In a contentious and closely watched vote on October 8, 2025, the U.S. Senate narrowly blocked an effort to rein in President Donald Trump’s authority to launch military strikes against alleged Venezuelan drug traffickers. The measure, championed by Democratic Senators Adam Schiff of California and Tim Kaine of Virginia and supported by Republicans Rand Paul of Kentucky and Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, failed 48–51, largely along party lines. This outcome left the administration’s controversial campaign of lethal force in the Caribbean intact, stoking fierce debate in Washington and beyond about the limits of presidential war powers, the legality of the strikes, and their wider humanitarian and diplomatic consequences.
According to Reuters and The New York Times, the Trump administration has conducted at least four deadly strikes on vessels suspected of carrying illegal drugs in the Caribbean Sea since September. The most recent operation, on October 3 near Venezuela, resulted in at least four deaths, bringing the total confirmed fatalities from these attacks to 21. U.S. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth confirmed the figures, while Colombian President Gustavo Petro revealed that one of the targeted boats belonged to Colombia and carried Colombian citizens—an incident that has further complicated regional relations.
The administration has justified the escalation as part of a campaign against "narcoterrorism." President Trump, speaking at Naval Station Norfolk in Virginia, told reporters, "If traffickers aren’t coming by sea anymore, US forces might move the fight onto land." The White House, in a memo to Congress, insisted that the United States is engaged in a "non-international armed conflict" against drug cartels, which Trump has designated as terrorist organizations. As the memo, cited by Punchbowl, put it: "For decades the response to the flow of illicit narcotics into the United States has primarily relied on the use of law enforcement authorities. These efforts have been unsuccessful in stemming the tide of these ever increasingly addictive and lethal drugs." The administration argued that cartels have grown more sophisticated, armed, and violent, causing tens of thousands of American deaths each year.
Traditionally, U.S. counter-drug missions have been the province of the Coast Guard, not the military. Critics from both parties, as well as a chorus of human rights and faith organizations, warn that the recent strikes blur the line between law enforcement and warfare, risking civilian casualties and diplomatic fallout. Senator Jack Reed of Rhode Island, a leading opponent of the strikes, cautioned that unchecked military action could "destabilize the region" and entangle the U.S. in another open-ended conflict. He also criticized the administration’s lack of transparency, noting that the Senate had received "no clear justification for destroying vessels instead of intercepting them."
Senator Schiff, in his push for congressional oversight, emphasized the constitutional stakes: "Congress alone holds the power to declare war," he said. "Blowing up boats without any legal justification risks dragging the United States into another war and provoking unjustified hostilities against our own citizens." During Senate debate, Schiff described the president’s actions as a "breathtaking departure from two centuries of law and practice." The legislation he co-authored with Kaine would have required congressional consent for hostilities against "certain non-state organizations," underscoring that labeling a group as a "foreign terrorist organization" does not grant the president the authority to use military force without Congress.
Despite these arguments, most Republicans stood by the administration. Senator Tom Cotton of Arkansas defended the strikes as "lawfully sound and extremely limited," arguing that Trump was simply fulfilling his campaign promise to combat drug cartels. Cotton insisted the president needs flexibility to strike quickly against terrorist leaders or other unconventional threats. Senator Ted Budd of North Carolina echoed this sentiment, telling The Sacramento Bee, "The White House is going to look at this in such a way that they’re going to make the right decision. This is a non-international conflict. Finally we have a president who’s going to stand up to these drug merchants."
Outside the halls of Congress, the backlash has been swift and broad. Nearly 60 U.S.-based organizations—including Oxfam America, Human Rights First, and the American Friends Service Committee—sent a letter to Congress condemning what they called "unauthorized and illegal uses of force." The letter, obtained by Al Jazeera, warned, "We fear, barring decisive action by members of Congress, there will be more strikes, more extrajudicial killings, and potentially a full-blown limitless war with one or more countries in the region, with likely devastating humanitarian and geopolitical consequences."
Humanitarian concerns are mounting. Elizabeth Tregaskis Gordon, a senior policy advisor for Oxfam America, told Al Jazeera that many Venezuelans are already "living through crisis" and that increased U.S. military action would "disrupt humanitarian work in the country." She added, "Many cannot access basic necessities to survive, while they face rising prices for consumer goods and increasing food insecurity. Worsening of the humanitarian crisis will only lead to more chaos and disruption; current US military action is unconstitutional, violates the UN charter, and should cease immediately." Faith communities have also weighed in, with Susan Gunn, director of the Maryknoll Office for Global Concerns, stating, "War is always a defeat. When such killing is aimed at civilians with no due process, it violates the sacredness of human life and undermines basic human rights and the rule of law."
Legal experts and civil society groups argue that the administration’s designations of groups like Venezuela’s Tren de Aragua as "foreign terrorist organizations" do not legally authorize the use of military force overseas. Furthermore, according to the Washington Office on Latin America and the UN Office on Drugs and Crime, about 90 percent of U.S.-bound cocaine actually transits the eastern Pacific and western Caribbean—not near Venezuela’s coast. The Drug Enforcement Agency has similarly reported that most fentanyl entering the U.S. is produced in Mexico from precursor chemicals sourced from China, not Venezuela.
Some observers see the strikes as part of a broader strategy aimed at regime change in Venezuela. U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio, a longtime advocate for regime change in Caracas, has called Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro’s government a cartel "masquerading as a government" and has offered a $50 million reward for Maduro’s capture. However, internal documents obtained by the Freedom of the Press Foundation indicate that U.S. intelligence agencies acknowledge Maduro’s government is "not directing [Venezuela’s] Tren de Aragua’s operations in the United States." Alex Main, director of international policy at the Center for Economic and Policy Research, warned that Trump’s campaign "could soon be directed at Venezuela in an attempt to incite violent regime change" and that other countries, such as Mexico or Panama, could also face U.S. intervention with "potentially disastrous consequences" for the region.
As the debate rages, faith and human rights groups continue to urge Congress to reclaim its constitutional authority, investigate civilian deaths, and pursue diplomacy over military escalation. Bridget Moix, general secretary of the Friends Committee on National Legislation, summed up their stance: "War is not the answer at home or abroad."
The Senate’s decision leaves the door open for further strikes and deepens the divide over how the United States should confront the intertwined challenges of drug trafficking, regional instability, and executive power. With lives and international norms at stake, the next moves by Congress and the White House will be watched closely across the hemisphere.
