The White House is escalating its strikes on alleged drug boats, counting on the issue to be such a winner with American voters that the operations won’t need a congressional stamp of approval, despite howls from Democrats and at least one Republican senator.
A White House official on Tuesday argued that the American public supports its direct actions against drug smugglers, and that the strikes in the Caribbean and Pacific Ocean fulfill a campaign promise President Donald Trump made to take on drug cartels. In addition, the official said lawmakers have been briefed several times since the strikes began in September — including members of leadership and key committees in charge of foreign affairs, intelligence and the military — and that the administration is “working through additional requests for information from the Hill.”
And last week during a roundtable on law enforcement, Trump laid down a rhetorical marker that could allow Republican lawmakers to line up behind his moves instead of supporting a vote on the use of war powers to interdict what he says are dangerous drug smugglers.
“We may go to the Senate, we may go to the Congress and tell them about it. But I can’t imagine they’d have any problem with it,” Trump said, in response to a reporter’s question.
He added, signaling to Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth: “Pete, you go to Congress, you tell them about it. What are they going to say, ‘Gee, we don’t want to stop drugs pouring in?’”
Democrats have called for the administration to provide information on the boat strikes and suggested that Congress needs to approve them as required by the War Powers Act, which limits a president’s ability to use the armed forces abroad without approval from Congress.
But the White House hopes its rhetorical gambit will resonate strongly with the average voter by casting the strikes as necessary for defense and national security as well as to protect Americans from the threat of drugs at home.
“Framing it around drug trafficking connects a national security action to a domestic concern that people understand and explains why there’s broad acceptance,” said Simone Ledeen, former deputy assistant secretary of Defense during Trump’s first term. “Stopping narcotics headed to the U.S. protects Americans. Linking the strikes to drug interdiction gives the action a defensive rationale that many people instinctively support.”
The U.S. military first launched strikes against alleged drug trafficking boats in the international waters off Venezuela in September, saying they were headed for American shores. Since then, the U.S. military has killed at least 50 people– all of whom the White House alleges were smuggling drugs – and expanded its operations to the Caribbean Sea and Pacific Ocean.
The most recent operation was on Monday, when the military conducted strikes against four boats, killing 14 people in the eastern Pacific Ocean, Hegseth saidon X on Tuesday.
A person close to the White House, granted anonymity to discuss sensitive issues, said this appeal to security is part of the same playbook Trump has used successfully in the past to get the public behind what could otherwise be controversial issues, such as social issues related to girls sports.
“This is a classic case where Trump leads,” the person said. The person described the choice as “taking out people who are bringing drugs that kill young people in America” or worrying “about whether he’s gone through the legal memorandum. What’s the choice?”
“That’s like boys in girls’ sports— it’s an 80-20 issue. Sitting around the campfire, most people are going to have an opinion about that,” the person added.
One of the few Republicans pushing back on the military operation is Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.), a libertarian who often questions Trump’s war powers. Paul described the strikes in the Caribbean Sea as “extrajudicial killings” in an appearance on Fox News Sunday.
“A briefing is not enough to overcome the Constitution. The Constitution says that when you go to war, Congress has to vote on it,” Paul said, adding, “to be clear, we’ve got no information. I’ve been invited to no briefing.”
For the most part, Republicans on Capitol Hill have endorsed the most unusual moves Trump has made – even if critics see them as invalidating the role Congress plays in American democracy.
But another official who served in the first Trump administration, granted anonymity to discuss the matter candidly, said the question over war powers could eventually cause a break in party loyalty.
“Even though Trump has gone out of his way to make fun of ‘neocons and people fighting for the next war,’ he may be stretching Congress to [its] tolerance with this war in Latin America,” the person said. “The congressional leaders are still quite deferential to Trump, but he has lost a lot of mojo because many of his policies have not worked out as promised, and there’s a lot of pain from tariffs and confusion about his position on China and Ukraine.”
“Latin American ‘adventurers’ are an age-old presidential hobby, but I expect there will be some wrestling with Congress on this. And don’t forget about the extreme isolationist streak in the MAGA base that is willing to apologize for Putin all in the name of ‘peace.’ That might also be a problem,” the person added.
Other Republicans have offered only tepid criticism, suggesting the White House needs to communicate better with Congress.
Sen. James Lankford (R- Okla.) said on C-SPAN last week that “the administration needs to give insight” to Congress and called for the White House to brief lawmakers on the matter.
Pressed by reporters last week on why he wouldn’t seek a declaration of war from Congress, Trump essentially said he didn’t think it was warranted.
“I think we’re just gonna kill people that are bringing drugs into our country. Okay, we’re going to kill them. You know, they’re going to be, like, dead,” he said.
Vice President JD Vance has been laying the messaging groundwork since last month, offering a preview of the administration’s strategy.
In response to questions from reporters about the legal groundwork for the administration’s strikes, Vance said their “legal authority… is that there are people who are bringing— literal terrorists— who are bringing deadly drugs into our country and the president of the United States ran on a promise of stopping this poison from coming into our country.”
And Ledeen said Trump allies seem to agree that the drug boat strikes can be viewed as a limited operation that doesn’t rise to the level of a declaration of war.
“The War Powers Resolution gives presidents some leeway to act when they believe there’s an immediate threat to U.S. interests. In this case, Trump is framing the strikes as protecting Americans from drug traffickers, not as a new conflict,” she said. “Most Republicans see it as a limited defensive move rather than something that rises to the level of a ‘war’ requiring Congress to weigh in.”
