On December 16, 2025, Washington’s corridors of power were abuzz with controversy, confusion, and clashing convictions as lawmakers confronted the Trump administration’s escalating military campaign against alleged drug-trafficking vessels in international waters near Venezuela. The campaign, which has destroyed more than 20 boats and killed at least 95 people since early September, has become a lightning rod for debate over its legality, transparency, and true intentions.
The day began with a classified briefing for members of Congress, led by Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth. The two top officials sought to justify the U.S. military’s deadly boat strikes, which have unfolded in the Caribbean and eastern Pacific, as a necessary counter-drug mission. According to Associated Press reports, Rubio insisted the operation was “focused on dismantling the infrastructure of these terrorist organizations that are operating in our hemisphere, undermining the security of Americans, killing Americans, poisoning Americans.”
Yet the administration’s narrative quickly ran into fierce skepticism. Senator Chris Murphy, a Democrat from Connecticut and a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, emerged from the briefing unconvinced. In a video posted to social media, Murphy stated, “There is no legal or national security justification for these strikes.” He added, “The boats targeted were believed to be smuggling cocaine, not fentanyl, and intelligence suggested the boats were heading to Europe, not the U.S.” These details, Murphy argued, directly contradicted the Trump administration’s public claims that the strikes were intended to stop fentanyl from reaching American shores.
The confusion was only deepened by President Donald Trump’s own actions just a day prior. On December 15, Trump issued an executive order designating fentanyl as a “weapon of mass destruction,” a move he announced with characteristic bombast. “There’s no doubt that America’s adversaries are trafficking fentanyl into the United States, in part because they want to kill Americans,” Trump declared at a press conference, before making the unsubstantiated claim that “two to three hundred thousand people die every year” from the drug. In reality, as Truthout pointed out, the true annual death toll is in the tens of thousands—a fraction of the figure Trump cited.
Trump’s executive order directed the government to investigate and prosecute those involved in the illicit fentanyl trade, but experts and critics were quick to question its real impact. Researchers cited by Truthout noted that fentanyl enters the U.S. primarily through Mexico, not by sea, and that the vast majority of individuals apprehended for smuggling are U.S. citizens. Furthermore, the vessels targeted by the administration’s boat strike campaign were mostly carrying cocaine, not fentanyl, and were bound for Europe, not the United States.
Senator Lindsey Graham, a Republican from South Carolina, stood firmly behind the administration’s approach. “There’s no doubt in my mind that we have the legal authority to blow up these boats, interdict these boats,” Graham told reporters, comparing the current campaign to similar actions during the Bush administration. He went further, making clear his desire for regime change in Venezuela: “[Nicolás] Maduro is not a legitimate president. He’s actually the head of one of these terrorist organizations, and I am glad that we’re taking him on.” Graham warned that failing to remove Maduro from power would send “the worst possible signal you could send to Russia, China, Iran.”
But the campaign’s legality has come under mounting scrutiny from both sides of the aisle. Murphy, echoing concerns raised by other lawmakers, argued that only Congress has the authority to authorize acts of war. “Only Congress, only the American public, can authorize war. And there is just no question that these are acts of war,” Murphy said. The Trump administration, however, has not sought congressional authorization for its actions against Venezuela, a point that has fueled bipartisan calls for greater transparency and oversight.
Controversy has also surrounded the Pentagon’s refusal to release the full, unedited video of a particularly deadly strike on September 2, 2025. The so-called “double-tap” attack killed two survivors of an initial blast on a suspected drug boat in the Caribbean. Defense Secretary Hegseth told reporters, “Of course we’re not going to release a top secret, full, unedited video of that to the general public.” Instead, only members of the House and Senate Armed Services Committees will be allowed to review the footage.
Lawmakers from both parties have demanded more transparency. Senator Rand Paul, a Republican from Kentucky and outspoken critic of the campaign, said, “The American public ought to see it. I think shooting unarmed people floundering in the water, clinging to wreckage, is not who we are as a people.” He added, “You can’t say you’re at war and say, ‘We’re not going to give any kind of due process to anybody and blow up people without any kind of proof.’” Congress has even included language in the annual military policy bill requiring the Pentagon to release the video to lawmakers and freezing part of Secretary Hegseth’s travel budget until it complies.
The administration’s campaign has not been limited to strikes at sea. The U.S. has increased its military presence near Venezuelan airspace, flown fighter jets close to the country, and seized an oil tanker, all as part of its pressure campaign against President Maduro. Maduro, for his part, has consistently denied drug trafficking allegations and accused Washington of trying to overthrow his government.
Critics, including analysts cited by Truthout, have drawn parallels between the Trump administration’s current actions and the George W. Bush administration’s 2002 declaration of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq—an episode that led to a disastrous invasion based on faulty intelligence. They argue that the campaign against Venezuela is less about drug interdiction and more about pursuing a reckless regime change operation. Adding to the controversy, Trump has pardoned dozens of individuals connected to the drug trade and cut hundreds of millions from addiction treatment programs, moves that appear at odds with his administration’s stated goals.
With Navy Admiral Frank “Mitch” Bradley, who authorized the controversial September 2 follow-up strike, set to brief lawmakers on December 17, the debate over the Trump administration’s campaign shows no sign of abating. As Congress pushes for answers and the administration doubles down on its actions, the American public is left to weigh questions of legality, morality, and national interest in a campaign that has already cost nearly a hundred lives and could reshape U.S. policy in the region for years to come.
