Republicans defend U.S. strikes on suspected drug-smuggling boats

Republicans in Washington are making a clear case for continued military action against suspected drug-smuggling boats in the Caribbean. They frame the strikes as direct, necessary steps to stop fentanyl and other deadly drugs from reaching American streets.

“We are taking the fight out to the seas where it needs to be,” Rep. Beth Van Duyne, R-Texas, said. “We’re seeing hundreds of thousands of people who are being murdered by drugs. They’re illegally pouring in over our borders.”

A Democrat-led resolution that would have required the president to get congressional approval before ordering strikes on suspected drug boats was considered this week. The measure failed in a close vote, with the tally and party alignments drawing sharp attention as senators debated where to draw the line on executive authority.

In the Senate debate, some lawmakers across the aisle signaled support for action and others raised constitutional concerns. Last month, when U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio said the military strikes would continue, Fetterman was all for it.

“Fully support confronting the scourge of cartel drug trafficking to our nation,” he wrote in a on X.

This approach marks a departure from past interdiction tactics, which typically focused on stopping vessels, making arrests, and seizing drugs at sea. Supporters argue the new posture is about disrupting cartel networks before contraband reaches shipping lanes that bring poison to Americans.

Last week, Trump told Congress that the U.S. is engaged in “armed conflict” with drug cartels in the Caribbean after ordering at least four military strikes on suspected drug boats in the region. “The President determined that the United States is in a non-international armed conflict with these designated terrorist organizations,” according to the confidential notice the administration sent to Congress.

Trump also directed the U.S. Department of War to “conduct operations against them pursuant to the law of armed conflict.” That language is central to the administration’s legal case for using military force rather than relying solely on law enforcement at sea.

Officials say strikes were ordered on Sept. 2, Sept. 15, Sept. 19 and Oct. 3 against suspected drug boats operating in Caribbean waters. The president has pointed to the Venezuelan gang Tren de Aragua as one organization using small vessels to push narcotics toward the United States.

https://x.com/SenFettermanPA/status/1963342713795031545

U.S. authorities say the four strikes resulted in 21 deaths: 11 on Sept. 2, three on Sept. 15, three on Sept. 19 and four on Oct. 3. The administration has released limited operational details while posting videos of some actions on social platforms.

After one strike on a speedboat, Dominican authorities reported seizing 377 packages of suspected cocaine roughly 80 nautical miles south of Beata Island in Pedernales province. Supporters point to that seizure as a sign the more aggressive posture is interrupting shipments.

On his second day in office in his second term, the president issued an executive order labeling Mexican cartels, the Venezuelan gang Tren de Aragua, and Salvadoran La Mara Salvatrucha, known as MS-13, as foreign terrorist organizations and specially designated global terrorists. That designation underpins the tougher responses supporters say are now justified.

The strikes have not gone unchallenged. Legal scholars and civil liberties advocates say the use of military force raises serious constitutional and international law questions. Senators pressed Attorney General Pam Bondi at a hearing this week about the legal advice given to the administration.

“The strikes are both illegal and unconstitutional,” David Bier previously said. “The law is clear that the military is only authorized to intercept vessels to communicate with them and refer them to civilian law enforcement. The Constitution prohibits war without congressional authorization, and even in a war, the military may not intentionally kill civilians.”

At the hearing, Bondi declined to detail legal counsel. “I’m not going to discuss any legal advice that my department may or may not have given or issued at the direction of the president.”

Colombian President Gustavo Petro has been sharply critical of the strikes. He has publicly argued the actions open a new and dangerous regional chapter.

“A new war scenario has opened up: the Caribbean,” he recently on X.

“Indications show that the last boat bombed was Colombian with Colombian citizens inside it. I hope their families come forward and report it.”

“There is no war against smuggling; what there is is a war for oil and it must be stopped by the world. The aggression is against all of Latin America and the Caribbean.”

The White House pushed back on Petro’s claims and called for a retraction of inaccurate statements. Administration officials insist the strikes are targeted at narco-trafficking networks linked to violence and terror-designated groups.

Venezuela is a source of cocaine, though not fentanyl, according to U.S. drug authorities, and much of that cocaine typically flows toward Europe. The president says he has already seen a sharp drop in boat traffic in the region as a result of the operations.

“It will certainly reduce drug trafficking by boats near Venezuela, but will do little to reduce total supply coming to the United States because drug trafficking is a global phenomenon with a variety of channels,” David Bier said.

The White House and the Pentagon did not respond to questions about the strikes before publication.