President Donald Trump has thrust the United States into a new, contentious chapter in its fight against international drug cartels, declaring an official “armed conflict” with these organizations and authorizing military strikes in the Caribbean. This extraordinary move, outlined in a confidential administration memo obtained by The Associated Press and reported by The New York Times, marks an unprecedented assertion of presidential war powers—one that has set off alarm bells among lawmakers, legal experts, and human rights advocates across the political spectrum.
The Trump administration’s memo, sent to Congress on September 18, 2025, declared that the United States is now engaged in a “non-international armed conflict” with several Latin American drug cartels, which President Trump has designated as foreign terrorist organizations. The memo directed the Pentagon to “conduct operations against them pursuant to the law of armed conflict,” effectively equating the trafficking of drugs into the United States with acts of war that justify lethal military force.
“The President determined that the United States is in a non-international armed conflict with these designated terrorist organizations,” the memo states, according to AP. Trump’s rationale, as conveyed in the document, is that “the United States has now reached a critical point where we must use force in self-defense and defense of others against the ongoing attacks by these designated terrorist organizations.” The memo refers to cartel members as “unlawful combatants,” a term loaded with legal implications that echoes the language used in the post-9/11 “war on terror.”
This new legal framework comes in the wake of a series of U.S. military strikes in the Caribbean in late September 2025. According to AP, the U.S. military carried out three deadly strikes against boats accused of ferrying drugs, with at least two vessels originating from Venezuela. One strike on September 15 resulted in the destruction of a vessel, the seizure of illicit narcotics, and the killing of approximately three individuals labeled “unlawful combatants.” In total, the September operations killed all 17 people aboard the targeted boats, The New York Times reported.
The U.S. Navy’s presence in the region has been significant: eight warships and more than 5,000 sailors and Marines have maintained a stable deployment in the Caribbean for several weeks, representing the largest buildup in recent memory. Pentagon officials have briefed both Senate and House staffers on the strikes and the administration’s legal rationale, but many lawmakers remain troubled by the lack of transparency and explicit congressional authorization.
“The United States is taking a much more dramatic step—one that I think is a very, very far stretch of international law and a dangerous one,” said Matthew Waxman, a former national security official in the George W. Bush administration, as quoted by AP. Waxman explained that the administration’s approach “means the United States can target members of those cartels with lethal force. It means the United States can capture and detain them without trial.”
The memo’s legal justification draws a direct line to the Bush administration’s post-9/11 war against al-Qaida, which was explicitly authorized by Congress. But as Waxman pointed out, “Bush, however, had authorization from Congress, unlike Trump.” The Trump administration, he continued, is arguing that it no longer needs to consider the individual circumstances of using force: “All of these vessels that are carrying enemy personnel can be targeted, whether they’re headed towards the United States or not.”
According to The New York Times, the administration’s notification to Congress “adds new detail to the administration’s thinly articulated legal rationale for why three U.S. military strikes the president ordered on boats in the Caribbean Sea last month, killing all 17 people aboard them, should be seen as lawful rather than murder.” Legal scholars warn that this approach blurs the lines of emergency war powers and may cross significant legal boundaries. Geoffrey S. Corn, a retired Army judge advocate general lawyer, told the Times that “this is not stretching the envelope. This is shredding it. This is tearing it apart.”
Lawmakers from both major parties have pressed President Trump to seek explicit war powers authority from Congress for these operations. Several senators and human rights groups have openly questioned the legality of using the military for what they see as law enforcement purposes, and they have criticized the administration’s lack of credible legal justification and intelligence supporting the strikes.
Senator Jack Reed of Rhode Island, the top Democrat on the Senate Armed Services Committee and a former Army officer, was particularly blunt: “Drug cartels are despicable, but the Trump administration has offered no credible legal justification, evidence or intelligence for these strikes. Every American should be alarmed that their President has decided he can wage secret wars against anyone he calls an enemy.”
Despite these concerns, the White House remains adamant that its actions are both necessary and lawful. “As we have said many times, the President acted in line with the law of armed conflict to protect our country from those trying to bring deadly poison to our shores, and he is delivering on his promise to take on the cartels and eliminate these national security threats from murdering more Americans,” a White House spokesperson said, according to AP.
Yet, significant questions remain unanswered. Pentagon officials, when pressed by lawmakers, could not provide a definitive list of the designated terrorist organizations at the center of the conflict—a major source of frustration for some in Congress. The administration’s rationale, critics argue, grants the president sweeping powers to use lethal force and detain suspected cartel members indefinitely, all without clear oversight or judicial review.
Supporters of Trump’s move argue that the scale and violence of cartel operations—now described as “transnational” and responsible for “ongoing attacks throughout the Western Hemisphere”—require a robust military response. They point to the failure of previous strategies and the persistent flow of drugs into the United States as justification for a new, more aggressive approach. However, opponents warn that bypassing Congress and expanding executive war powers in this way undermines constitutional checks and balances, risks civilian casualties, and could set a dangerous precedent for future administrations.
As the debate intensifies, the Trump administration’s declaration has thrust the United States into uncharted legal and political territory. The coming weeks will likely see heated discussions on Capitol Hill, as lawmakers weigh the necessity of confronting drug cartels against the imperative to preserve democratic oversight of military force. For now, the nation watches closely as the boundaries of presidential power—and the rules of war—are tested once again.
