From early September through November 2025, the U.S. military has carried out a series of high-profile strikes against boats and a submarine suspected of drug smuggling in international waters near the Americas. According to multiple news reports, these operations resulted in the destruction of 17 boats and one submarine, and the deaths of 70 people on board. Only two suspects survived, and rather than being prosecuted, they were sent back to their home countries without charges—a detail that has fueled both legal and moral controversy in Washington and beyond.
While the Trump administration has justified these actions as a necessary response to the growing threat of international drug cartels, the strikes have prompted fierce debate on Capitol Hill. Lawmakers from both parties are demanding more transparency, questioning the legal authority for such military actions, and expressing unease about the potential for escalation—especially with U.S. naval forces amassing in the Caribbean Sea, including the deployment of America’s most advanced aircraft carrier.
The legal and constitutional questions are front and center. The U.S. Constitution grants Congress—not the president—the power to declare war. Yet, as reported by South Dakota Searchlight, only Republican members of Congress were initially briefed on the attacks, leaving Democrats in the dark and raising concerns about executive overreach. Senator Tim Kaine, a Virginia Democrat, captured the mood of many when he said, “We’re tired of Congress abdicating this most solemn power to a president.” Kaine introduced a resolution requiring congressional authorization before any attack on Venezuelan soil, a move intended to reassert Congress’s role in matters of war and peace.
Despite this push, the legislation faced steep odds. As Al Jazeera noted, the bill would need the president’s signature—making its passage unlikely. Still, the vote forced senators to go on the record with their concerns about President Trump’s public threats against Venezuela and the broader military campaign in the region. Senator Adam Schiff, a California Democrat, argued that the administration’s actions hinted at regime change ambitions, saying, “It’s really an open secret that this is much more about potential regime change. If that’s where the administration is headed, if that’s what we’re risking— involvement in a war—then Congress needs to be heard on this.”
Republican leaders, however, have largely supported the president’s approach, framing the strikes as both legal and necessary. Senator Lindsey Graham, a staunch Trump ally, stated on the Senate floor, “I like the idea that our commander-in-chief is telling narco-terrorist organisations you’re not only a foreign terrorist organisation, but when you engage in threats to our country—a boat headed to America full of drugs—we’re going to take you out.” Yet, even some Republicans have voiced reservations. Senator Susan Collins of Maine admitted she was torn after reading the administration’s secret legal opinion, saying, “It remains a difficult decision.” Senator Thom Tillis of North Carolina said he would vote against the resolution but still harbored doubts about the campaign.
Transparency, or the lack thereof, has been a recurring theme. Senate Intelligence Vice Chairman Mark Warner expressed confidence in the intelligence used to target alleged traffickers, but he pressed the administration to share more information with the public. “The notion on the kinetic strikes, without actually interdicting and demonstrating to the American public that these are carrying drugs and they’re full of bad guys, I think, is a huge mistake and undermines the confidence in the administration’s actions,” Warner told CNN after a classified briefing with Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth.
House Intelligence committee ranking member Rep. Jim Himes echoed Warner’s faith in the intelligence community but raised concerns about safeguards for innocents. “What I’m not sure about is whether we have the same architecture to make sure innocents aren’t killed, etc, that we do when we traditionally do counter-terrorism strikes,” Himes said. The administration has insisted that those on board the targeted vessels were affiliated with cartels, but House Foreign Affairs Committee ranking member Rep. Gregory Meeks reported, “nothing” in the closed-door briefing convinced him of the legality of the strikes or directly tied the vessels or passengers to the drug trade.
The administration’s legal rationale, according to several lawmakers, rests on the president’s Article II powers as commander-in-chief and the designation of certain international cartels as foreign terrorist organizations. Senator John Thune, a South Dakota Republican, defended the strikes by stating, “While much progress has been made, dangerous cartels continue to traffic narcotics into the United States. In response, President Trump has designated certain international cartels and other organizations as foreign terrorist organizations. The president is authorized by Article II of the U.S. Constitution to defend against threats as the commander-in-chief of the armed forces.”
Critics, however, note that no evidence has been presented publicly to show that the destroyed boats were actually bound for the U.S. or carrying fentanyl—the drug most frequently cited as a scourge in the U.S. opioid crisis. Furthermore, the administration’s refusal to brief Democrats initially, and the selective sharing of legal opinions, has only intensified skepticism. Senator Mike Rounds of South Dakota called it “unfortunate” that congressional Democrats were not briefed alongside Republicans, but did not address the legality of the attacks.
House Speaker Mike Johnson has been among the most vocal defenders of the strikes, arguing that “exquisite intelligence” underpins the military’s actions. “This is a necessary, appropriate and legal response to effectively, the cartels having declared war on us,” Johnson said, adding that cocaine has caused more American deaths in the last two years than U.S. casualties in the Vietnam War.
Meanwhile, the U.S. naval buildup in the Caribbean has sparked speculation about broader intentions, with some lawmakers suspecting preparations for possible action against Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro. Warner, for his part, noted that the administration’s legal opinion did not address the possibility of military action inside Venezuela, and he criticized the U.S. for missing an opportunity to rally the region against Maduro after his controversial seizure of power in 2024.
As the debate rages on, one thing is clear: the strikes have exposed deep divisions over the balance of power between Congress and the president, the transparency of military operations, and the standards for lethal force against suspected criminals on the high seas. With each new briefing and vote, lawmakers are being forced to confront these questions head-on—testing the boundaries of American law and the limits of executive authority in an era of globalized threats and political polarization.
Amid the uncertainty, the fate of U.S. policy in the Caribbean and the Pacific remains unsettled, with Congress and the White House locked in a high-stakes contest over war powers and accountability.
