The U.S. Senate found itself at the center of a constitutional and foreign policy storm this week, as Democrats led a high-profile—though ultimately unsuccessful—bid to rein in President Donald Trump’s military authority over a series of deadly strikes on vessels in the Caribbean Sea. The strikes, conducted since early September 2025, have killed at least 21 people and raised alarms across the political spectrum about executive overreach, the risk of unintended conflict, and the erosion of congressional war powers.
On Wednesday, October 8, 2025, Senators Adam Schiff of California and Tim Kaine of Virginia spearheaded a resolution under the War Powers Act to block Trump’s ongoing campaign of airstrikes against boats the administration alleges are smuggling drugs from Venezuela and other parts of Latin America. The resolution, which needed a simple majority to pass, failed narrowly in a 51-48 vote. Only two Republicans—Senators Rand Paul of Kentucky and Lisa Murkowski of Alaska—joined Democrats in support, while Senator John Fetterman was the sole Democrat to vote against the measure, according to reporting from NOTUS and Reuters.
The failed vote capped weeks of rising tension between the White House and Congress. Schiff and Kaine, joined by more than two dozen fellow Democrats, have repeatedly demanded answers from the Trump administration about both the legal basis for the strikes and the identities of those killed. Thus far, the administration has provided little clarity. Kaine, who serves on the Senate Armed Services Committee, described a closed-door briefing as offering “no information about why attacking rather than interdicting.” He added, “The suspicious mind in me says it’s because there aren’t good answers.”
President Trump and his allies have framed the strikes as a necessary escalation in the fight against what they call “narco-terrorists” threatening American lives. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth insisted the campaign would continue “until the attacks on the American people are over.” The administration argues that the traditional law enforcement approach—where the U.S. Coast Guard intercepts, searches, and arrests suspected traffickers—has been rendered obsolete by the scale and sophistication of cartel operations. Instead, the White House claims, military force is now justified.
But critics, including Schiff, Kaine, and a growing number of lawmakers from both parties, say the administration has overstepped its authority. “Congress has not authorized these strikes. They are illegal and risk dragging America into another war,” Schiff declared on social media. Kaine echoed the concern, warning that “the military strikes could lead the U.S. unexpectedly and unintentionally into war.” According to Latin Times, Democrats on the House Foreign Affairs Committee also accused Trump and Secretary of State Marco Rubio of “pushing for regime change” in Venezuela, citing the administration’s frustration with President Nicolas Maduro’s refusal to relinquish power and ongoing denials of cartel ties.
The controversy has been fueled by the administration’s lack of transparency. The number of strikes remains uncertain: Trump and Defense Secretary Hegseth have formally announced four, but some reports suggest as many as six may have taken place. The Pentagon has not confirmed Trump’s recent claim of another strike, and two U.S. officials told Reuters they were unaware of any such operation on the day in question. Schiff voiced the broader concern: “I have no idea precisely the identities of who was on these ships, or even whether the administration knows their identities, and that’s a real problem.”
Venezuelan officials have further complicated the picture, asserting that some of those killed were not gang members—a claim that, if true, could have serious diplomatic repercussions and raises the specter of civilian casualties. Kaine warned that “human-trafficking victims could have been on the ship,” highlighting the risks of acting without sufficient evidence or oversight.
Legal justifications for the strikes have also come under fire. The War Powers Resolution of 1973 requires the president to notify Congress within 48 hours of introducing troops into hostilities and limits such actions to 60 days without congressional approval. Yet, according to CNN, the Department of Justice recently released a secret opinion from the Office of Legal Counsel, asserting that Trump could authorize deadly force against suspected traffickers if they posed an imminent threat to Americans. Legal experts told NOTUS and Latin Times that this rationale represents a dramatic expansion of presidential authority, effectively permitting open-ended military action without congressional approval or judicial review.
Senator Rand Paul, a frequent critic of executive overreach, offered some of the most pointed criticism from across the aisle. “Is it too much to ask to know the names of those we kill before we kill them? To know what evidence exists of their guilt?” Paul asked on the Senate floor. He cited former Naval officer Jon Duffy: “A republic that allows its leaders to kill without law, to wage war without strategy, to deploy troops without limit, is a republic in deep peril.” Paul also noted that 25 percent of Coast Guard searches of suspected drug-trafficking boats turn up no drugs, suggesting the risk of targeting innocent people is high. “I think blowing up speedboats in the Caribbean isn’t the answer,” he told Newsmax.
Most Republicans, however, stood by Trump. Senator Rick Scott praised the strikes as a bold effort to “get drugs out of this country,” while Senator Mike Rounds dismissed the resolution as “purely a political action.” Senator Jim Risch, chair of the Foreign Relations Committee, insisted the strikes were “fully compliant with the War Powers Resolution and fully justified under the president’s article II constitutional authority.” The White House has argued that U.S. intelligence linked the targeted boats to designated terrorist organizations and described the ongoing campaign as a “non-international armed conflict” with Latin American cartels—a characterization that has alarmed lawmakers and legal scholars alike.
Underlying the debate is a broader struggle over the separation of powers and the proper role of Congress in decisions of war and peace. Schiff warned that if a president “can unilaterally put people or groups on a list and kill them, there is no meaningful limit to his use of force.” Kaine added that the administration’s approach “has no limiting principle.” Both senators have vowed to keep pressing for answers and accountability, even as the immediate effort to curtail Trump’s war powers fell short.
As the U.S. grapples with the fallout from the strikes, the episode has reignited old debates over executive authority, congressional oversight, and America’s role in a volatile region. For now, the question of who decides when the nation goes to war remains as unsettled—and as urgent—as ever.
