The Trump administration is navigating uncharted waters, engaging in what can be described as a covert military campaign against unidentified adversaries, all without the requisite approval from Congress. A confidential notice recently shared with several congressional committees sheds light on this controversial approach, marking a significant shift in the legal rationale underpinning a series of lethal operations targeting vessels in the Caribbean that commenced last month.
President Trump has characterized the United States as being in a state of “non-international armed conflict” with designated terrorist organizations, a term that now extends to drug trafficking organizations (DTOs). This classification is particularly striking as it redefines the nature of engagement with these groups. The administration’s notice refers to three individuals killed by U.S. commandos during an operation on a boat in the Caribbean as “unlawful combatants,” likening them to soldiers in a conventional battlefield scenario. This marks a departure from the traditional law enforcement approach typically employed in the ongoing war on drugs, where suspected criminals are arrested rather than executed.
The legal framework invoked by the Trump administration is rooted in the law of armed conflict, with the President directing military operations against these DTOs. The notice asserts that the U.S. has reached a critical juncture necessitating the use of force in self-defense against ongoing threats posed by these groups. Trump has publicly justified these strikes, framing them as actions against “terrorists,” yet the notice reveals a more profound transformation in U.S. military policy. The President has unilaterally determined that drug cartels qualify as “nonstate armed groups,” whose drug trafficking activities are deemed an armed attack against the United States.
Critics have raised alarms about this unilateral approach. Senator Jack Reed, the top Democrat on the Armed Services Committee, has expressed deep concerns, stating that the administration has failed to provide credible legal justification or evidence for these military actions. He emphasizes that while drug cartels are indeed dangerous, the military should not be deployed against undefined enemies labeled as “unlawful combatants” without proper oversight. Reed’s remarks underscore a growing unease regarding the President’s capacity to wage secret wars against anyone he designates as an enemy, raising fundamental questions about the balance of power between the executive branch and Congress.
Brian Finucane, a former State Department lawyer specializing in counterterrorism, critiques the administration’s rationale, suggesting that it employs a sleight of hand to justify summary executions as an extension of the ongoing conflicts labeled as “forever wars.” He notes that the legal framework applied here—self-defense following an armed attack—does not align with the facts on the ground, as there has been no clear armed attack against the U.S. by these groups. Finucane argues that the administration’s reliance on the President’s unilateral determinations effectively grants him a “license to kill,” bypassing the checks and balances intended to prevent such overreach.
The implications of this policy shift are profound. Sarah Harrison, a former associate general counsel at the Pentagon, warns that this move undermines Congress’s constitutional authority to declare war. By asserting that one individual—the President—can unilaterally decide when the U.S. is at war, the administration risks setting a dangerous precedent that could have far-reaching consequences both domestically and internationally.
The notice to Congress cites Section 1230 of the Fiscal Year 2024 National Defense Authorization Act, which mandates reporting to lawmakers about hostilities involving U.S. armed forces. However, the administration’s narrative appears to frame these military strikes not as isolated incidents of self-defense but as part of a broader, ongoing conflict. The first U.S. airstrike on a boat in the Caribbean occurred on September 2, resulting in the deaths of 11 individuals, followed by additional strikes that targeted vessels allegedly linked to drug trafficking.
As the administration continues to engage in these military operations, the lack of transparency and accountability raises significant concerns. The White House has not responded to inquiries regarding these actions, leaving many to ponder the implications of a military strategy that operates in the shadows, devoid of public scrutiny or legislative oversight. The unfolding situation serves as a stark reminder of the delicate balance between national security and the rule of law, a balance that is increasingly at risk in the current political landscape.
