The White House has informed Congress that the United States is now in an ‘armed conflict’ with narco-traffickers operating in Latin America, a move that some interpret as a formal declaration of war. This shift in legal posture is justified by the administration as a necessary step to combat what it calls a direct threat to national security.
Prior to this statement, President Donald Trump classified several drug cartels as foreign terrorist organizations, which paved the way for the military strikes. These operations include recent actions in the Caribbean, where four U.S. strikes have been conducted, killing 21 individuals over the past month. The administration’s legal argument is based on the premise that these cartels pose an urgent national security threat, akin to the threat posed by terrorist organizations following the 9/11 attacks.
The declaration of an armed conflict with drug traffickers is part of a broader strategy to reframe U.S. operations against these groups as a military campaign. This approach allows for the use of lethal force and detention without trial, similar to the legal framework that applied to al-Qaeda and ISIS after 9/11. However, legal experts argue that this may not provide the administration with the same level of authority, as there is no existing authorization for military action against cartels.
National security lawyers have expressed concern that framing the struggle against drug cartels as an armed conflict could be a way to assert unilateral presidential authority. One such lawyer, Irina Tsukerman, noted that this approach effectively signals a protracted campaign and an effort to shift the burden of decision-making from Congress to the executive branch. She emphasized that, unlike with al-Qaeda or ISIS, the administration does not have the legal backing of a formal authorization for use of military force against cartels.
While Democratic leaders have raised questions about the scope of the military operations, they have not moved to block them. Senator Chris Murphy has suggested that Trump’s advisors may be pushing him toward a more aggressive militarized stance. Pedro Garmendia, a geopolitical risk analyst, argued that these strikes should be viewed as part of a larger regional strategy, potentially extending the Bush Doctrine and signaling to Iran, China, and Russia the U.S. intent to maintain control over the Caribbean, a major drug trafficking corridor.
Garmendia further noted that the administration’s designation of cartels as non-state combatants implies that the Maduro regime in Venezuela is not a legitimate government but a ‘zombie behemoth’ sustained by foreign sponsors and criminal enterprises. This framing could lead to further tensions with the Venezuelan government, which has already responded by declaring a state of emergency and granting its leader ‘special powers’ to defend the country against what it calls U.S. aggression.
The White House maintains that the president’s authority to conduct limited strikes covers the current operations, but unless Congress approves continued actions by November, the administration could face a significant legal challenge. With the potential for a wider war-powers showdown looming, the situation highlights the complex interplay between national security, legal authority, and the balance of power between the executive and legislative branches.