The recent memo from the White House marks a notable escalation in U.S. military tactics against narco-traffickers in Latin America. This shift, labeling the operations as part of an “armed conflict” with drug cartels, indicates a new approach that closely resembles wartime strategies. The significance of this shift shouldn’t be underestimated, especially given the context of President Trump’s designation of several cartels as foreign terrorist organizations. This classification fundamentally alters the parameters of how the U.S. views and engages with these groups.
In the memo sent to Congress, U.S. officials described the traffickers as “unlawful combatants.” This allows for military operations that go beyond traditional law enforcement actions. The White House stated this change is vital for national security, asserting that drug-related violence constitutes a direct threat to American lives. “The President acted in line with the law of armed conflict to protect our country from those trying to bring deadly poison to our shores,” Deputy Press Secretary Anna Kelly emphasized, framing the administration’s actions as legally warranted.
The stakes are high, with reports indicating that U.S. strikes have already killed 21 individuals connected to these operations over the span of a month. After a recent operation, President Trump pointed out on social media, “A boat loaded with enough drugs to kill 25 to 50 thousand people was stopped.” This statement highlights the perceived urgency and scale of the problem at hand.
However, this military strategy raises serious legal questions. Experts warn that treating drug cartels as combatants could stretch presidential power beyond its constitutional limits. National security attorney Irina Tsukerman cautioned that this approach signals a long-term campaign, enabling unilateral presidential actions without Congressional input. “He’s saying he doesn’t even need to go to Congress, because he’s essentially taking action against these unlawful combatants,” she stated, drawing parallels to post-9/11 military strategies.
The constitutional framework permits presidents to use military force in the case of an immediate threat. With drugs claiming more than 100,000 American lives annually, the Trump administration argues that this qualifies as an urgent national security issue. However, critics urge caution, asserting that the military response should not supersede established protocols requiring Congressional approval for extended operations. Georgetown law professor Marty Lederman expressed concern, stating, “That’s a far cry from authorizing an ongoing series of strikes.”
The clock is already ticking under the War Powers Resolution, which allows the President to conduct military actions for 60 days before requiring Congressional authorization. The first strike occurred on September 2, meaning the administration has until early November to secure approval or risk triggering a confrontation with Congress over its military strategy.
Despite the complexity and legal implications, the administration’s push reflects a broader strategy involving U.S. policy in the region. Pedro Garmendia, a geopolitical risk expert, highlighted that these moves extend beyond counternarcotics operations; they send a clear signal to rogue regimes like Maduro’s government about their categorization as targets. “The leaders of the cartels and gangs are the members of the government,” Garmendia stated, underscoring the intertwined nature of crime and governance in Venezuela.
Even neighboring countries might react cautiously. Colombian and Brazilian leaders are watching closely, weighing their own positions while facing potential electoral consequences. Garmendia elaborated, “Maduro’s regime is essentially a drug cartel that captured an entire country.” He observed that any U.S. military action likely puts Maduro’s officials on notice as legitimate targets.
This strategy may lead to significant shifts in U.S.-Venezuelan relations. The White House has taken a hardline stance, suspending diplomatic outreach and opting instead for military posturing. This recent development, which saw the repositioning of F-35 jets to Puerto Rico, signals a readiness to leverage military power rather than engage in dialogue. Consequently, Maduro has reacted, declaring a state of emergency against what he termed U.S. “aggression,” and has granted himself special powers to act defensively.
As tensions mount, the administration’s approach raises questions about the long-term implications of this military escalation. Critics argue it opens the door for undefined and potentially endless warfare against non-state actors. While the administration justifies its actions as necessary for national security, the potential for conflict and overarching war powers presents complex challenges that deserve careful scrutiny.
"*" indicates required fields
