Democrats say Venezuelan boat strikes are unjustified.

WASHINGTON President Donald Trump has intensified lethal attacks on boats allegedly involved in narcotics trafficking as part of a broader campaign of pressure on Venezuela. The administration, however, has not publicly shared its legal basis for these operations with Congress or the American public.

Senate Democrats have escalated calls this week for the Trump administration to release a detailed legal justification for these strikes, while U.S. military forces continue to gather near Venezuelan waters, potentially preparing for attacks on Venezuelan territory.

Few decisions are more consequential for a democracy than the use of lethal force, wrote 13 senators from the Armed Services and Foreign Relations committees in a November 24 letter to Attorney General Pam Bondi and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth.

Timeline of Strikes

• September 15, 2025: Three people killed in a U.S. strike on a boat allegedly trafficking drugs in the Caribbean Sea.
• October 24, 2025: Six people killed in another U.S. strike on a boat alleged to carry narcotics, announced by Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth.

In total, 21 strikes have reportedly killed at least 83 individuals in recent months.

Legal Controversy

Senators are pressing the administration to release a classified Justice Department Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) opinion from September 5, which reportedly claims that U.S. military personnel involved in these strikes in Latin America cannot be prosecuted. The OLC document, drafted over the summer and first reported by The Washington Post, has not clarified why the administration believes these operations are legally justified.

The senators argued, The declassification and public release of this important document would enhance transparency in the use of deadly force by our Nations military and is necessary to ensure Congress and the American people are fully informed of the legal justification supporting these strikes.

Critics, including former military and law enforcement officials, legal experts, and the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights Volker Trk, have described the strikes as potentially illegal extrajudicial killings, violating international human rights law.

Concerns Over Escalation

With U.S. forces reportedly preparing for operations in Venezuela itself, observers suspect these measures may aim to destabilize President Nicols Maduro. Some congressional Democrats, including Senator Mark Kelly, have urged military and intelligence personnel to refuse unlawful orders, prompting Trump to accuse them of seditious claims punishable by death.

Questions About Legal Authority

Legal experts and Democratic lawmakers say no U.S. law explicitly permits the Navy to attack ships outside congressionally authorized war or self-defense scenarios. The strikes, which began in September, were discussed by the Trump administration as early as January 2025. Former acting Deputy Attorney General Emil Bove reportedly advised attacking drug vessels rather than interdicting them, a longstanding U.S. practice.

Trump has emphasized combating international drug cartels, particularly those trafficking fentanyl. However, Venezuela is not a primary source of fentanyl entering the U.S., but cocaine does pass through the country.

Lisa Gilbert of the Not Above the Law coalition stated, The suspected smugglers might be aggressive, they might be committing crimes like transporting cocaine, but none of that meets traditional definitions for an attack or an invasion that would legally justify lethal force. She warned that legal debates would intensify as military actions near Venezuela continue.

Government Response

The White House, Justice Department, and Pentagon have not provided clear legal explanations for the strikes. Pentagon spokesperson Sean Parnell told The Washington Post that operations are lawful under both U.S. and international law. The Justice Department said the strikes are consistent with the laws of armed conflict.

Trump has claimed Venezuelan President Maduro and criminal groups such as the Tren de Aragua and Cartel de los Soles are behind drug trafficking, citing these organizations as part of the rationale for the strikes. The administration designated these groups as foreign terrorist organizations, expanding the legal tools available for action, though critics argue these statutes do not authorize killing suspected traffickers.

Questions also remain about whether the administration is relying on post-9/11 counterterrorism powers, such as the Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF), without seeking congressional approval. Senator Jack Reed and other Democrats have criticized this approach, emphasizing that the alleged traffickers are criminals, not combatants, and congressional authorization is required for lethal military action.

Political Division

Senate Republicans have largely supported Trumps actions, with Senator James Risch stating the president has the duty to do something against these groups. Senator Rand Paul has expressed concern over potential extrajudicial killings. Trump has refused to seek congressional approval, asserting, I think were just gonna kill people that are bringing drugs into our country, signaling potential escalation into Venezuelan territory.

This report originally appeared on USA TODAY.

Analysis: The Legal and Political Implications of U.S. Military Strikes on Narcotics Trafficking Vessels

The recent series of U.S. military strikes against boats allegedly involved in narcotics trafficking near Venezuela has ignited a fierce debate over legal authority, transparency, and potential escalation. While the Trump administration justifies these actions as part of its broader efforts to combat drug cartels, the lack of clear legal justifications and the ongoing secrecy surrounding the operations raise serious concerns about their compliance with both U.S. and international law.

At the heart of the controversy is the absence of a formal public explanation regarding the legal basis for these strikes. While the Pentagon maintains that the operations are "lawful under both U.S. and international law," critics argue that there is no clear congressional authorization for the use of lethal force in such circumstances. The strikes, which have reportedly killed dozens of individuals, have been defended on the grounds of countering drug trafficking, yet Venezuela, the target of these operations, is not a primary source of fentanyl—an issue that is central to the administration’s claims.

Democratic lawmakers, in particular, have pressed for the release of a classified opinion from the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel (OLC), which is believed to support the notion that U.S. military personnel involved in these operations cannot be prosecuted. This document, if declassified, could shed light on whether the administration is relying on post-9/11 counterterrorism powers, such as the Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF), without congressional approval. Such a legal framework would be controversial, given that the individuals targeted in these strikes are alleged narcotics traffickers, not combatants engaged in war.

The potential consequences of these military actions are far-reaching. With U.S. forces reportedly positioning near Venezuelan waters, the risk of further escalation is high. The strikes on narcotics vessels could easily transition into attacks within Venezuelan territory, intensifying tensions with the Maduro regime and raising the stakes for international relations. As the Trump administration faces increasing pressure from both legal experts and lawmakers, the outcome of this legal and political struggle will likely set a precedent for future military interventions, particularly in the absence of explicit congressional authorization.

Sources:

• Venezuelan boat strikes lack legal justification, Democrats say