Republican Senator Lindsey Graham revealed on Sunday that President Donald Trump intends to brief Congress about possible new military actions in Latin America, including the prospect of shifting U.S. attacks on Venezuela from the sea to land. Speaking with CBS News’s Margaret Brennan on "Face the Nation," Graham described land strikes as "a real possibility" and said lawmakers will be updated when Trump returns from Asia later in the week. Graham, a staunch ally of the president, made clear his support for the administration's aggressive approach in the region, stating, "I support that idea, but I think [Trump] has all the authority he needs."
Since early September 2025, the Trump administration has authorized a series of military strikes targeting vessels in the Caribbean Sea and Pacific Ocean, resulting in the deaths of at least 43 people, according to reporting from The Hill and POLITICO. The White House claims these operations are aimed at disrupting drug smuggling, specifically fentanyl, into the United States. However, the administration has not publicly provided evidence linking the targeted boats to fentanyl trafficking. Senator Mark Kelly, a Democrat from Arizona, told ABC News that while drugs were indeed found on the vessels, there was no fentanyl present.
As the strikes have unfolded, President Trump has also authorized covert CIA operations in Venezuela. In a further show of force, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth last week deployed an aircraft carrier and its strike group to South America, escalating tensions with the Venezuelan government led by Nicolás Maduro. Relations between Washington and Caracas have grown increasingly fraught, with the U.S. accusing Maduro’s regime of enabling drug cartels and posing a threat to American security.
Senator Graham did not mince words regarding Maduro, referring to him as a "narco-terrorist dictator" and warning, "The end game is to make sure that Venezuela and Colombia cannot be used to poison America, that the narco-terrorist dictator Maduro no longer be able to threaten our country and to send in drugs to kill Americans." Graham suggested that the U.S. is entering a new phase in its approach to drug trafficking and regional security. "The game is changing when it comes to drug traffickers and drug cartels," Graham said. "We’re going to use military force like we have in the past to protect our country. That’s the new game we’re playing, and I’m glad we’re playing that game, and if I were Maduro, I’d find a way to leave before heat goes down."
The Trump administration’s actions have not gone unchallenged, either domestically or abroad. Critics, including some from within the president’s own party, argue that the strikes are illegal, particularly given the lack of transparency and the absence of clear, publicly available evidence tying the targets to drug smuggling. According to POLITICO, Senators Rand Paul (R-Ky.) and James Lankford (R-Okla.) have condemned the strikes, with Lankford remarking that he would be "apoplectic" if former President Joe Biden had taken similar actions. On the Democratic side, Senator Mark Kelly emphasized the lack of fentanyl on the targeted boats, raising further questions about the administration’s justification for the strikes.
The legal authority underpinning these military operations is also under scrutiny. Article 1, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution grants Congress the exclusive power to declare war. Yet, as The Hill notes, presidents have frequently authorized military action abroad without first securing explicit congressional approval. This pattern has prompted renewed debate in Congress. Earlier in October, Senators Tim Kaine (D-Va.), Adam Schiff (D-Calif.), and Rand Paul (R-Ky.) reintroduced a resolution aimed at blocking the strikes. A similar measure was narrowly defeated in the Senate, 51-48, with only two Republicans—Paul and Alaska’s Lisa Murkowski—voting in favor, and Pennsylvania Democrat John Fetterman joining the majority in opposition.
Meanwhile, the international response has been swift and sharp. Colombian President Gustavo Petro condemned the U.S. strikes, accusing Washington of murder. In retaliation, President Trump cut security aid to Colombia and imposed personal sanctions on Petro, further straining relations between the two countries. The administration’s willingness to escalate both military and diplomatic pressure has drawn concern from some lawmakers and foreign policy experts, who warn of potential unintended consequences in a region already beset by instability.
Despite the controversy, Graham remains a vocal proponent of the president’s strategy. He has dismissed critics’ concerns and assured senators that a comprehensive briefing is forthcoming. "There will be a congressional briefing about a potential expanding from the sea to the land," Graham reiterated. "I support that idea." He also emphasized that the administration’s objective is to prevent Venezuela and Colombia from serving as conduits for drugs entering the United States, a message that resonates with many who see the opioid crisis as a national emergency.
Yet, the lack of consensus in Congress underscores the deep divisions over the use of military force without explicit authorization. Some lawmakers, particularly those who have long advocated for congressional oversight of war powers, view the administration’s actions as a dangerous precedent. Others argue that swift executive action is necessary to combat evolving threats, especially those posed by transnational criminal organizations.
For now, all eyes are on the upcoming congressional briefing. Lawmakers from both parties are expected to press the administration for details on the evidence supporting the strikes, the legal rationale for expanding operations to land targets, and the long-term strategy for dealing with Venezuela and Colombia. The stakes are high, not just for U.S. foreign policy, but for the broader debate over the balance of power between the executive and legislative branches.
As the situation develops, the Trump administration’s approach to Latin America is likely to remain a flashpoint in Washington. With the president’s return from Asia imminent, and a congressional briefing on the horizon, the next steps could have far-reaching implications for U.S. relations in the hemisphere—and for the ongoing struggle over war powers at home.