In recent weeks, President Donald Trump’s aggressive campaign against Latin American drug cartels has sparked an unusual wave of concern among Republican lawmakers on Capitol Hill, exposing rare fissures within a party known for its steadfast support of the president’s policies. The campaign, which began in early September 2025 with lethal strikes on vessels suspected of trafficking drugs in the Caribbean Sea, has since expanded to the Pacific and now threatens to escalate further with possible land-based operations against smugglers in South America, including Venezuela.
Since the start of the operation, the U.S. military has conducted at least 10 known lethal strikes on boats allegedly carrying drugs, deploying more than 10,000 troops and significant air power across the region. According to The New York Times, the Trump administration has justified these actions as a fight against what Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth has described as “narcoterrorists.” The Pentagon’s top lawyer, Earl Matthews, cited the president’s designation of certain Latin American drug cartels as foreign terrorist organizations as the legal basis for these military actions, a rationale that many in Congress find questionable.
The legal foundation and the scope of the president’s authority have become flashpoints for debate. While the vast majority of Republicans have publicly supported the campaign, all but two voting to block a measure that would have terminated the president’s campaign, a growing number have voiced concerns about the lack of congressional consultation and the murkiness of the legal justification.
“We have oversight responsibilities, and we expect to get our questions answered,” Senator Mike Rounds of South Dakota, a member of the Armed Services Committee, told reporters on Wednesday. Echoing this sentiment, Senator Susan Collins of Maine, who sits on the Intelligence Committee, said she would like to see the Senate “pass a resolution that either authorizes his force or prevents its use.” Both senators, however, voted with their party against a recent measure calling for a halt to the strikes, highlighting the delicate balance many Republicans are trying to maintain between supporting the president and upholding congressional prerogatives.
Calls for transparency have grown louder as the Senate prepares to vote on a bipartisan resolution that would prohibit U.S. attacks “within or against” Venezuela without explicit congressional authorization. The measure, which is set for a vote the week of October 27, 2025, faces an uphill battle, needing the support of at least four Republican senators to advance. Still, it is shaping up to be a significant test of congressional resolve as President Trump makes clear he neither needs nor intends to seek congressional approval for his campaign.
In a striking statement at the White House on October 23, 2025, President Trump declared, “Well, I don’t think we’re going to necessarily ask for a declaration of war. I think we’re just going to kill people that are bringing drugs into our country, OK? We’re going to kill them, you know? They are going to be, like, dead.” He went further, suggesting that lawmakers would not dare challenge him on the issue, saying, “What are they going to do — say, ‘Gee, we don’t want to stop drugs pouring in’?”
Despite this bravado, only two Republicans—Senators Lisa Murkowski of Alaska and Rand Paul of Kentucky—have directly opposed the military offensive, breaking with their party to support a measure to curb the attacks at sea. Senator Paul, a longtime critic of American involvement in foreign conflicts, has warned of the dangers of an offensive war for regime change in Venezuela, stating, “I’ve got no love lost, obviously, for Maduro and the government, but I think an offensive war for regime change — it would be a mistake.”
Other Republicans have expressed their discomfort in more measured tones. Senator John Curtis of Utah remarked that lawmakers are “always hungry for more” information from the White House, and Senator James Lankford of Oklahoma, who sits on the Senate Intelligence Committee, voiced his frustration on C-SPAN, saying, “We’re not his opponent on this, we are an ally in this to be able to solve it, but we need to be able to have a voice on it as a coequal branch.”
After voting against the resolution to end the boat strikes, Senator Todd Young of Indiana issued a statement outlining his “highly concerned” stance about the legality of the strikes and the “trajectory of military operations without congressional approval.” He emphasized, “While the Constitution grants Article II authorities to the executive branch to defend against imminent threats, Congress alone is entrusted with decisions of war and peace.”
Senator Collins, for her part, questioned the wisdom of using lethal military force to target narcotics traffickers, suggesting the job is best left to federal law enforcement. “Historically, the interception of drug-running boats has been the job of the Coast Guard,” she said. “And I’ve seen the Coast Guard’s fast boats. They know how to do this, they’re well trained and they’re acting in a law enforcement capacity. And to me, that’s what we should be using.”
Even as these concerns mount, President Trump has made clear his intention to expand the campaign, stating on October 23 that the maritime attacks have been effective and that “the land, it’s going to be next,” signaling possible land-based operations. The administration claims that large amounts of drugs are being smuggled into the United States from Venezuela and other South American countries, and earlier in the week of October 20-24, the U.S. military attacked a vessel linked to a Colombian leftist rebel group.
For now, senators are operating with limited and sporadic information from the administration, often learning of strikes through social media posts from President Trump or Defense Secretary Hegseth. Some lawmakers have received classified briefings, but these have been restricted to leaders and relevant committees, leaving many in Congress feeling left in the dark.
Despite the unease among some Republicans, many others remain staunchly supportive. Representative Brian Mast of Florida, chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee, asserted that the strikes were based on “credible intelligence provided by numerous agencies,” adding, “The cartels are terrorists who produce and distribute a worldwide supply of illicit drugs, murder countless people and traffic even more.” Senator John Kennedy of Louisiana recalled Secretary of State Marco Rubio assuring senators that the “administration is on solid legal ground,” describing the intelligence supporting the operation as “exquisite.”
Senator Jim Risch of Idaho, chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, has dismissed calls for oversight hearings, stating, “The president of the United States saved lives, lots of lives. We should be commending him, not trying to undercut him.” He added, “He’s the commander in chief, and he’s got to make the decisions that are in the best interest of the United States to protect the people of the United States. He should be commended for what he’s doing against those drug traffickers. He’s saving thousands of kids’ lives.”
Others, like Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, have framed the operation as an antiterror campaign, arguing, “If the boat had a bunch of terrorists on it — Al Qaeda or ISIS types — we’d blow them up.” The White House has echoed this argument, notifying Congress last month that the U.S. is engaged in a formal “armed conflict” with criminal organizations labeled as “unlawful combatants.” On Thursday, President Trump called Latin American drug cartels “the ISIS of the Western Hemisphere.”
As the Senate prepares for a pivotal vote, the debate over the president’s war on drug cartels has brought questions of constitutional authority, executive power, and congressional oversight to the forefront—issues that have rarely divided Republicans so visibly during the Trump era. The coming days may well determine whether Congress will reassert its role or continue to defer to the commander in chief’s sweeping vision of national security.
