On September 16, 2025, President Donald Trump made a dramatic announcement: the United States military had killed three individuals in a deadly strike on a boat in international waters near Venezuela. According to Trump, the strike targeted people transporting drugs, a move he described as essential for protecting U.S. national security. The incident, which quickly drew sharp reactions across the political spectrum, has reignited debate over the limits of presidential power, the legality of military action against non-state actors, and the delicate distinction between law enforcement and acts of war.
Trump’s decision to authorize the strike was not an isolated event. According to CNN, this was the second such missile strike on boats allegedly piloted by members of the Venezuelan Tren de Aragua drug cartel in September alone. The president asserted that the military had recorded evidence showing the boats leaving Venezuela and heading toward the United States, with cargo—"big bags of cocaine and fentanyl all over the place"—scattered across the ocean after the attack. Trump also posted a declassified video of the strike on his social media account, making the operation’s details public in an apparent effort to justify the use of force.
“We were very careful because we know you people would be after us,” Trump told reporters, referencing the scrutiny he expected from the press and his critics. Hours earlier, he had taken to social media to declare, "These extremely violent drug trafficking cartels POSE A THREAT to U.S. National Security, Foreign Policy, and vital U.S. Interests." The president further claimed that "three male terrorists" were killed in action during the second strike, though verifying this assertion remains difficult.
The administration’s aggressive approach has raised alarms among former government officials and legal scholars, including those who served in Republican administrations. As reported by POLITICO, John Yoo, a former deputy assistant attorney general under President George W. Bush—best known for authoring the Bush administration’s legal justification for enhanced interrogation techniques—questioned the legal basis for Trump’s actions. “There has to be a line between crime and war,” Yoo said. “We can’t just consider anything that harms the country to be a matter for the military. Because that could potentially include every crime.” Yoo added that drug crimes have traditionally been treated as a criminal justice issue, not a military one, and called on the administration to make a much stronger case for treating cartels as wartime enemies.
Amid mounting criticism, Trump’s administration has yet to provide a comprehensive legal justification for the strikes. After the first attack earlier in the month, the White House largely brushed off legal questions. Vice President JD Vance, responding to online critics who called the strike a war crime, posted bluntly on X (formerly Twitter): “I don’t give a shit what you call it.” This dismissive attitude drew a swift rebuke from Senator Rand Paul, who described Vance’s celebration of the missile strike against apparent civilians as “despicable.”
In line with the War Powers Resolution, Trump did send Congress a formal notification two days after the first strike. In the notification, he warned that narcotraffickers had acquired "paramilitary capabilities needed to operate with impunity, engaging in violence and terrorism that threaten the United States and destabilize other nations in our own Hemisphere." Although he did not specifically mention the Tren de Aragua cartel or Venezuela, Trump stated that the boat targeted by U.S. forces was "assessed to be affiliated with a designated terrorist organization." The administration has not, however, formally asked Congress to declare war on either the cartel or Venezuela, nor has it made a concerted effort to convince the public that the threat posed by these groups justifies such preemptive military action.
Not everyone in Congress was satisfied with the president’s explanation. Last week, a group of 25 Democratic senators, led by Tim Kaine of Virginia, sent a letter to Trump demanding a legitimate legal justification for the strikes and more details about the initial operation. The senators pressed Trump to clarify whether options other than lethal force were considered and what legal analysis supported the decision to strike. They argued that the president had provided “no legitimate legal justification” and only “scant” details about the operation.
Legal experts and former officials have joined the call for greater transparency. Charles Dunlap, a former senior Air Force lawyer now at Duke University, told POLITICO, “Depending on the evidence, there might be paths where the strikes could be legal. But I don’t think it’s helping the administration by not being fully transparent about everything they had to draw them to the conclusion that a military/law-of-war-type response was what was necessary.” The Justice Department, when asked whether its Office of Legal Counsel had issued an opinion on the matter, declined to comment.
White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt defended the president’s actions last week, stating that Trump “took very strong action” because he finds drug trafficking “unacceptable” and that the use of military force “sends a very strong message to drug traffickers … [that] the President will not tolerate it.” Still, these explanations have not satisfied several legal experts. Brian Finucane, a former State Department attorney, warned, “What separates the U.S. military from a death squad is the law. I’m very concerned that the American public does not grasp the stakes here: The President is asserting a license to kill without due process and outside the context of armed conflict.”
The debate has also drawn in voices from previous Democratic administrations. Harold Koh, a former Yale Law School dean and top State Department lawyer under President Obama, called the military action “lawless, dangerous and reckless.” He pointed out that Rubio’s designation of the Tren de Aragua as a foreign terrorist organization was not equivalent to a declaration of war, saying, “FTO designation is what you use when you’re trying to freeze their bank accounts. It’s not a death warrant.” Koh argued that the Obama administration’s drone strikes, controversial as they were, at least considered whether capture was feasible before resorting to deadly force—a standard he believes the Trump administration has failed to meet.
Despite the mounting criticism, Trump appears unfazed. In the Oval Office on September 16, he boasted, “There were hundreds of boats. Now there are no boats. I wonder why?” According to a senior administration official, the president believes the politics of the issue are favorable, and he is content to be on the opposite side of those “standing up for the legal rights of dangerous drug dealers.”
As the administration continues to reject calls for a formal legal opinion and greater transparency, the strikes near Venezuela remain a flashpoint in the ongoing debate over the scope of presidential power and the proper use of American military force. Whether Congress, the courts, or the public will demand clearer answers—or simply accept the administration’s rationale—remains to be seen as this high-stakes controversy unfolds.