argue that the failure of the state to adequately prevent or investigate these serial killings of trans people constitutes acquiescence to an extermination-level threat.

In summary, Stage 9 events in the U.S. (2025) have been limited to decentralized or indirect forms of extermination: the deaths caused by government policies (migrants drowning due to border barricades, trans people denied healthcare leading to fatal outcomes, etc.) and the murders committed by non-state extremists (hate crime killings of racial, religious, or gender/sexual minorities). There has been no Rwanda- or Holocaust-scale mass murder initiated by U.S. authorities; however, the presence of these deadly incidents alongside state rhetoric and policies is deeply alarming. They indicate that the boundary between persecution and extermination has been crossed at least in isolated incidents – e.g., when a migrant family is allowed to die in order to send a message, that is an extermination in part.

Under U.S. and international law, any such intentional killing of protected group members is already criminal. The Genocide Convention (Art. II(a)) covers “killing members of the group” with intent to destroy the group[6]. The domestic genocide statute (18 U.S.C. § 1091) likewise punishes even a single killing if done with the requisite group-destructive intent[7]. Hate crimes statutes address the bias aspect but require proving the act beyond reasonable doubt. From an international justice perspective, if these disparate acts (deaths at the border, targeted hate killings) were found to be connected by an overarching intent or policy, they could form the basis of a genocide or crimes against humanity case. For instance, a hypothetical inquiry might ask: did some officials accept the probability of migrant deaths as a tool (intent to partially destroy that group’s influx)? Are hate groups operating with quasi-official endorsement? These questions go beyond the scope of this memo, but are crucial for assessing the rationale: Stage 9, according to Stanton, often begins on a small scale and can be incremental[1]. Each life lost for belonging to a group is an irreplaceable human tragedy and a potential harbinger of larger-scale atrocities to come.

Legal Framework and Conclusions

Stanton’s Ten Stages provides a lens to recognize warning signs before full genocide occurs. By that framework, the United States in 2025 exhibits clear evidence of Stage 8: Persecution across multiple domains, and isolated flashpoints of Stage 9: Extermination. The events detailed above are not random; they reflect an intentional or systematic bias against specific groups:

• Migrants (primarily from Latin America and the Global South) have been profiled, rounded up, and placed in conditions akin to concentration camps, with documented torture and deaths. This squarely fits Stage 8[1]. The intent – to drastically reduce or eliminate the presence of these migrants – is evidenced by the scale of detentions and even the attempt to outsource them to a foreign prison. Legally, this triggers obligations under the Genocide Convention since national/ethnic groups (e.g. Venezuelans) are implicated, and under CAT/ICCPR as cruel, inhumane treatment and arbitrary deprivation of life. The U.S. is obliged to prevent genocide and persecution; failing to do so (or worse, being complicit) breaches peremptory norms (jus cogens) of international law[5].

• Transgender people (and the broader LGBTQ+ community) have been subjected to a government-led campaign of dehumanization and deprivation – a modern form of cultural and physical persecution. The removal of rights and healthcare meets the definition of “persecution” as a crime against humanity (which includes denial of fundamental rights of a group by reason of identity)[85]. Although not a protected group under the narrow Genocide Convention categories, the intent to make trans people disappear (whether by forced conformity or driving them out of the country[14][119]) evokes the purpose of genocide. International law is evolving here: the Lemkin Institute’s alerts and multiple human rights reports call this a form of genocide or “gender apartheid.” The U.S. has binding obligations under ICCPR Articles 6, 7, 17, 18, 26 to respect the rights to life, bodily autonomy, family, belief, and equality – all of which are being violated by these actions[120][3]. Under CAT**, the systematic infliction of severe pain (physical or mental) for reasons of discrimination qualifies as torture – which describes much of the trans detention abuse[71][72]. Thus, the described acts are patently unlawful as well as immoral.

• Racial and religious minorities: The legacy of genocide against Native Americans and the historical persecution of Black Americans form a backdrop that heightens the duty to prevent any resurgence. The events in 2025 (police killings, hate crimes) indicate that we cannot view genocide as something impossible in America – elements of it (the intent to destroy in part) have appeared before and could again. Legally, the U.S. ratified the Genocide Convention in 1988 and incorporated it domestically, meaning if a pattern of killings with intent to destroy a racial group were proven (even partially), it would obligate prosecution under 18 U.S.C. § 1091[7]. Moreover, the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (CERD) – to which the U.S. is a party – requires proactive steps to end racially discriminatory violence. The recent UN and Inter-American Commission findings on U.S. police violence as potentially meeting crimes against humanity thresholds[88][89] reinforce that the global community is scrutinizing these issues under atrocity law lenses.

• Political dissidents and activists: While not a protected group under the Genocide Convention, persecution of them violates ICCPR Art. 19, 21, 22 and can be part of a broader genocidal process (Stage 6/7 polarization often involves eliminating moderates or sympathizers of the victim group[102]). The U.S. must adhere to its own Constitution’s protections for dissent. Alarmingly, the trend of labeling civil rights activists as terrorists (e.g. FBI’s focus shift urged by Heritage Foundation[82]) recalls the misuse of law to silence those who might object to atrocities – a known harbinger of genocide (for instance, moderate Hutus were targeted early in the Rwandan genocide).

In conclusion, the United States in 2025 is witnessing multiple early stages of genocidal processes “nested” together[121][122]. According to Dr. Stanton, genocide is not a single event but a process that can often be stopped with timely action[121][123]. The events outlined – from mass detention of migrants to the official eradication of transgender rights – all signal that the “temperature” on Stanton’s genocide thermometer is perilously high[124][125].

Recommendations (Preventive Measures): Legally, the U.S. is bound not only to punish genocide and persecution after the fact, but to prevent them (Genocide Convention Art. I)[126]. This means immediate steps should be taken to reverse Stage 8 policies and rhetoric. For instance:

• Rescind Executive Order 14168 and restore protections for transgender individuals (compliance with the Supreme Court’s Bostock ruling, and ICCPR equality guarantees[59][120]). Enforce injunctions fully so that trans inmates are not forcibly detransitioned – anything less courts liability under CAT for knowingly subjecting them to abuse.

• Halt indiscriminate ICE raids and abusive detention practices. The federal government should reinstitute priority enforcement policies that focus on genuine public safety threats rather than broad sweeps. It must investigate and prosecute officials who ordered or condoned torture of detainees (under 18 U.S.C. § 2340A, torture by an official is a felony[5]). It should also suspend cooperation with any state operations (like Operation Lone Star) that violate human rights, as required by CAT (Art. 2 prohibits acquiescence to torture by third parties too)[5].

• Address hate violence proactively: DoJ should treat organized white supremacist violence as the top-tier threat it is, and apply existing anti-domestic terrorism laws if applicable. At the same time, refrain from painting peaceful activists with that brush (to avoid chilling dissent). Enforcement of 18 U.S.C. § 249 (hate crimes resulting in death) should be robust – e.g. federal charges for the most egregious bias killings to send a message of zero tolerance.

• Cooperation with international mechanisms: The U.S. should invite U.N. Special Rapporteurs (on racism, on gender identity, on migrants) to conduct visits, and implement recommendations of the U.N. Commission of Inquiry regarding police violence[90]. It should also consider re-signing the Rome Statute to demonstrate commitment to accountability (noting, as an aside, that currently ICC jurisdiction is not available due to U.S. non-membership, which some see as “exceptionalism over accountability”[127]).

Finally, it is worth emphasizing the importance of “Denial” (Stanton’s Stage 10) and truthful acknowledgment. Already, U.S. officials have engaged in denialist rhetoric (e.g. DHS calling abuse reports “hoaxes”[79]). Confronting the reality of these events is a vital legal and moral step. Preventing genocide requires naming and condemning each precursor. The connected sources cited throughout this memorandum – from AP and The Guardian to Human Rights Watch and court filings – provide evidence that can support legal actions (injunctions, prosecutions) and policy changes. If unaddressed, the documented Stage 8 persecutions could spiral into Stage 9 on a large scale. The U.S. has constitutional and statutory tools to stop this spiral – the question is whether there is political will to use them. The Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of Genocide obliges “to prevent” genocide[126]; thus, even short of full genocide, the U.S. is internationally accountable for preventing the process that leads there. The events since 2025 are a clarion call for compliance with that duty.

Sources:

1. Stanton, Gregory. “The Ten Stages of Genocide.” Genocide Watch (last updated Oct. 2025)[1][2]. (Defining Persecution as victims being identified, arrested, concentrated into camps where they are tortured and murdered, and Extermination as mass killing with intent to destroy a group.)

2. ACLED (Armed Conflict Location & Event Data Project), United States and Canada Regional Overviews (June 2025 & Aug. 2025)[10][33][32][36]. (Documenting July 10, 2025 California raids – 360 detained, one death – and other violent incidents around immigration enforcement; also noting spikes in anti-migrant demonstrations and heavy-handed responses.)

3. Associated Press (Blood & Taxin). “Federal agents targeted California’s biggest legal marijuana farm” (July 22, 2025)[10][33]. (Details on ICE/National Guard raids in Carpinteria/Camarillo, violent clashes, death of farmworker.)

4. The Guardian (Andrea Castillo). “‘We’re seeing the best of LA’: as ICE raids haunt the city, Angelenos show up for each other” (June 26, 2025)[23][25]. (Eyewitness accounts of Los Angeles raids: communities terrorized, multiple U.S. citizens detained by mistake, mutual aid efforts emerging.)

5. Los Angeles Times (Gaouette et al.). “The mad scramble to track ICE raids across L.A. County” (June 14, 2025)[19][20][128][28]. (Describes specific instances of people snatched off streets, fear keeping kids out of school, local protests in South Gate by teenagers.)

6. Los Angeles Times. “How L.A. law enforcement got pulled into the fight over Trump’s immigration crackdown” (June 10, 2025)[30][31]. (Noted viral incidents of LAPD/Sheriff using force on protesters, raising accountability questions.)

7. American Immigration Council – Report: “Mass Deportation: Analyzing the Trump Administration’s Attacks on Immigrants, Democracy, and America” (July 2025)[8][9][17]. (Thorough analysis of first 6 months of 2025 immigration policy: 3k arrests/day goal, $170 billion enforcement budget, stripping of TPS and humanitarian parole, erroneous letters telling citizens to leave, use of Alien Enemies Act to send detainees to CECOT, and attacks on judges and advocates. Provides context on intent and scope of the campaign.)

8. RFK Human Rights, ACLU et al. Complaint (Sept. 27, 2025) & Newsweek coverage – Monica Renteria-Gonzalez et al. vs. South Louisiana ICE Detention Center[129][71][72][74]. (First-hand testimonies of trans detainees forced into labor, sexually abused; identifies Assistant Warden Reyes as perpetrator targeting trans men for punishment. Newsweek article by Dan Gooding, Sept 27 2025.)

9. Newsweek (Gooding). “ICE Warden Put Transgender Detainees into Forced Labor Program: Complaint”[71][72][74][75]; Newsweek (Owen) “ICE allegedly subjected trans men to forced labor & sexual abuse”[130][131]. (Reiterating details of abuse in Louisiana ICE facility, with quotes from RFK attorney: program designed to “punish and physically torture” LGBTQ detainees, e.g. quote ‘If you wanna be a man, I’ll treat you like a man’[75].)

10. Wikipedia: “Persecution of transgender people under the second Trump administration” (continuous log of 2025 actions)[132][84][13]. (Summarizes federal actions: EO 14168 (redefining sex, etc.), anti-trans rhetoric, comparisons to Nazi Germany’s persecution of LGBTQ[133]. Cites examples of calls to round up trans people after Kirk incident[13].)

11. The New Yorker (Grace Byron). “The War on Trans Art” (Sept. 8, 2025)[63][134]. (Describes removal of art featuring trans themes from museums under federal pressure; one artist (Amy Sherald) canceled her Smithsonian exhibit due to censorship[135].)

12. The Advocate (Christopher Wiggins). “Brown University functionally inaccessible for trans students after Trump deal” (Aug. 5, 2025)[136]; Texas Tribune (Priest et al.). “Video of clash over gender in Texas A&M class leads to firing” (Sept. 9, 2025)[61]. (Illustrative of educational impacts: universities stripping trans-inclusive policies to comply with new mandates; professor firings.)

13. Human Rights Watch (Lugo & Libal). “On the River, a Willful Disregard for Human Life and Safety” – Commentary in Austin American-Statesman (Feb. 5, 2024)[104][105][110]. (Graphic account of Eagle Pass drownings: two children and mother died amid TX blocking rescue; descriptions of razor wire injuries, National Guard ignoring pleas, a child nearly drowning while guard watched[137][138]. Shows deliberate nature of Operation Lone Star’s harm.)

14. FBI Hate Crime Statistics 2024 – (Press release Aug. 2025, via Axios)[93][95]. (Data: 11,634 hate crime incidents in 2024 (second-highest ever); over half racial, ~17% anti-LGBTQ, ~17% religious. Anti-Jewish incidents 1,124 – nearly 70% of religious bias crimes[139]. Anti-Sikh incidents third-largest religious category[140]. Indicates rising trend continuing into 2025.)

15. Elon University News (Eric Townsend). “Violence against Black Americans qualifies as crimes against humanity – Elon Law Professor” (Feb. 19, 2023)[88][89]. (Quotes: recurring killings of Black Americans form a “widespread, systemic plan of attack” – fulfilling CAH, possibly genocide petition (“We Charge Genocide” 1951) was ignored[91][90]. Notes UN Human Rights Council finding a pattern of racist violence with historical roots of extermination[90].)

16. International Legal Sources: Genocide Convention, Art. II (defines genocide as killing, serious harm, imposing destructive conditions, etc., with intent to destroy a national, ethnic, racial or religious group)[6]; ICCPR, Arts. 6 & 7 (right to life; freedom from torture/inhuman treatment – non-derogable even in emergencies)[3][116]; CAT, Art. 2 (absolute prohibition of torture – “no exceptional circumstances whatsoever” can justify it)[5]; 18 U.S.C. § 1091 (U.S. Genocide statute: criminalizes killing, causing serious harm, etc. with specific intent to destroy a protected group)[7]; 18 U.S.C. § 2340A (criminalizes torture committed by U.S. nationals or within U.S. jurisdiction). These provide the legal yardstick confirming that many of the acts above are universally illegal and, if proven in court, could result in criminal liability for perpetrators.

Ultimately, the United States’ foundational laws and international commitments were designed to guard against exactly the horrors documented in this memorandum. It is imperative – both as a matter of justice for victims and compliance with the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide – that U.S. institutions respond decisively. The persecutory and violent events of 2025 must be investigated, halted, and punished to prevent escalation. The warning signs are blinking red; adherence to the rule of law and human rights is the antidote to this “ten stages” progression before it reaches an irrevocable point.[103][123]

---

[1] [2] [102] [103] [121] [122] [123] [124] [125] Genocide Watch- Ten Stages of Genocide

https://www.genocidewatch.com/tenstages

[3] [4] [59] [86] [120] International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights - Wikipedia

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Covenant_on_Civil_and_Political_Rights

[5] United Nations Convention Against Torture - Wikipedia

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Convention_Against_Torture

[6] Definitions of Genocide and Related Crimes | United Nations

https://www.un.org/en/genocide-prevention/definition

[7] [8] [9] [12] [15] [16] [17] [38] [39] [40] [41] [42] [43] [44] [45] [46] [47] [48] [100] [101] Mass Deportation: Analyzing the Trump Administration’s Attacks on Immigrants, Democracy, and America - American Immigration Council

https://www.americanimmigrationcouncil.org/report/mass-deportation-trump-democracy/

[10] [11] [32] [33] [34] [35] [36] [37] [97] [98] [99] [117] [118] United States and Canada Overview: August 2025 | ACLED

https://acleddata.com/update/united-states-and-canada-overview-august-2025

[13] [14] [49] [50] [51] [52] [53] [54] [55] [56] [57] [58] [60] [61] [63] [64] [65] [66] [67] [68] [69] [81] [82] [83] [84] [85] [119] [130] [131] [132] [133] [134] [135] [136] Persecution of transgender people under the second Trump administration - Wikipedia

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persecution_of_transgender_people_under_the_second_Trump_administration

[18] [21] [22] [23] [24] [25] [26] [27] ‘We’re seeing the best of LA’: as Ice raids haunt the city, Angelenos show up for each other | Los Angeles | The Guardian

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/jun/26/los-angeles-residents-immigrants-ice-resistance

[19] [20] [28] [29] [30] [31] [128] The mad scramble to track ICE raids across L.A. County - Los Angeles Times

https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2025-06-14/tracking-ice-across-los-angles-county

[62] [PDF] Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of ...

https://www.un.org/en/genocideprevention/documents/atrocity-crimes/Doc.1_Convention%20on%20the%20Prevention%20and%20Punishment%20of%20the%20Crime%20of%20Genocide.pdf

[70] [71] [72] [73] [74] [75] [76] [77] [78] [79] [80] [129] ICE Warden Put Transgender Detainees into Forced Labor Program: Complaint - Newsweek

https://www.newsweek.com/ice-detention-louisiana-transgender-detainees-abuse-complaint-10483607

[87] Body cam video from Aurora police shooting of Rajon Belt ...

https://www.cbsnews.com/colorado/news/rajon-belt-stubblefield-aurora-police-officer-shooting-ben-crump/

[88] [89] [90] [91] [92] [127] Elon Law professor: Violence against Black Americans qualifies as crimes against humanity | Today at Elon | Elon University

https://www.elon.edu/u/news/2023/02/19/elon-law-professor-violence-against-black-americans-qualifies-as-crimes-against-humanity/

[93] FBI: Hate crimes hit 2nd largest record in 2024 - Axios

https://www.axios.com/2025/08/05/hate-crimes-2024-black-antisemitism-muslim-fbi

[94] [139] NCJW Responds to FBI 2024 Hate Crimes Report

https://www.ncjw.org/news/ncjw-responds-to-fbi-2024-hate-crimes-report/

[95] FBI: Nearly 70% of U.S. Religion-Based Hate Crimes Target Jews ...

https://new.embassies.gov.il/multilateral-organizations-france/en/news/fbi-nearly-70-us-religion-based-hate-crimes-target-jews-source-ynet-itamar-eichner-august-6

[96] Minneapolis mosque reports break-in a week after fire - Sahan Journal

https://sahanjournal.com/public-safety/minneapolis-mosque-alhikmah-islamic-center-break-in-fire/

[104] [105] [106] [107] [109] [110] [137] [138] On the River, a Willful Disregard for Human Life and Safety | Human Rights Watch

https://www.hrw.org/news/2024/02/05/river-willful-disregard-human-life-and-safety

[108] Deaths in the New Mexico desert surge after Texas’ border ...

https://sourcenm.com/2025/06/16/deaths-in-the-new-mexico-desert-surge-after-texas-border-crackdown-reaches-el-paso/

[111] Justices Allow Removal of Texas’ Razor Wire on US-Mexico Border

https://www.ncsl.org/events/details/justices-allow-removal-of-texas-razor-wire-on-us-mexico-border

[112] Biden Administration Can Remove Texas’ Razor Wire Barrier at the ...

https://www.americanimmigrationcouncil.org/blog/biden-remove-texas-razor-wire-border-supreme-court-rules/

[113] [114] Genocide Convention - Wikipedia

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genocide_Convention

[115] [PDF] CCPR/C/GC/36

https://docs.un.org/en/ccpr/c/gc/36

[116] [PDF] General comment No. 36 on article 6 of the International Covenant ...

https://www.ohchr.org/Documents/HRBodies/CCPR/GCArticle6/GCArticle6_EN.pdf

[126] Explainer: What is the Genocide Convention?

https://www.ungeneva.org/en/news-media/news/2024/01/89297/explainer-what-genocide-convention

[140] Sikhs Remain Third-Most Targeted Religious Group in Latest FBI ...

https://www.sikhcoalition.org/blog/2025/sikhs-remain-third-most-targeted-religious-group-in-latest-fbi-hate-crime-data-2/

---

Memorandum: Unlawful Killings in the 2025 Caribbean Maritime Strike Campaign

Introduction and Summary

In 2025, the U.S. military carried out a series of maritime strikes against small boats in the Caribbean Sea and Pacific waters off Latin America. Over approximately two months, at least 43 people were killed in 10 strikes on vessels the U.S. alleged were carrying narcotics[1]. These operations, initiated under the second Trump administration, targeted unarmed civilian vessels in international waters and predominantly killed Latin American nationals, notably Venezuelan civilians. U.S. officials labeled the targets “narco-terrorists” and justified the killings as counter-narcotics and self-defense operations[2][3]. However, no proof of imminent threat or drug cargo was provided, and the government refused to identify the victims, offering only numbers killed and unverified allegations[4][5]. This pattern of conduct – unlawful, extrajudicial killings of civilians based on nationality under a veneer of drug interdiction – exhibits characteristics of persecution, extermination, and denial in the framework of genocide prevention.

This memorandum analyzes the campaign through the lens of Dr. Gregory Stanton’s Stages 8–10 of Genocide (Persecution, Extermination, Denial) and assesses its legal classification under international law (Genocide Convention, ICCPR, and U.N. use-of-force principles) and U.S. law (Executive Order 12333 and due process requirements). The evidence indicates a pattern of unlawful killings targeting a national group (Latin American civilians) and a concerted effort to deny and whitewash those acts through euphemistic rhetoric and secrecy. We conclude that the campaign constitutes Stage 8 Persecution of a protected group, with acts reaching the level of Stage 9 Extermination (genocidal killing in part), even if not (yet) on a mass scale. The official response – characterized by euphemisms, lack of transparency, and impunity – exemplifies Stage 10 Denial. These actions violate fundamental international norms (the right to life and the Genocide Convention’s prohibitions) as well as U.S. domestic law.

Background: Pattern of Maritime Strikes on Civilian Boats

Operation Overview: Beginning in early September 2025, the U.S. President announced a campaign of air and drone strikes against small maritime vessels allegedly involved in drug trafficking[6]. The strikes were conducted by U.S. military forces (reportedly including Navy and drones) in international waters of the Caribbean Sea and near the Pacific coast of South America[7]. In each instance, the targeted boat was destroyed without warning, killing everyone on board. By late October 2025, ten such strikes had been publicly acknowledged[1].

Casualties and Targets: The U.S. government claims these strikes killed members of criminal cartels, but has withheld key details. At least 43 people have been killed (all on the boats; no U.S. personnel injured)[7]. The first strike on Sept. 2 reportedly killed 11 individuals on a Venezuelan-flagged boat[8]. Subsequent strikes in the Caribbean (and one off Colombia’s Pacific coast) killed additional persons, often numbering a half-dozen per incident[6][9]. All the victims were Latin American nationals, primarily Venezuelans and possibly Colombians, given the routes and alleged gang affiliations. Crucially, the victims were unarmed civilians on non-military vessels; they were not engaged in hostilities at the time of attack. U.S. forces made no attempt at interdiction or capture – lethal force was the first and only resort[10][11].

“Narco-Terrorist” Labeling: U.S. officials have systematically labeled the targets as “narco-terrorists” or “narco-traffickers.” For example, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth announced one strike by claiming “six ‘narco-terrorists’ [were] killed”[12][13]. President Trump and his deputies asserted that the vessels were operated by cartels like Venezuela’s Tren de Aragua, designated (by the U.S.) as terrorist organizations[14][15]. Each strike was accompanied by the public release of video footage showing the boat’s destruction, with triumphant commentary to normalize the action[2][16]. “Narco-terrorists intending to bring poison to our shores will find no safe harbor anywhere in our hemisphere,” Hegseth proclaimed on social media, as he ordered an aircraft carrier to the region[3]. This rhetoric conflates suspected drug trafficking with terrorism, effectively dehumanizing the boat occupants as enemy combatants rather than civilians.

Lack of Evidence or Due Process: Despite the grave consequences, U.S. authorities have provided no public evidence that the destroyed vessels were actually carrying drugs or posed any immediate threat. Internal reports indicate that no narcotics were confirmed on board; even a classified memo to Congress failed to show proof of drug cargo[17]. In one case, the targeted boat had apparently altered course and was likely heading away from U.S. shores when struck, contrary to initial claims it was bound for the U.S.[18]. High-ranking officials (e.g. Secretary of State Marco Rubio) even admitted the military could have intercepted the boat safely, but “chose to destroy it … to send a message” as per presidential directive[19][20]. There is no indication that any warning or opportunity to surrender was given to the occupants. None of the victims have been identified by name, nor have their bodies (if recovered) been accounted for. The administration has only disclosed the number of people killed and vague allegations of narcotics – refusing to release identities, nationalities, or any investigative findings[5]. This opacity has been a consistent feature of the campaign.

Domestic and International Response: The strikes have drawn widespread condemnation and concern. Human rights organizations and civil liberties groups immediately decried the killings as extrajudicial executions[5]. Several Latin American governments, including U.S. partners, objected. Colombia’s President Gustavo Petro condemned the boat strikes as “murder” that “breaks the norms of international law”[21]. In Venezuela, officials accused Washington of using the “war on drugs” as a pretext for aggression, calling the U.S. narrative “lies … to justify a possible invasion”[22]. Within the United States, lawmakers from both parties have raised alarms. Members of Congress requested the legal justification and evidence for the strikes; Democrats argued the operations violate U.S. and international law outright[23]. A Senate resolution to halt unauthorized strikes in absence of Congressional approval was introduced (though it narrowly failed)[24]. In short, there is a broad recognition – domestically and abroad – that these maritime strikes fall outside the bounds of lawful conduct.

Against this factual backdrop, we turn to an analysis of how the campaign fits into the genocidal process stages of Persecution, Extermination, and Denial, and how it violates legal norms.

Stage 8 – Persecution: Targeting of a National Group

Dr. Gregory Stanton’s Stage 8: Persecution involves the systematic targeting of victims based on their identity, often through identification, isolation, and extrajudicial actions[25]. In the Caribbean strike campaign, there is a clear pattern of persecution of a national/ethnic group – Latin American civilians – under the guise of drug interdiction:

• Identification by Nationality: The campaign effectively treats Latin American nationality as a marker of enemy status. All targeted boats originated from Latin American countries (e.g. Venezuela, Colombia) and were crewed by Latin Americans. The selection of targets was not individualized on proven conduct, but rather based on nationality and presumed association with drug cartels. U.S. officials explicitly tied the targets to Venezuela’s population – for instance, labeling the first destroyed vessel as Venezuelan and linking it to Venezuela’s government (calling the gang “under the control of … Nicolás Maduro”)[26]. By defining the enemy in national terms (“Venezuelan narco-terrorists”), the campaign echoes classical persecution wherein an entire national group is singled out for collective punishment.

• Denial of Civilian Status: The people on these boats were unarmed civilians engaged (as alleged) in non-violent criminal activity (drug transport). Under law, they should be treated as criminal suspects subject to arrest and due process – not as enemy combatants. Instead, the administration unilaterally designated them as “terrorists” to strip away their civilian protection[15]. This terrorist designation was used to claim these individuals are unlawful combatants in a supposed armed conflict, thereby denying them any legal status except targets. Such designation is unsupported in international law (there is no recognized category of “narco-terrorist” that removes the right to life)[27]. It served to dehumanize and mark the victims for lethal persecution – a hallmark of Stage 8.

• Extrajudicial Measures: Persecution is evidenced by extrajudicial killings and other severe deprivation of rights inflicted on the target group[25]. Here, lethal force was applied without any legal process. The U.S. military did not attempt seizure or arrest despite viable options (the U.S. Coast Guard routinely interdicts drug-smuggling boats non-lethally)[28][29]. Instead, under direct orders, forces destroyed the vessels outright. The stated motive was to “send a message” of deterrence[19][20]. This “message” was effectively delivered to a broad class of people (Latin American drug suspects), instilling fear in the wider group. In Stanton’s model, persecution often involves terrorizing the target group with violence to isolate and subjugate them; here, the open bombing of Latin American civilians on the high seas serves that function.

• Pattern and Policy: Crucially, these were not isolated incidents but a patterned campaign. The U.S. administration publicly announced a policy to treat certain Latin American drug cartels as enemy forces and to use military force against them[30]. An official memo even claimed the U.S. is in a “non-international armed conflict” with these organizations[30]. This implies a systematic policy targeting members of a particular national-origin group (Latin American cartel suspects) for elimination, rather than case-by-case law enforcement. Such state-organized targeting of a civilian population is a textbook case of persecution. The mass deployment of military assets – including an aircraft carrier and 10,000 troops to the Caribbean[3] – underscores that this is a coordinated campaign, not random events. Under Genocide Watch criteria, “massive violation of human rights is evidence of Persecution”[31][32]. Here we see repeated, deliberate killings of a specific demographic by state organs, satisfying that standard.

In sum, by singling out Latin American civilians (especially Venezuelans) for lethal targeting on the basis of their nationality and alleged group affiliation, the U.S. campaign fulfills Stage 8 (Persecution). The victims were identified as part of a national group, denied legal protections, and subjected to lethal harm because of who they are perceived to be (Latin American “narco-traffickers”)[33]. This is not ordinary law enforcement – it is systematic persecution of a group.

Stage 9 – Extermination: Unlawful Killings Amounting to Genocidal Acts

Stanton’s Stage 9: Extermination is the stage of mass killing, which he notes is legally defined as genocide when it’s intentional destruction of a group “in whole or in part”[34]. In the Caribbean campaign, the scale of killing (dozens of victims) is still limited compared to full genocides. However, the nature of the acts – intentional killing of members of a national group with the aim of destroying them (at least in part) – meets the criteria of genocide under international law[33][35]. The campaign can thus be characterized as an incipient or partial genocide – acts of extermination targeted at a particular national group:

• Intent to Destroy (in Part) a National Group: Genocidal intent is evidenced by the target selection and rhetoric. The U.S. strikes specifically targeted vessels associated with Venezuela and other Latin American nations, implicitly aiming to eliminate those members of a national/ethnic group deemed undesirable (Latin American drug smugglers). The President and his officials cast the campaign as an effort to eradicate a threat emanating from Latin Americans – e.g., Trump’s directive to use lethal force against “Latin American drug cartels” designated as terrorists[36]. Defense officials declared that such “narco-terrorists… will find no safe harbor anywhere in our hemisphere”, effectively announcing an intent to hunt down and eliminate them wherever found[3]. This language goes beyond law enforcement – it implies a goal to physically destroy the group (“eradication”) rather than just interdict crimes. While the U.S. does not admit to targeting civilians “as such,” the effect is that all persons of a certain nationality engaged in a certain activity are marked for death. In genocide law, victims are targeted “because of their real or perceived membership of a group”[33] – here, being Latin American (Venezuelan) and on a suspected drug boat was the fatal membership criterion.

• Killings as a Method of Group Destruction: The operational method – direct lethal strikes that kill everyone on board – illustrates an intent to exterminate rather than apprehend. In one strike, the military fired multiple ordnance to ensure the boat sank and all lives were lost[37][38]. This indicates that killing the occupants (not merely stopping the shipment) was the objective. Indeed, alternative, non-lethal means were available and even prepared (U.S. Coast Guard and partner nations have agreements for boarding and arresting drug traffickers)[39], but those were deliberately bypassed. Such conscious choice of death over capture points to destructive intent rather than mere interdiction. According to Stanton, “extermination” is so termed because the killers do not regard their victims as fully human[2]. In this case, U.S. officials’ indifference to the humanity of the boat occupants (treating them as disposable “poison” carriers) is apparent. The use of military force typically reserved for enemy combatants further underscores that these victims were considered beyond the pale of legal protection – essentially, “cockroaches” to be exterminated (the dehumanizing narrative of drug dealers as “poison” or “vermin” was explicit in official statements[3]).

• Scale and Repetition: While the total number (43+ killed) is lower than classic genocides, genocide does “not require wide-scale massacre-style killings” if there is intent to destroy a group in part[40][41]. Here, the repeated nature of the strikes and the policy to continue them (“further operations remain postured”)[42] show that this was not a one-off action but part of a potentially open-ended campaign. The fact that by late October 2025, ten strikes had been conducted “and counting”[2], with officials hinting at expanding targets to land-based Latin American sites as well, evidences an ongoing program of killing. Genocide scholarship recognizes that initial massacres, even if small, can qualify as genocidal acts and often presage larger-scale atrocity. Indeed, observers have called these boat attacks “the first genocidal massacres” in a broader pattern, citing over a thousand disappearances of targeted migrants and detainees around the same period as part of a broader campaign[43][44]. In other words, these killings at sea are part of a broader escalation towards Stage 9.

• Legal Characterization – Genocide and Crimes Against Humanity: Legally, under the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of Genocide, genocide is defined as killing or other acts committed “with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such.”[33] Killing members of the group is explicitly listed as an act of genocide (Article II(a))[35]. The evidence here – targeted killing of Venezuelan and other Latin American nationals because of their national origin (perceived as part of a criminal/drug “enemy” group) – fits this definition. Even if the scale is “in part,” the law is clear that an intent to destroy a substantial part of the group’s members (e.g. those deemed “narco-terrorists”) suffices. Short of formal genocide, these acts also clearly constitute crimes against humanity of murder: they are widespread or systematic attacks against a civilian population (Latin American civilians suspected of drug smuggling)[45]. Notably, similar campaigns of extrajudicial killings of alleged drug offenders – such as the Philippines’ “drug war” – have been deemed crimes against humanity by international authorities (the former Philippine president faces an ICC investigation and arrest warrant for such killings)[45]. The Caribbean strike campaign, if continued or expanded, risks crossing the threshold into both genocide and crimes against humanity in the eyes of international law.

In conclusion, the Maritime Strike Campaign qualifies as Stage 9: Extermination in Stanton’s model. The U.S. government’s actions meet the elements of genocidal acts (intentional lethal violence against a national group), though currently on a limited scale. The campaign is exterminatory in nature – its aim is not just interdiction but elimination of a class of people. As one commentator noted, “All available evidence suggests that President Trump’s lethal strikes in the Caribbean constitute murder, pure and simple.”[46][47] The pattern of killing civilians with impunity under color of law reflects a nascent genocide trajectory that must be halted before it escalates further.

Stage 10 – Denial: Euphemisms, Secrecy, and Impunity

Denial is the final stage in the genocidal process, identified by Stanton as the attempt to cover up or justify the atrocities and blame the victims[48]. In the case of the 2025 boat strikes, denial began immediately and concurrently with the killings. The U.S. administration’s handling of the campaign exhibits all the hallmarks of Stage 10 Denial:

• Euphemistic Labeling of Victims: The government consistently uses sanitized or propagandistic terminology to describe the victims and the operation. Civilians killed on the boats are never acknowledged as such; instead they are branded as “narco-terrorists”, “narco-traffickers”, or “illicit actors”[13][9]. The term “narco-boat” is used to imply a military target, obscuring that these were ordinary fishing or go-fast vessels crewed by humans. This language serves to deny the victims’ humanity and innocence, framing their killing as a righteous act. As Stanton notes, denial often involves portraying the murders as justified (e.g., “cleansing” rather than killing)[49]. Here, calling the strikes “operations against narcoterrorism” creates an illusion of legitimacy and self-defense, masking the reality of unlawful executions.

• Justification and Self-Defense Claims: U.S. officials publicly insist that the strikes are lawful and necessary, invoking self-defense and counter-terror narratives. The White House claimed the President acted under Article II self-defense powers to protect the nation[50]. Internally, a memo asserted the U.S. is in an “armed conflict” with drug cartels, seeking to legitimize the killings under the law of war[30]. These legal justifications are widely seen as spurious (no actual armed attack or imminent threat existed)[51][52]. Nonetheless, by insisting the killings were defensive, the administration denies any wrongdoing. This is a classic denial tactic: “we did nothing illegal or immoral; we were protecting ourselves.” Such rhetoric can be seen as “a continuing attempt to destroy the victim group … to deny its members even the memory of the murders”, because if the victims are framed as aggressors, their death is not mourned[48].

• Refusal to Acknowledge Victims or Facts: A key aspect of denial is suppressing the truth of what occurred. In this campaign, U.S. authorities have withheld basic facts: no names of the dead, no nationalities, no details of any investigation. The Pentagon has not even confirmed whether any contraband was actually recovered from the wreckages. As noted, officials “have not disclosed many details about the targets other than the number of people killed and the allegations” against them[5]. This secrecy prevents public scrutiny and erases the individual identities of those killed, making it easier to deny that innocent lives were taken. Family members and home countries of the missing are left without official confirmation, effectively denying the victims an identity and dignity in death. Stanton emphasizes that denial often entails hiding evidence and blocking inquiries[48]. Indeed, the U.S. has shown no inclination to allow independent investigations or to share intelligence that supposedly justified the strikes[53] (CIA intelligence was used but remains secret). By classifying evidence and avoiding release of proof, the perpetrators avoid having their narrative challenged – a strong indication of conscious denial.

• Celebratory & Defiant Rhetoric: Far from showing regret, U.S. leaders have taken a triumphal tone, which is another facet of denial (celebrating genocide as heroic). President Trump and Secretary Hegseth posted strike videos with celebratory commentary on social media[54][2]. Each explosion was publicized as if it were an accomplishment, not a potential crime. U.S. officials congratulated the military on “successfully” killing the occupants of these boats. This gloating over the killings serves to normalize and whitewash the acts. It signals to the public that there is nothing to mourn – only enemies neutralized. Such “victor’s narrative” denies the suffering of the victims and the illegality of the act. Additionally, the administration’s dismissal of criticism – for example, implying that concern over the victims is misplaced because they were “poison peddlers” – further entrenches denial. High-level refusal to reconsider the policy, even after international outcry, shows an entrenchment in Stage 10: the authorities “deny that they committed any crimes” and continue the same conduct[48].

• Blaming the Victims & Others: The narrative also shifts blame. It suggests that if anyone is at fault, it is the victims themselves (for choosing to smuggle drugs and thus supposedly deserving death) or foreign governments (for “allowing” cartels to operate). The U.S. explicitly cited Latin American states as “unable or unwilling” to tackle the cartels, to justify U.S. action[55]. This frames the subsequent killing of those countries’ nationals as a regrettable necessity caused by those nations’ failures – again deflecting U.S. responsibility. In denial stage, perpetrators often argue that the killings were provoked or required by the situation. Here the talk of “poison coming to our shores” and “we had to act since they wouldn’t” is exactly that kind of rationalization.

In summary, the U.S. response to these maritime strikes aligns with Stage 10: Denial. The government has engaged in a cover-up of specifics, a propaganda campaign of justification, and a refusal to recognize the humanity of the victims. Euphemisms like “narco-terrorist” and boastful statements about hunting traffickers are not just political spin – they are intrinsic to the denial that a grievous wrong has occurred. As Stanton notes, “Denial is a continuation of the genocide” – it permits the killing to continue by inoculating the perpetrators from shame or accountability[48]. The hallmarks of Stage 10 are all present here, underscoring the severity of the situation.

International Law Analysis

Under international law, the maritime strike campaign violates multiple fundamental norms and may constitute international crimes. Key legal frameworks include the Genocide Convention, International Human Rights Law (IHRL) such as the ICCPR, and the U.N. Basic Principles on the Use of Force.

• Genocide Convention: As discussed, if it is established that the U.S. campaign carried out killings with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national group, it would fall under the definition of genocide[33][35]. The Genocide Convention (1948) explicitly prohibits killing members of a national, ethnic, racial or religious group with such intent. In this case, the targeting of Latin Americans (Venezuelans) as a group and the rhetoric of extermination (no safe harbor for them anywhere) strongly suggest a special intent (dolus specialis) to eliminate a portion of that group. Even if U.S. officials couch it as counter-crime, the systematic nature and group focus fulfill the elements of genocidal acts. The U.S. is a State Party to the Genocide Convention (having ratified it in 1988), and is therefore bound to prevent and punish genocide. Instead, U.S. officials here appear to be perpetrating acts that could amount to genocide. At minimum, the campaign has set off alarms at Genocide Watch-type organizations, which likely would categorize the U.S. as having entered Stage 9 genocidal processes for the first time in the Western Hemisphere.

• Crimes Against Humanity: Short of genocide, the strikes clearly qualify as potential crimes against humanity, specifically murder and persecution. Crimes against humanity under the Rome Statute (ICC) require a widespread or systematic attack against a civilian population. The pattern of repeated lethal strikes against civilians (with at least 43 killed in two months across a broad area) meets the “widespread” threshold, and the existence of a state policy meets the “systematic” element[56][57]. The targeting of a particular national group (Latin Americans) and labeling them as terrorists could also constitute the crime against humanity of persecution (intentional and severe deprivation of fundamental rights against an identifiable group based on nationality) – in this case, depriving them of the right to life and liberty[45]. Notably, the International Criminal Court currently lacks jurisdiction over these acts (the U.S. is not an ICC member, and the nationalities of victims like Venezuela or Colombia are ICC members but an exercise of jurisdiction would be complex)[56]. However, the conduct is of the sort that international criminal law seeks to punish, and it sets a dangerous precedent undermining global norms. Other international mechanisms (e.g., a special tribunal or U.N. inquiries) could theoretically examine these extrajudicial killings if they escalate.

• Right to Life (ICCPR): The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), to which the U.S. is a party, provides in Article 6 that “Every human being has the inherent right to life… No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his life.”[58][59] This is a non-derogable right – meaning even in emergencies or war, arbitrary killings are forbidden[60][61]. The U.N. Human Rights Committee has clarified that extraterritorial killings by state agents can violate the ICCPR right to life when the victim is within the power or effective control of the state (such as being targeted by a drone strike). The U.S. historically contests the ICCPR’s extraterritorial application, but even U.S. military doctrine recognizes the prohibition on arbitrary killing as a peremptory norm of customary international law binding everywhere[60][61]. The Caribbean strikes are prima facie “arbitrary deprivations of life.” In peacetime, law enforcement may only use lethal force if strictly necessary to protect life (e.g. an immediate threat)[62][63]. Here, the victims posed no immediate threat – they were not attacking anyone when destroyed. The killings were thus outside any lawful use of force and constitute extrajudicial executions under human rights law[61]. As one legal expert observed, “unlawful killing is unlawful regardless of who does it or why”[64] – and these deaths were unlawful under the ancient right-to-life norms codified in treaties.

• UN Basic Principles on the Use of Force: The United Nations Basic Principles on the Use of Force and Firearms by Law Enforcement Officials (1990) codify the peacetime standard for lethal force: law enforcement officers shall not use firearms against people “except in self-defense or defense of others against the imminent threat of death or serious injury… and only when less extreme means are insufficient.” Intentional lethal use of force may only be made “when strictly unavoidable in order to protect life.”[63] The U.S. boat strikes flagrantly violated these principles. The operations were essentially law enforcement missions (counter-narcotics) albeit carried out by military means. There was no imminent threat to life requiring lethal action – a boat allegedly carrying drugs does not itself endanger lives such that only a missile strike could stop it. The Basic Principles also emphasize proportionality and warning; typically, even when force is justified, an officer should give warning and try non-lethal means. Here, no warning was given and the force used was wholly disproportionate (destroying an entire vessel and all souls aboard to prevent a non-violent crime). Furthermore, the Basic Principles forbid execution without trial – which is effectively what occurred. The arbitrary “death penalty” meted out to these suspects at sea bypassed all judicial process, contravening fundamental due process rights recognized in both international and bilateral agreements[39]. (Indeed, the U.S. had maritime drug-interdiction treaties that specifically commit to handling suspects through legal processes, not summary execution[39].) In sum, the strikes stand in stark opposition to the U.N. law enforcement standards, underscoring their illegality in peacetime terms.

• Use of Force in International Law (Jus ad Bellum): Another international law aspect is the U.N. Charter’s prohibition on the use of force (Article 2(4)). Since these strikes occurred in international waters and not obviously within any state’s territory, the application of Article 2(4) is debatable. However, if any of the vessels were flagged or effectively linked to a particular state (e.g., a Venezuelan-registered boat), attacking it could be construed as a use of force against that state’s “territorial integrity” or sovereignty[65][66]. The U.S. did not obtain consent from Venezuela or others, nor did it report these strikes to the U.N. Security Council as self-defense actions (as required by Article 51, if that were claimed)[67][68]. The U.S. justification of “self-defense against non-state actors in an unwilling/unable state” is not well-founded here – the boat was in international waters and not an imminent threat[69][70]. Thus, the strikes likely violated the principle of state sovereignty and the peaceful use of the seas (UNCLOS declares high seas are reserved for peaceful purposes)[71][72]. This aspect reinforces that the campaign did not have a legal basis under international law governing inter-state force.

• International Humanitarian Law (IHL): If the U.S. claim of being in an “armed conflict” with cartels were taken at face value, IHL (the law of armed conflict) would apply. Under IHL, distinction and necessity are paramount: only combatants and military objectives may be intentionally targeted. Here, calling suspected traffickers “combatants” is a stretch that most experts reject[27]. The threshold for a non-international armed conflict (NIAC) is sustained armed fighting of a certain intensity[52], which these sporadic one-sided strikes do not meet. Even if a NIAC existed, the boat occupants would either be civilians (if not directly participating in hostilities) or at most members of an organized armed group. If the latter, IHL would still require that any target be a valid military objective – a small boat carrying drugs does not qualify unless it was also being used to directly participate in hostilities. No evidence suggests these individuals were engaged in warlike actions. Moreover, IHL requires proportionality and taking prisoners when feasible; here the destruction of the vessel when interception was feasible violates basic IHL principles (and as noted, DoD’s own policy is to adhere to distinction even outside conflicts)[73][74]. Thus, from an IHL perspective, if the U.S. tries to justify under LOAC, it still fails – the strikes would be unlawful targeting of non-combatants, essentially summary executions which IHL and Common Article 3 prohibit. In either paradigm – law enforcement or armed conflict – the campaign’s conduct is legally indefensible.

Conclusion on International Law: The maritime strike campaign constitutes a gross violation of international law. It undermines the Genocide Convention’s core protections by targeting a national group. It breaches the ICCPR and customary norms by arbitrarily depriving life. It defies the UN Basic Principles and standard maritime law enforcement rules that restrict use of deadly force. No claim of self-defense or wartime privilege withstands scrutiny: as one analysis concluded, these strikes appear as “extrajudicial killings in violation of IHRL” and possibly “the very definition of murder under international law”[75][76]. The international community would be justified in treating this campaign as an emerging atrocity requiring intervention, accountability, and prevention of escalation.

U.S. Domestic Law Analysis

U.S. domestic law likewise places firm prohibitions on the kind of conduct seen in the 2025 boat strike campaign. The operations as carried out seem to violate Executive directives, federal criminal law, and Constitutional principles:

• Executive Order 12333 (Prohibition on Assassination): E.O. 12333 (issued in 1981 and still in force) provides that “No person employed by or acting on behalf of the United States Government shall engage in, or conspire to engage in, assassination.”[77] The term “assassination” is not formally defined in the order, but executive branch legal guidance has interpreted it to include targeted killing of individuals outside of armed conflict, unless in self-defense or under laws of war[77][78]. In this scenario, the deliberate killing of specific people on a boat – who were not actively attacking the U.S. – closely fits the common definition of assassination. The administration’s only potential escape from this ban would be to claim a lawful self-defense or armed conflict context (which, as shown, is implausible). Rubio’s admission that Trump “chose to destroy” the ship instead of interdicting it, and that the ship was actually turning back (not posing an imminent threat), negates any genuine self-defense claim[78]. Thus, no exception to the assassination ban applies. The attacks appear to violate E.O. 12333 directly[79]. This could mean that U.S. officials and military personnel involved acted contrary to a Presidential order – a serious breach of internal law that potentially opens them to administrative or legal consequences.

• Federal Criminal Law (Murder and War Crimes): U.S. criminal law prohibits murder of any person under U.S. jurisdiction. Notably, 18 U.S.C. §1119 (the “foreign murder” statute) makes it a crime for a U.S. national to kill a foreign national outside the U.S., provided the offender is outside the U.S. at the time. Military service members could also be prosecuted under the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) for murder or for obeying a manifestly illegal order. The Department of Defense Law of War Manual and directives instruct service members that orders to target civilians are manifestly illegal and must be refused[80][81]. If the boat occupants were civilians (as all evidence indicates), then those strikes were orders to commit murder. The UCMJ (10 U.S.C. §918) incorporates murder as a punishable offense. If not for the political context, the servicemembers who launched missiles at unarmed civilians could theoretically face court-martial for unlawful homicide. Additionally, if an armed conflict was deemed non-existent, these killings might be prosecutable under the War Crimes Act (18 U.S.C. §2441) as “grave breaches” of Common Article 3 (violence to life of persons not actively hostilities). Practically, such prosecutions are unlikely without a change in administration, but the legal violations are evident – one prominent military law expert commented it’s “difficult to imagine… any lawyers inside the Pentagon” finding this lawful, as it bore the “hallmarks of murder” under DoD’s own accepted rules[75].

• Due Process (Constitutional principles): The Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution states that no person shall be deprived of life “without due process of law.” While traditionally this applies to persons on U.S. soil or citizens, the underlying principle is that the U.S. Government should not kill people arbitrarily. In past contexts (e.g. drone strikes on U.S. citizens abroad), courts and officials have grappled with what process is due before the executive can take a life. In the case of foreign nationals abroad, constitutional protections are limited, but the spirit of due process is reflected in U.S. law and treaty commitments (like the aforementioned bilateral agreements on drug interdiction that require handing suspects to courts)[39]. The summary executions at sea bypassed any judicial process – no charges, no trial, no opportunity for surrender or hearing. This runs counter to American constitutional values, even if those specific victims cannot directly claim Fifth Amendment rights. It also contravenes Executive Order 12333’s internal mandate which essentially enforces due process by banning assassinations. In short, the campaign is a radical departure from the rule-of-law norms that U.S. forces and agents are supposed to uphold. If this practice were normalized, it would eviscerate the due process constraint on government power over life and death.

• War Powers and Constitutional Allocation: Another domestic law angle is the War Powers Clause (Article I) and War Powers Resolution. The President bypassed Congress in launching these lethal strikes, claiming inherent authority. While the administration argued these small-scale strikes did not amount to “war in the constitutional sense”[82][83], Congress disagreed sufficiently that a War Powers Resolution vote was held to try to check the President[24]. Though that effort failed, it highlighted that many lawmakers saw the President’s unilateral campaign as unconstitutional. The scenario raises separation-of-powers concerns: engaging in repeated hostilities (even against non-state actors) without Congress could violate U.S. law (the War Powers Resolution’s requirements for authorization of sustained military action). Should the campaign continue or expand (particularly if strikes hit land targets or provoke conflict with a state like Venezuela), it could ripen into an impermissible undeclared war.

In essence, under U.S. law the maritime strike campaign is legally dubious at best and criminal at worst. It cuts against core American legal principles: that the government cannot kill people as it pleases. The prohibition on assassination and the requirement of necessity in any use of lethal force were put in place precisely to prevent this kind of abuse of power. The fact that U.S. officials proceeded anyway signals a grave breakdown of legal compliance. Future administrations or courts could potentially hold decision-makers accountable (for example, impeachment was floated by commentators, referring to the strikes as “maritime murder spree” warranting removal[84]). At the very least, the campaign sets a dangerous precedent contradicting American laws and ideals.

Conclusion and Recommendations

Conclusion: The U.S. 2025 maritime strike campaign in the Caribbean constituted a pattern of unlawful killings targeting Latin American civilians, defined by their nationality and presumed criminal ties. Analyzing the facts under Dr. Stanton’s genocide framework reveals an alarming progression: Stage 8 (Persecution) in the identification and targeting of a national group; Stage 9 (Extermination) in the deliberate mass killing of that group’s members; and Stage 10 (Denial) in the cynical attempt to justify, conceal, or even celebrate these killings. Though not (yet) on the scale of historical genocides, the campaign’s logic and methods align with genocidal processes – effectively state-sponsored extrajudicial executions of a targeted ethnic-national group. Legally, these actions breached fundamental international laws (the Genocide Convention’s prohibition on destroying groups, the human right to life, and use-of-force norms) as well as U.S. domestic laws (Executive orders and due process guarantees). High-level officials, including the President and Secretary of Defense, appear to have orchestrated and condoned conduct that is ultra vires and criminal under both U.S. and international law.

Recommendations: As investigators and legal analysts, we urge:

• Immediate Cessation: The U.S. must halt any further maritime strikes of this nature to prevent escalation from a Stage 8–9 situation into a full Stage 9–10 atrocity. Continuing down this path risks entrenching the genocidal process and causing irreparable damage to innocent lives and international stability.

• Transparency and Accountability: Full facts of each strike (target selection rationale, identities of victims, any recovered evidence) should be disclosed. An independent inquiry – ideally international in scope – is warranted to assess the legality. U.S. Congress should exercise oversight and, if appropriate, invoke accountability mechanisms for officials who ordered unlawful killings (this could include legislative hearings, impeachment inquiries, or referral for special counsel investigation under federal law).

• Engagement of International Mechanisms: The situation should be brought to the attention of international human rights bodies or the U.N. Special Rapporteurs on Extrajudicial Executions and on Genocide Prevention. Even if formal courts have limited reach, international condemnation and monitoring can pressure the U.S. to correct course. The OAS or neighboring states might also pursue diplomatic or legal action given Latin American civilians are victims (for instance, a state like Venezuela or Colombia could sue in the International Court of Justice for breach of international law, or refer the situation to the U.N. Security Council).

• Reaffirmation of Legal Norms: The U.S. should be pressed to reaffirm its commitment to the rule of law in counter-narcotics. This means returning to a law enforcement paradigm: utilizing Coast Guard interdictions, arrests, and prosecutions in cooperation with Latin American nations, rather than “going straight for the extrajudicial kill”[85][86]. It should also explicitly repudiate the notion that it can unilaterally declare “war” on criminal groups and kill suspects at will. Only by doing so can the U.S. begin to repair the erosion of norms caused by this campaign.

In closing, this report underscores that the 2025 anti-narcotics strike campaign in the Caribbean was not a mere policy choice – it was a grave breach of legal and moral limits. The pattern of conduct fits into the late stages of the genocidal process, a warning sign that must not be ignored. History teaches that genocide often begins with the types of actions and rhetoric we witness here: targeting a marginalized group, rationalizing their killing as necessary, and denying any wrongdoing. It is imperative that the United States reverses course immediately. Failing to do so not only endangers more lives but also sets a precedent that puts the U.S. itself on a perilous path – one where the very rule of law and fundamental respect for human life are at stake. The international community and domestic guardians of the law should treat these “boat murders”[44] with the utmost seriousness, lest they mark the beginning of a darker chapter of atrocities.

Sources:

1. Guardian, “US airstrike on ‘drug boat’ kills six as aircraft carrier sent to South America” (24 Oct 2025)[1][5].

2. AP News, “US strikes another boat accused of carrying drugs… killing 6, Trump says” (14 Oct 2025)[30][4].

3. LA Times (Gustavo Arellano), “As Trump blows up supposed narco boats, he uses an old, corrupt playbook on Latin America” (25 Oct 2025)[2][3].

4. Just Security (M. Lederman), “The Many Ways in Which the Caribbean Strike was Unlawful” (Sept 2025)[75][76].

5. Atlantic Council (Celeste Kmiotek), “Was Trump’s strike on an alleged Venezuelan drug boat legal?” (10 Sep 2025)[60][77].

6. FlaglerLive (Mary Ellen O’Connell), “Targeted US Hit on Caribbean Boat Was a Blatant Violation of International Law” (7 Sep 2025)[63][39].

7. Genocide Watch (Gregory Stanton), “Ten Stages of Genocide” (updated Oct 2025)[25][48].

8. Wikipedia, “Genocide Convention – Definition of Genocide”[33]. (For general legal definition reference)

---

[1] [5] [6] [7] [9] [12] [13] [14] [15] [21] [50] [53] [54] US airstrike on ‘drug boat’ kills six as aircraft carrier sent to South America | US military | The Guardian

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/oct/24/us-military-strike-alleged-drug-boat-caribbean

[2] [3] [16] Commentary: As Trump blows up supposed narco boats, he uses an old, corrupt playbook on Latin America - Los Angeles Times

https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2025-10-25/trump-drug-boats-latin-america

[4] [17] [22] [23] [24] [30] [51] US strikes another boat accused of carrying drugs in waters off Venezuela, killing 6, Trump says :: WRAL.com

https://www.wral.com/news/ap/af1a7-us-strikes-another-boat-accused-of-carrying-drugs-in-waters-off-venezuela-killing-6-trump-says/

[8] [27] [39] [52] [58] [59] [62] [63] [64] How Targeted US Hit on Caribbean Boat Was a Blatant Violation of International Law | FlaglerLive

https://flaglerlive.com/unlawful-hit/

[10] [11] [18] [26] [28] [29] [36] [37] [38] [45] [55] [56] [57] [60] [61] [67] [68] [69] [70] [71] [72] [77] [78] [79] Was Trump’s strike on an alleged Venezuelan drug boat legal? - Atlantic Council

https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/new-atlanticist/was-trumps-strike-on-an-alleged-venezuelan-drug-boat-legal/

[19] [20] [42] [65] [66] [73] [74] [75] [76] [80] [81] [82] [83] The Many Ways in Which the Caribbean Strike was Unlawful

https://www.justsecurity.org/120296/many-ways-caribbean-strike-unlawful/

[25] [31] [32] [34] [48] [49] Genocide Watch- Ten Stages of Genocide

https://www.genocidewatch.com/tenstages

[33] [35] [40] [41] Genocide Convention - Wikipedia

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genocide_Convention

[43] [44] heidi-answers.docx

file://file_00000000a54c6243b2e383c40b1bb713

[46] New NSA Documents Shine More Light into Black Box of Executive ...

https://www.aclu.org/news/national-security/new-nsa-documents-shine-more-light-black-box-executive-order-12333

[47] The NSA’s Other Privacy Loophole | American Civil Liberties Union

https://www.aclu.org/news/national-security/nsas-other-privacy-loophole

[84] Impeach Trump for Caribbean Boat Murders, Before He Starts ...

https://dakotafreepress.com/2025/10/04/impeach-trump-for-caribbean-boat-murders-before-he-starts-shooting-on-fifth-avenue/

[85] [86] Going Straight for the Extrajudicial Kill* | by R.VanWagoner - Medium

https://richardvanwagoner.medium.com/going-straight-for-the-extrajudicial-kill-05947f4c840e