Presidential Jurisdiction Over Armed Forces: Trump Administration's Recent Attacks in the Caribbean Spur Criticism

Over the course of the past month, the Trump Administration has carried out a series of offensive maritime strikes in the Caribbean Sea, against what it claims are ships of narco-terrorists. The first of the four attacks took place on September 2, 2025. Targeted ships are allegedly linked to the Venezuelan gang Tren de Aragua, carrying massive amounts of deadly narcotics. In total, at least 27 people have been killed as a result of these baseless contentions.  Unsurprisingly, like many of the weighty directive measures President Trump has taken in his less than 300 days back in office, these strikes have attracted controversy both domestically from Congress and internationally, particularly from the Venezuelan and Colombian governments.

To understand the widespread dissent of Trump’s offensive orders, it is imperative to look at the domestic laws that dictate the breadth of control the president is allowed to exercise in response to maritime disputes in international waters. Plainly, as held by Article II of the U.S. Constitution, “the president shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States.” However, the War Powers Resolution, enacted in 1973, “establishes presidential reporting requirements and parliamentary procedures intended to reaffirm the constitutional role of Congress in committing the United States into armed conflict abroad.” The resolution was passed in response to then President Richard Nixon’s executive veto pertaining to further armed U.S. commitment to the Vietnam War. Simultaneously, domestic realizations about a lack of transparency in the conflict abroad began to surface. Its primary function is to foster strong collaboration between the president and Congress, allowing each to hold the other accountable. In particular, the president must consistently report to and consult with Congress pertaining to hostilities abroad. While the president does possess substantial autonomy in deploying military force as legislated by the Authorization for Use of Military Force of 2001 (AUMF), questions regarding the exact scope of application continue to be debated, as illustrated by the conflict at hand.

Democrats in Congress have drawn up legislation to hold President Trump accountable for the unchecked strikes. Senator Adam Schiff from California and Senator Tim Kaine from Virginia proposed S.J.Res.83–a war powers resolution–which, had it not been voted down by the Senate, would affirm the power of the legislative branch in resolving and regulating foreign terrorist organization activity. Further, Representative Ilhan Omar from Minnesota has drawn up a joint resolution, which builds off of and continues the primary objective of executive branch accountability through greater checks and balances, which S.J.Res.83 failed to accomplish.

Both Venezuelan and Colombian governments, the countries from which the targeted ships hail from, have expressed disapproval for the aggressive strikes. Venezuela’s President Nicolás Maduro, a long time adversary of President Trump, has begun taking internal defensive military action in response to recent U.S. violence. In particular, ordering military exercises in the country’s largest shantytowns. The tensions between the two leaders have been escalating since the re-election of Maduro in July 2024, when President Trump, along with a “raft of other nations”, refused to recognize the election outcome. The Venezuelan government has repeatedly stated that the Trump Administration aims to spur a “regime change”, as evidenced through offering large sums of money for illicit intel on Maduro, stationing prominent military forces in the Caribbean, and overstepping Venezuelan sovereignty by conducting large-scale CIA operations in the territory. Additionally, the Colombian government, headed by President Gustav Petro, has also denounced the recent strikes. Petro alleges that one of the targeted boats was carrying Colombian citizens, a claim that U.S. officials have ironically deemed “baseless and reprehensible.”  

Regardless of the sharp criticism that has accumulated domestically and internationally, the Trump Administration remains adamant in its efforts to combat flows of drug-trafficking cartel activity into the U.S. In typical fashion, President Trump has taken to X to make victorious declarations, proclaiming that the strikes have effectively halted the flow of enough drugs to “kill 25 to 50 thousand people.” Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth has resonated similar outwardly triumphant remarks via X, in an attempt to back Trump’s misguided policy decisions. Moving forward, effectively ending these strikes and preventing future conflicts of a similar nature will require more concrete procedures and standards of accountability between the executive and legislative branches. It is clear that the Trump Administration has no issue with working against existing legislative precedents that guide international decision-making. It is up to the members of Congress and constituents to act hastily to combat the ongoing erosion of democratic norms.