A leading lawyer from the Justice Department has informed lawmakers that the Trump administration can legally continue its military strikes against alleged drug traffickers in Latin America without needing congressional approval, citing a decades-old law. T. Elliot Gaiser, who heads the Office of Legal Counsel, made this assertion during a recent meeting with lawmakers amid indications that the administration is considering escalating its military involvement in the region, which may include targeting locations within Venezuela.
The War Powers Resolution of 1973 requires the president to seek congressional authorization for prolonged military engagements, a measure enacted to prevent unauthorized conflicts akin to the Vietnam War. Following a strike by U.S. forces on a suspected drug vessel on September 2, a 60-day period for congressional approval was initiated. As that deadline approaches, there are concerns among lawmakers that the administration is disregarding this legal limit.
A senior congressional aide expressed apprehension, noting, “The administration appears to be blowing through the 60-day limit.” An official from the administration countered that the War Powers Resolution does not apply in this instance, arguing that U.S. troops are not in jeopardy due to the nature of the drone strikes being carried out from international waters.
Critics, including national security experts, challenge this interpretation, asserting that characterizing these operations as not constituting hostilities is a questionable expansion of executive power. Brian Finucane, a former legal advisor at the State Department, stated, “What they’re saying is anytime the president uses drones or any standoff weapon against someone who cannot shoot back, it’s not hostilities,” highlighting concerns about the administration’s circumvention of Congress’s authority over military action.
The Trump administration has conducted over a dozen strikes in the Caribbean and eastern Pacific since the initial notice to Congress. Enhanced military assets, including eight warships and additional air support, have been deployed to the region in anticipation of broader military operations. President Trump has suggested that strikes could eventually extend to land-based targets, including those in Venezuela, although he recently denied any current plans to do so.
Separate legal opinions within the administration maintain that these strikes serve important national interests and are categorized as not requiring congressional approval under constitutional definitions of war. However, lawmakers from both parties have voiced their frustration and concern over the administration’s methods, with some, such as Sen. Mark Warner, indicating that such practices could be viewed as an abuse of executive power.
The administration has faced bipartisan criticism over its transparency regarding military actions. Lawmakers detail that during recent briefings, officials failed to satisfactorily address fundamental inquiries about the legal basis for the strikes and the intelligence supporting them. Concerns were raised about the criteria used for targeting individuals, with some lawmakers likening the approach to controversial “signature strikes” previously employed in other conflicts.
Representative Sara Jacobs noted that the administration privately acknowledged the main drug trafficked in the region is cocaine, despite Trump’s assertions regarding fentanyl, suggesting a disconnect in the rationale behind the strikes.
With the 60-day deadline nearing, lawmakers are increasingly vocal about their frustration and worry that continued unilateral military action by the executive branch undermines the constitutional checks and balances designed to regulate military engagement and protect U.S. personnel abroad.