In a move that has reignited debate over presidential war powers, the Trump administration has pressed forward with a campaign of lethal drone strikes against boats suspected of drug smuggling in the Caribbean Sea and parts of the eastern Pacific, targeting alleged Venezuelan traffickers. The operation, which has resulted in at least 62 deaths across 14 airstrikes, has drawn scrutiny from Congress and legal experts over whether it falls within the bounds of the War Powers Resolution—a 1973 law designed to check the president’s authority to engage in military action without Congressional approval.
According to BBC and The Washington Post, the controversy centers on whether these drone strikes, conducted from U.S. naval vessels stationed in international waters, constitute "hostilities" as defined by the War Powers Resolution. The law mandates that the president must notify Congress within 48 hours of committing U.S. forces to hostilities and obtain Congressional authorization for any military action that lasts more than 60 days. In this instance, President Donald Trump notified Congress on September 4, 2025, meaning the 60-day window for approval expires on Monday, November 4, 2025.
The U.S. Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel, led by Elliot Gaiser, has argued that the administration’s actions do not trigger the War Powers Resolution’s requirements. Gaiser stated that the Trump administration does not consider the operation to constitute "hostilities" as the law defines them. This position was echoed by a senior administration official, who explained that, “The operation comprises precise strikes conducted largely by unmanned aerial vehicles launched from naval vessels in international waters at distances too far away for the crews of the targeted vessels to endanger American personnel.” The official emphasized that U.S. service members’ lives are not being put at risk, since the attacks are carried out remotely and far from the scene of action.
This legal stance has precedent. As reported by BBC, the argument closely mirrors justification used by former President Barack Obama during the 2011 NATO-led air campaign over Libya. At that time, Obama’s administration maintained that because no American troops were on the ground and the risk of U.S. casualties was minimal, the action did not constitute “hostilities” under the War Powers Resolution. Congress challenged this interpretation, but ultimately the legal rationale held. However, there is a notable distinction: Obama’s Libya operation was conducted under a United Nations Security Council resolution and as part of a broader NATO mission, providing a multilateral legal basis that Trump’s current campaign in the Caribbean lacks.
Despite the administration’s arguments, Congress has signaled its unease. On November 2, 2025, lawmakers asserted that Trump’s attacks in the Caribbean do fall under the War Powers Resolution, and therefore require Congressional approval if they are to continue beyond the 60-day limit. This sets up a potential showdown as the deadline approaches. The law is clear in its intent: if Congress has not authorized continued military action within 60 days of notification, the president “shall terminate” the operation. Yet, ambiguity remains over what exactly constitutes “hostilities,” a term that has never been clearly defined and has been interpreted differently by various administrations over the decades.
According to The Washington Post, a top Justice Department lawyer told lawmakers on November 1, 2025, that the Trump administration can continue lethal strikes against alleged drug traffickers in Latin America, maintaining that the decades-old law requiring Congressional approval does not apply to these operations. The strikes, carried out primarily by unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) launched from U.S. naval vessels in international waters, are part of a broader push to disrupt drug trafficking networks allegedly linked to the Venezuelan government.
U.S. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth announced on social media that the military has killed at least 62 people in the campaign so far, underscoring the operation’s scale and intensity. While the administration has characterized the situation as a “formal armed conflict,” it has stopped short of labeling it “hostilities,” a distinction that has significant legal implications. As one administration official put it, “The operation comprises precise strikes conducted largely by unmanned aerial vehicles launched from naval vessels in international waters at distances too far away for the crews of the targeted vessels to endanger American personnel.”
This approach, while minimizing the risk to American troops, raises questions about the limits of executive power and the role of Congress in authorizing the use of force abroad. The War Powers Resolution was enacted in the aftermath of the Vietnam War, a period when Congress sought to reassert its constitutional authority over decisions to send U.S. forces into combat. The law’s drafters intended for the 60-day clock to force presidents to seek Congressional buy-in for ongoing military operations. Yet, as history has shown, presidents from both parties have often found ways to sidestep or reinterpret the law’s requirements.
The Trump administration’s legal argument rests on the idea that the absence of U.S. personnel in harm’s way means the operation does not qualify as “hostilities.” Obama’s team made a similar case in Libya, noting that American pilots flew at high altitudes and that Libyan forces had no realistic way to shoot back. In the Caribbean, the Trump administration contends that UAVs operating from distant ships present an even lower risk, making the War Powers Resolution inapplicable. Critics, however, argue that lethal force is being used and people are being killed, regardless of the risk to U.S. personnel—a reality that, in their view, should trigger Congressional oversight.
Adding to the complexity, the political context around these strikes is fraught. The administration has told Congress that it considers the situation a “formal armed conflict,” but not “hostilities.” This nuanced position has left lawmakers frustrated, with some accusing the White House of exploiting legal gray areas to avoid accountability. Meanwhile, the lack of a United Nations mandate or coalition partners, as existed in Libya, has fueled further debate about the legitimacy and scope of the operation.
As the 60-day window draws to a close, all eyes are on Congress and the White House. Will lawmakers move to assert their authority, or will the administration’s legal rationale prevail? The outcome could have lasting implications for the balance of power between the executive and legislative branches, as well as for America’s approach to counter-narcotics operations in the region.
For now, the Trump administration remains steadfast. As the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel and senior officials have reiterated, they believe the campaign is both necessary and legal. Whether Congress will accept that argument—or whether a new precedent will be set for future presidents—remains an open question as the deadline looms.
The debate over the War Powers Resolution and the definition of “hostilities” is far from academic. With lives at stake and the potential for escalation ever present, the coming days may prove pivotal in shaping U.S. foreign policy and the limits of presidential authority in a rapidly changing world.