Bold moves in Washington are sparking intense debate as Senate Democrats gear up to force a crucial vote under the War Powers Act, aiming to halt U.S. military strikes on boats accused of smuggling drugs near Venezuela's shores. But here’s where it gets controversial: these strikes, led by the Trump administration, are happening without explicit congressional approval, raising serious constitutional and legal questions.
Set to take place on Wednesday, the resolution spearheaded by Senators Adam Schiff of California and Tim Kaine of Virginia seeks to prevent the U.S. military from engaging in any hostilities against "non-state organizations involved in drug trafficking and related illicit activities" unless Congress explicitly authorizes such actions. Schiff strongly criticized the continued strikes, stating on Wednesday that these actions, lacking congressional authorization, could dangerously escalate tensions and possibly ignite a broader conflict with Venezuela. He bluntly declared the strikes "plainly unconstitutional."
The military operations in the Caribbean Sea have drawn bipartisan criticism, with many lawmakers challenging their legal grounds. The U.S. Constitution grants Congress the exclusive power to declare war, yet there has been no formal congressional approval for military force targeting drug cartels. Despite this, the Trump administration disclosed that since September 2, it has conducted four separate strikes targeting alleged drug trafficking vessels near Venezuelan waters, reportedly killing at least 21 individuals.
In a congressional notification following the second strike in mid-September, the administration described the ongoing conflict as a "non-international armed conflict" against drug cartels it has labeled as terrorist organizations. The White House argues that these drug smuggling operations pose an "armed attack" that results in tens of thousands of American deaths each year, justifying a military response.
Several criminal groups have been designated as foreign terrorist organizations by the administration, including Venezuela's Tren de Aragua, Mexico's notorious Sinaloa Cartel, and El Salvador's MS-13 gang.
Secretary of State Marco Rubio, addressing reporters at the Capitol, defended the president’s authority to conduct these strikes without seeking congressional approval, describing them as "targeted actions against imminent threats to the United States."
However, constitutional experts like David Janovsky, acting director of The Constitution Project, dispute this characterization, stating clearly that the ongoing situation in the Caribbean does not qualify as self-defense under international law.
The Democrats’ resolution highlights a key legal point: simply labeling drug cartels as terrorist organizations does not grant the president unilateral authority to use military force against them or any foreign state. Senator Kaine expressed frustration over the administration's refusal to provide detailed intelligence or legal justification for the strikes, questioning why military force was chosen over non-lethal measures like interdiction.
He reiterated the need for congressional consent, saying, "Unless Congress authorizes these actions, they should cease—permanently and unequivocally."
Under the War Powers Resolution of 1973, enacted as a safeguard after the Vietnam War, the president must consult Congress before deploying armed forces into hostilities, barring a formal declaration of war or other congressional approval. If permission isn’t granted, the president is required to withdraw armed forces within 90 days.
On the Republican side, Senator Rand Paul of Kentucky has emerged as a strong critic of the strikes, condemning rhetoric from political figures like Vice President JD Vance, who praised the military for killing cartel members. Paul called such attitudes "despicable and thoughtless" and underscored the risk of innocent casualties due to these actions. He pointed out the absence of any attempt to board vessels for inspection before attacking them.
Paul stressed that killing without due process sets a dangerous precedent, stating, "Whether under a Republican or Democrat president, we cannot simply kill people without some kind of legal process."
This debate echoes similar attempts by Congress earlier this year to reclaim its war-declaring authority during heightened conflict between Israel and Iran, which saw the U.S. conduct bombings on Iranian nuclear sites over a brief, intense period. While the Senate narrowly rejected a measure to stop the president from further military action against Iran, this ongoing military engagement near Venezuela represents a longer-term situation, increasing pressure on Congress to act.
Schiff criticized Congress for shirking its constitutional duties, suggesting lawmakers avoid taking a firm stance due to political caution. He warned that this abdication could have dangerous international consequences, saying, "If we accept this precedent, other countries might justify similar strikes far from their own shores under vague claims of combating trafficking, destabilizing global order."
The issue clearly cuts to the core of U.S. foreign policy, war powers, and constitutional responsibilities. What are your thoughts? Should the president have this kind of authority without Congress? Or do you see these actions as necessary defense measures? Let the discussion begin—your voice matters.
