The senior administration official said on Monday that the 64 deaths caused by the escalating military strikes against alleged drug traffickers in the Caribbean and Eastern Pacific do not constitute hostilities that would trigger statutory limits under the War Powers Resolution.
Monday marked the 60‑day deadline since the Trump administration first notified Congress of the military action against alleged drug runners linked to cartels designated by the White House as terrorist organisations. The deadline stems from the 1973 War Powers Resolution, which gives the President authority to act militarily against threats to the United States, but requires congressional approval—or a 30‑day extension—after 60 days of sustained operations.
“All of these decisive strikes have been directed at designated narco‑terrorists who are flooding our shores with deadly poisons, and the President will continue to employ every element of American power to stop the flow of drugs,” the official said.
The official added that, even in its broadest interpretation, the War Powers Resolution has been understood to apply only when US service personnel are placed in danger. In the current campaign, the weapons are launched largely by unmanned aerial vehicles from naval vessels at such a distance that American personnel are not at risk. Consequently, the White House Office of Legal Counsel concluded that the operations do not meet the threshold of “hostilities,” citing legal opinions prepared by the assistant attorneys general during the Clinton and Reagan administrations.
In the 1984 opinion referenced by the White House, former Assistant Attorney General Theodore Olson argued that the executive branch has maintained from the outset that the War Powers Resolution does not constitute a legally binding definition of the President’s authority to deploy the armed forces.
This line of reasoning is not new. During the Obama administration’s 2011 air campaign in Libya, the White House similarly maintained that the War Powers Resolution did not apply because there was no sustained fighting with hostile forces or deployment of US ground troops.
Project on Government Oversight policy analyst David Janovsky observed that “presidents have kind of taken it and run with it for 60 days, and then dared Congress to stop them.” If the 60‑day threshold is ignored, Janovsky said, it then falls to Congress to impose consequences, ranging from oversight measures to impeachment.
The comments follow weeks of pressure on the White House to release the legal justification for the strikes. Senate Armed Services Chairman Roger Wicker (R‑Miss.) and ranking member Jack Reed (D‑R.I.) on Friday disclosed two letters they had sent Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth requesting the executive orders, legal rationale and the terrorist‑designation lists that underpin the ongoing military actions.
Democrats have expressed frustration for weeks about the limited information provided by the Trump administration, including being excluded from a briefing held for GOP senators. Wicker’s inclusion in Friday’s release underscores that the concern is bipartisan.
One of the letters, dated 6 October, noted that during a classified committee briefing earlier that month, “both majority and minority members requested additional information be provided to the committee with respect to the legal and policy underpinnings and other aspects of these operations to date.”
Defence Department press secretary Kingsley Wilson said on Friday that several of the requested documents had been made available to Wicker, Reed and their staff the previous week, and that the Department of Defence had provided a fourth bipartisan briefing to Senate staff members, also last week.
The White House official said the administration had “demonstrated great transparency” in its communications with Congress on the matter.
A Senate vote on a resolution introduced by Senators Tim Kaine (D‑Va.), Adam B. Schiff (D‑Calif.) and Rand Paul (R‑Ky.) that would impose limits on the hostilities is expected to be held as early as this week.
Defence Brief: Venezuela Strikes Fall Short of Triggering Legal Limits, White House Says
WASHINGTON — The escalating military strikes against alleged drug traffickers in the Caribbean and Eastern Pacific that have killed 64 people do not rise to the level of hostilities that would trigger statutory limits on the operations, according to a statement from a senior administration official Monday.
The claim comes as Monday marked the 60-day deadline since the Trump administration’s first notification to Congress of military action against alleged drug runners that work for cartels that the White House has designated as terror organizations.
The deadline stems from the 1973 War Powers Resolution, which stipulates that the president has the authority to respond militarily to threats to the United States, but that after 60 days of military action he must seek congressional approval — or a 30-day extension — to continue.
“All of these decisive strikes have been against designated narcoterrorists bringing deadly poison to our shores, and the President will continue to use every element of American power to stop drugs from flooding into our country,” the official said.
“Even at its broadest,” the War Powers Resolution “has been understood to apply to placing U.S. service members in harm’s way,” the official said. In the case of the ongoing strikes, they said, weapons are fired largely by unmanned aerial vehicles launched from naval vessels at distances too far away to endanger American personnel.
Furthermore, they said, the White House Office of Legal Counsel believes that the operations do not rise to the level of “hostilities,” and cited legal opinions written by the assistant attorneys general during the Clinton and Reagan administrations.
In the 1984 opinion cited by the White House, former Assistant Attorney General Theodore Olson said the executive branch has taken the position “from the very beginning” that the WPR “does not constitute a legally binding definition of Presidential authority to deploy our armed forces.”
This line of reasoning is not new. During the Obama administration’s 2011 air campaign in Libya meant to help overthrow the former ruler Moammar Gadhafi, the White House said the War Powers Resolution did not apply, as there was no sustained fighting with hostile forces, or deployment of U.S. ground troops.
When it comes to the War Powers Resolution, said Project on Government Oversight policy analyst David Janovsky, “presidents have kind of taken it and run with it for 60 days, and then dared Congress to stop them.”
If the 60-day threshold is ignored, Janovsky said, it then becomes incumbent on Congress to use the tools it has to try to impose consequences, from using congressional oversight all the way up to its power of impeachment.
Calls for justification
The comments come as lawmakers have for weeks pressed the White House to release its legal justification for the strikes.
Senate Armed Services Chairman Roger Wicker, R- Miss., and ranking member Jack Reed , D- R.I., on Friday released two letters they previously sent Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth requesting the execute orders, legal rationale and designated terrorist lists underpinning the steady drumbeat of military strikes.
Democrats have publicly griped for weeks about the lack of information the Trump administration was providing about the strikes, including venting frustrations about being left out of a briefing held for GOP senators. But Wicker’s inclusion in Friday’s release underscores the frustration is bipartisan.
One of the released letters, from Oct. 6, also notes that at a classified committee briefing earlier in the month, “both majority and minority members requested additional information be provided to the committee with respect to the legal and policy underpinnings and other aspects of these operations to date.”
Defense Department press secretary Kingsley Wilson on Friday said several of the requested documents were made available to Wicker, Reed and their staffs last week, and that DOD provided its fourth bipartisan briefing to Senate staffers, also last week.
The White House official said the administration had “demonstrated great transparency” in its communications with Congress on the matter.
A Senate vote on a resolution introduced by Sens. Tim Kaine, D- Va., Adam B. Schiff, D- Calif., and Rand Paul, R- Ky., that would put limits on the hostilities is expected to come up for a vote as soon as this week.
