Rep. Jamie Raskin, a prominent figure in the House Judiciary Committee, has raised significant concerns about the Trump administration’s military actions in the Caribbean, particularly the airstrikes targeting alleged terrorist operations linked to drug cartels. Raskin’s argument hinges on the assertion that these strikes possess characteristics similar to wartime powers, which he insists should only be exercised with appropriate congressional approval.
In a direct and emphatic statement, Raskin declared, “Congress has got to assert our institutional prerogative. We have the power to declare war. Not Donald Trump, not JD Vance, not Pete Hegseth, not Tulsi Gabbard.” His words highlight a critical debate about where military authority lies within the federal government. Raskin’s insistence that only Congress holds the power to declare war raises questions about the legitimacy of unilateral military actions taken by the president or his advisers.
The backdrop to Raskin’s criticism includes the Trump administration’s designation of certain drug cartels as terrorist organizations. This classification has facilitated over twenty airstrikes in the Caribbean since November, aimed at what the administration has described as credible threats to U.S. security. However, this approach is now under scrutiny, particularly regarding whether such military interventions—especially those conducted in international waters—may contravene international law.
Raskin emphasized due process concerns by stating, “We don’t allow the military to act as [a] police officer, the prosecutor, the judge, the jury and executioner.” This perspective mirrors a broader debate about the role of military force in law enforcement scenarios, where the distinction between combatant and civilian becomes blurred. Raskin’s call to prioritize the rule of law and constitutional governance embodies a commitment to uphold due process, which some critics argue is at risk under the current administration’s military strategies.
In response to Raskin’s arguments, some Republican lawmakers, including Rep. Dan Crenshaw, have pointed out that the U.S. has historically conducted military operations without a formal declaration of war. They cite past administrations’ actions in regions such as Pakistan and Yemen, where military strikes were commonplace despite a lack of congressional authorization. The pivotal difference remains the post-9/11 Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF), which permitted extensive military action against terrorist threats.
Raskin, however, resisted this comparison, asserting that the legal and ethical frameworks governing such military actions should not depend on geographical parameters. He rebuffed the notion that legality could hinge on context, labeling such arguments as “gobbledygook.” His firm stance underscores a critical viewpoint in the ongoing discussion about U.S. military engagement, suggesting that the principles of democratic oversight and lawful conduct in warfare are paramount, irrespective of operational theater.
The Department of War has been notably silent in response to Raskin’s criticisms, leaving a gap in the public discourse on these significant issues. The discussions surrounding these airstrikes could very well shape future policies on military engagement, especially as lawmakers continue to grapple with the balance of power between Congress and the presidency regarding matters of national security and military action. The legal ramifications, implications for executive authority, and moral considerations surrounding military interventions will likely remain hot topics as the debate unfolds.
"*" indicates required fields
