The latest strikes on alleged drug vessels happen without congressional approval or independent verification
The Trump administration’s military launched strikes on three alleged drug smuggling boats in the eastern Pacific and the Caribbean on Monday, killing 11 people according to U.S. Southern Command. The operation marks the latest in a series of controversial military actions that have alarmed congressional critics, yet lawmakers have chosen to allow the strikes to continue without requiring prior approval. Eight people were killed on two boats in the eastern Pacific while three were killed on a boat in the Caribbean, according to military statements.
U.S. Southern Command claimed the vessels were transiting along known narco-trafficking routes and engaged in narco-trafficking operations, alleging they were operated by designated terrorist organizations. The military referred to those killed as male narco-terrorists. No U.S. troops were harmed during the operations, which were conducted at the direction of Marine Corps General Francis Donovan, commander of U.S. Southern Command.
What makes these strikes genuinely controversial is what’s missing: evidence. The military has not provided any proof that the boats or people onboard were involved in drug trafficking. The military has not provided independent verification of the death count. Television and investigative outlets have not independently verified the military’s claims. Yet the strikes proceed anyway, based entirely on military assertions.
More than 130 people have been killed in over 40 strikes
This operation represents another installment in an escalating campaign. The U.S. has launched more than 40 strikes that have killed more than 130 people, according to official Defense Department estimates. That body count raises serious questions about oversight, accountability and the legal authority for these operations. The strikes are happening without prior congressional approval, a fact that has frustrated lawmakers who typically expect military operations of this scale to require legislative authorization.
Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth publicly celebrated the strikes, writing on social media: “Turns out President’s Day—under President Trump—is not a good day to run drugs.” The comment reflects the administration’s official rationale that the strikes are necessary to stop drug trafficking that kills Americans. But the framing glosses over the fundamental problem: the military is conducting lethal operations against targets it claims to identify through intelligence, without submitting that intelligence to independent review.
Congressional critics are increasingly alarmed
Critics of the strikes have characterized the administration’s actions as lawless and irresponsible. The criticism intensified after reports emerged that the military struck one boat twice, ultimately killing two survivors of the initial strike. That detail suggests either targeting inaccuracy or a deliberate choice to eliminate witnesses—neither scenario inspires confidence in the operation’s legitimacy.
The Trump administration justifies the strikes as necessary to combat drug trafficking, raising serious tensions between the U.S. and Venezuela, which American officials allege is a major drug transit hub. In January, the U.S. launched a direct military attack on Venezuela, extraditing President Nicolás Maduro and his wife to face narcoterrorism and other charges. Both have pleaded not guilty.
The Venezuela dimension complicates the narrative
Acting Venezuelan President Delcy Rodríguez has maintained that Maduro remains the legitimate leader of Venezuela, a position that challenges U.S. military and political intervention. President Trump responded to Rodríguez’s statements by telling reporters that she “probably has to say that” for political reasons while also suggesting she is “doing a very good job.” The comment reveals the administration’s willingness to simultaneously undermine Venezuela’s government while praising its acting leader—a contradiction that highlights the geopolitical complexity underlying these strikes.
The fundamental issue remains unanswered: what oversight mechanisms exist to verify military claims about targets, casualties and justifications? Congressional inaction suggests lawmakers are either unwilling to challenge the administration or confident these operations will ultimately receive public support. But without independent verification of military claims, the public has no way to assess whether these strikes actually target drug traffickers or whether they constitute something far more problematic.
The strikes continue, the death toll rises and congressional approval remains absent—a combination that raises profound questions about military accountability in an administration that appears determined to expand its operational authority without traditional checks.
