Nonetheless, at least two international law commentators have endorsed this theory of legality, specifically the legitimacy of treating the activities of narco-trafficking groups as an “armed attack” triggering the inherent right of self-defense. Another editorial asserted invocation of “wartime” legal authority represents an arguably logical evolution of international law. This argument is premised on the theory that the administration’s interpretations of international law merely build upon previous invocations of analogous authority by the United States to engage in hostilities against non-state groups like al-Qaeda and the Islamic State.

Like the administration’s legal invocation of the right of self-defense and that this situation constitutes an armed conflict, these opinions seek to push a legal square peg into an operational round hole. It is, of course, accurate to focus on an actual or imminent armed attack to justify military action in self-defense. This right is enshrined in Article 51 of the United Nations Charter and is an important aspect of customary international law. And while the meaning of armed attack — the trigger for self-defense — must be pragmatically responsive to emerging threats, its malleability is not unlimited. Indeed, by invoking the international legal language of self-defense, it is clear the United States has not abandoned the view that its use of military force must “fit” within an international legal framework. It is, however, the Trump administration’s effort to advance its policy agenda by continuing to distort what constitutes an armed attack that lies at the heart of the legal invalidity of this campaign.