Senate Republicans Block Democratic Effort to Halt Military Strikes on Alleged Drug Boats

In a closely watched vote on Wednesday, Senate Republicans blocked a resolution from Democratic lawmakers that aimed to halt ongoing U.S. military strikes targeting alleged drug trafficking vessels off the coast of Venezuela. The final vote stood at 48 in favor to 51 against, falling short of the majority needed to pass under the War Powers Resolution.

The resolution, introduced by Senators Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) and Tim Kaine (D-Va.), sought to limit the president’s authority to unilaterally authorize force against non-state actors involved in drug trafficking without specific approval from Congress. If passed, it would have barred the U.S. military from engaging in hostilities with organizations linked to illegal narcotics operations—unless explicitly authorized by legislative vote.

“There has been no congressional authorization for the use of force in this manner,” said Schiff before the vote. “These strikes risk drawing the United States into an undeclared conflict with Venezuela, and I believe they are plainly unconstitutional.”

Military Action Sparks Constitutional Debate

The Trump administration has confirmed four strikes since September 2, targeting boats suspected of carrying drugs linked to transnational criminal organizations. Officials say the strikes are aimed at Venezuelan gang Tren de Aragua, Mexico’s Sinaloa Cartel, and El Salvador’s MS-13, all of which have been designated as foreign terrorist entities by the administration.

According to a report submitted to Congress following the second strike, the White House stated that the U.S. is engaged in a “non-international armed conflict” with the cartels, claiming their activities amount to armed attacks against American citizens. The administration asserts that smuggling deadly narcotics into the U.S. poses a threat equivalent to terrorism and justifies military action.

Rubio, Republicans Support Executive Action

Secretary of State Marco Rubio met privately with Republican senators on Capitol Hill shortly before the vote and strongly defended the president’s authority to conduct the strikes.

“These are targeted operations against direct threats to the United States,” Rubio stated. “The president is fully within his rights to act swiftly in the interest of national security.”

Rubio and other administration officials argue that the strikes fall under the president’s constitutional powers as commander-in-chief and do not require prior congressional approval due to their narrow scope and purpose.

Legal Questions and Lack of Transparency

Despite this, many lawmakers across both parties have raised serious concerns about the legal and strategic basis for the military campaign. Senator Tim Kaine criticized the administration’s refusal to share intelligence behind the operations, such as evidence linking the boats to cartel activity or explanations for why force was used instead of interdiction.

“The White House has not provided Congress with a shred of intelligence to support these actions,” Kaine said. “Unless Congress grants authorization, the use of force should stop—at least temporarily—until we can properly assess the situation.”

Under the 1973 War Powers Resolution, any president must consult with Congress before committing U.S. forces to hostilities. If no formal authorization is granted, the president is required to withdraw forces within 90 days.

Rand Paul Breaks with GOP, Slams Strikes

While most Republicans voted to block the resolution, Senator Rand Paul (R-Ky.) broke ranks with his party, delivering a scathing critique of the strikes. Paul expressed alarm that the military was using lethal force against individuals without due process or clear evidence.

“We are killing people at sea with no names, no trials, and no proof,” Paul said during a floor speech. “If justice still matters, we must demand accountability before we take a life.”

Paul previously criticized Vice President JD Vance for suggesting that killing drug cartel members is the “highest and best use” of the U.S. military, calling the sentiment “despicable” and irresponsible.

Broader Debate on Executive War Powers

The clash over the Venezuela strikes is the latest chapter in a long-standing debate about the limits of executive power in military affairs. Earlier this year, Congress rejected another resolution from Kaine that would have curbed presidential authority to strike targets in Iran without congressional consent.

Senator Mike Crapo (R-Idaho) defended the administration, saying the strikes were “lawful, justified, and necessary” to prevent dangerous narcotics from reaching American communities.

But Schiff countered with a broader warning about precedent.

“We are launching attacks thousands of miles away from home,” Schiff said. “What’s to stop another country from doing the same and calling it self-defense? This is a dangerous path.”

What’s Next?

With the resolution defeated, the Trump administration is expected to continue its targeted military campaign against drug trafficking operations at sea. However, the vote has deepened partisan divisions over war powers and accountability, raising questions about how future administrations might use similar justifications for overseas military actions.

For now, the debate over where military authority ends—and congressional oversight begins—remains unresolved on Capitol Hill.