WASHINGTON (AP) — The U.S. military attacked a boat suspected of being used to smuggle drugs in the Caribbean Sea on Tuesday, killing four people, as the Trump administration continues its monthslong campaign against alleged traffickers in Latin America.
The latest attack brings the number of people who have been killed in boat strikes by the U.S. military to at least 227 in 68 strikes since the Trump administration began targeting those it calls “narcoterrorists” almost a year ago. As with most of the military’s statements on strikes in the eastern Pacific Ocean and Caribbean Sea, U.S. Southern Command said it targeted the alleged drug traffickers along known smuggling routes.
The military did not provide evidence that the vessel was ferrying drugs. A video posted on X showed an image of what appeared to be a moving boat followed by a flash.
Tuesday's strike came just two days after the U.S. military carried out a strike on a vessel in the eastern Pacific Ocean, killing two people accused of trafficking drugs. That action came after a pause of more than two months in the U.S. campaign against alleged smugglers.
The Trump administration is pursuing deals with allied nations to extend its offensive to land across multiple Latin American countries. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth said during a visit to Panama this month that Colombia, Guatemala and Honduras had agreed to allow the U.S. to carry out joint military operations against criminal groups on their soil. Guatemala denied reaching such a deal. Ecuador launched similar missions with the U.S. in March.
President Donald Trump has said the U.S. is in “armed conflict” with cartels in Latin America and has justified the attacks as a necessary escalation to stem the flow of drugs into the United States and fatal overdoses claiming American lives. But his administration has offered little evidence to support its claims of killing smugglers.
U.S. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth speaks at a forum of The Americas Counter Cartel Coalition in Panama City, Wednesday, Aug. 12, 2026. (AP Photo/Matias Delacroix)
These used to be among the fundamental facts about going to college in America: College lasts four years. And though that timeline had been flexible when it comes to sports, there was never much debate over the notion that once a player moved on to the pros, their days as a college athlete were over.
A recent rule passed by the NCAA has resulted in confusion, lawsuits and the once unthinkable notion of players leaving college, signing with professional teams and then turning around to head back to college.
Among this week's headline grabbers were Dae’Quan Wright and Zxavian Harris, a pair of undrafted players out of Mississippi who had tryouts in the NFL over the summer, hoping to play this season at Ole Miss' rival in the Southeastern Conference, No. 11 LSU.
Wright and Harris are among a number of college athletes who have sued for the right to return to college to play as the start of both the college football and NFL seasons approach. Their moves, however, might not work out, as both the SEC and Big Ten passed new rules Tuesday barring pros from heading back to college to play. Those rules themselves could also be challenged in court.
A quick look at how we got here:
This part happened in June, and by the NCAA's plodding standards, it happened quite fast.
The rule now allows athletes to play five seasons over the span of five years. Most college athletes now see the “clock” start on their eligibility either when they enroll full-time in college or at the start of the regular school year immediately following their 19th birthday, whichever comes first.
The rule itself isn't all that outlandish. A lot of players were taking redshirt years (and getting extensions due to the pandemic) to prolong their eligibility to five, six, seven years and more, so putting some guardrails around it made some sense.
But the NCAA's decision to start applying this new rule to athletes who graduated high school in 2023 is what caused the chaos. By not including those from the Class of '22, many of whom saw their fourth and final year of eligibility end after last school year, they opened themselves up to trouble.
The members of the Class of ‘22 are arguing they’re being deprived of education and potential NIL financial benefits by being excluded from the rule.
Meanwhile, college athletes are suddenly looking at unexpected competition for roster spots and playing time coming from a class of players they thought would be gone this season. And teams, most of which have locked in their football rosters, are seeing a potential influx of talent they didn't expect.
A basketball player named Brock Wisne filed a federal class-action lawsuit, saying the NCAA violated antitrust law by excluding that Class of 2022 from the new rule. A judge in Denver ruled in favor of Wisne, opening the door for everyone in the class to come back to college, but only to their former college. The judge left NCAA transfer portal rules intact, meaning the players couldn't come back, enter the (currently closed) portal and find a new school.
An appeals court last Friday temporarily halted that judge's order, though that was hardly the end of the confusion.
Despite the federal court ruling, players across the country have filed lawsuits in state courts and many judges granted orders allowing them to come back to school. This “find a local judge” approach has generally been successful for the athlete over the past couple of years.
In some cases — including the case involving Wright in Louisiana — a judge not only said the players could come back, but also ordered a weeklong reopening of the transfer portal, which gave the players a chance to shop around.
Sam Ehrlich, a former lawyer who follows college sports litigation at Boise State, said the state lawsuits were filed “just in case” the federal order got overturned. It did, and that federal case had no bearing on the various state lawsuits.
According to Ehrlich's College Sports Litigation Tracker, at least 26 eligibility cases have been filed in state and county courts across the U.S. In at least 10 of those, judges have granted a restraining order or injunction favoring the players. In only one — involving basketball player Filip Borovicanin — has an appeals court overturned the initial decision, leading to a favorable outcome for the NCAA.
Court cases move slowly, and in the Wisne case, odds are nothing will be final until long after football (and maybe basketball and baseball) season is over and there's no relief left to give to the impacted players.
While football teams are madly scrambling, trying to make sense of it all, basketball teams are also feeling some pressure. Teams are allowed to start practice on Sept. 25. A notable instance of where confusion might set in is Gonzaga, which recruited two players from that Class of '22 who (presumably) had their eligibility restored.
One, however, is Javon Bennett, who was part of the Borovicanin lawsuit that an Ohio court overturned. The other is Chauncey Wiggins, who comes from Florida State and was part of a case in Georgia, where the ruling favorable to the players remains in force.
Sign up for Top 25 poll alerts here. Visit the Top 25 here and see AP’s full college football coverage here.
The NFL logo is shown the field before the start of a preseason NFL football game between the Green Bay Packers and the Pittsburgh Steelers in Pittsburgh, Thursday, Aug. 13, 2026. (AP Photo/Gene J. Puskar)
