A growing number of Republicans on Capitol Hill has raised concerns about President Trump’s expanding war against drug cartels carried out without consultation or authorization by Congress, and is pressing for more information and involvement in a campaign whose legal basis remains murky.
Most in the group have not expressed explicit opposition to the strikes that have been carried out so far against boats in the Caribbean Sea and, this week, expanded to the Pacific. The vast majority of Republicans have enthusiastically rallied behind them, and this month, all but two of them voted to block a measure that would terminate the president’s campaign.
But for a G.O.P.-led Congress that has seldom questioned Mr. Trump on any matter, foreign or domestic, the skepticism reflects a rare and potentially significant bit of dissent over a widening war.
“We have oversight responsibilities, and we expect to get our questions answered,” Senator Mike Rounds, Republican of South Dakota and a member of the Armed Services Committee, said in an interview on Wednesday.
It comes as the Senate is set to vote again next week on whether to rein in Mr. Trump’s military campaign, with consideration of a bipartisan resolution that would prohibit U.S. attacks “within or against” Venezuela without explicit authorization from Congress.
So far, the measure, which the president would all but certainly veto, does not appear to have sufficient Republican backing to move forward. It would need the support of at least four G.O.P. senators. Yet it is shaping up to be an important test vote as Mr. Trump declares that he neither needs nor plans to seek any authorization for his drug war, and as some in the G.O.P. are arguing that Congress must weigh in.
Senator Susan Collins, Republican of Maine and a member of the Intelligence Committee, said she would like to see the Senate “pass a resolution that either authorizes his force or prevents its use,” referring in an interview on Wednesday to Mr. Trump.
Since early September, the U.S. has launched 10 known lethal strikes on vessels the Trump administration says are trafficking drugs, and deployed more than 10,000 troops and aircraft across the region. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, carrying out orders from Mr. Trump, has framed the mission as a fight against “narcoterrorists.”
But the absence of a formal congressional authorization to use military force and questions about the intelligence underpinning the strikes have prompted calls for oversight.
“This is a legitimate discussion between the two branches of government that we should always be having,” Senator Thom Tillis, Republican of North Carolina and a member of the Armed Services panel, said, urging talks on authorizing the use of force. “I think we’ve got to be very careful when you’re talking about ordering a kinetic strike.”
Like Mr. Rounds and Ms. Collins, Mr. Tillis voted with his party against the recent measure calling for a halt to the boat strikes, which was sponsored by Senators Adam B. Schiff of California and Tim Kaine of Virginia, both Democrats.
But several Republicans said they wanted to be read in on the legal justification for the attacks. Senator John Curtis, Republican of Utah, said that “we’re always hungry for more” information from the White House. Senator Jon Husted, Republican of Ohio, said he was confident in the rationale the administration had offered so far, but that “as new facts develop, I may or may not have more questions.”
After voting against the resolution to end the boat strikes, Senator Todd Young, Republican of Indiana, issued a lengthy statement on social media in which he called the measure overly broad, but said he remained “highly concerned” about the legality of the strikes and the “trajectory of military operations without congressional approval.”
“While the Constitution grants Article II authorities to the executive branch to defend against imminent threats, Congress alone is entrusted with decisions of war and peace,” he added.
In the interview this week, Ms. Collins suggested that she did not support the continued use of lethal military force to target narcotics traffickers, a function she said was best left to federal law enforcement.
“Historically, the interception of drug-running boats has been the job of the Coast Guard,” Ms. Collins said. “And I’ve seen the Coast Guard’s fast boats. They know how to do this, they’re well trained and they’re acting in a law enforcement capacity. And to me, that’s what we should be using.”
Mr. Trump has made it clear that he plans to expand the military campaign to airstrikes on countries that harbor cartel operations, including Venezuela. And despite repeatedly calling the operation a war, he said he would not seek congressional approval.
“Well, I don’t think we’re going to necessarily ask for a declaration of war,” the president told reporters at the White House on Thursday. “I think we’re just going to kill people that are bringing drugs into our country, OK? We’re going to kill them, you know? They are going to be, like, dead.”
He also suggested that lawmakers would not dare to challenge him on the topic, saying: “What are they going to do — say, ‘Gee, we don’t want to stop drugs pouring in’?”
So far, only two Republicans have directly opposed the military offensive. Senators Lisa Murkowski of Alaska and Rand Paul of Kentucky broke with their party this month to support the unsuccessful measure to curb the attacks at sea.
Mr. Paul has partnered with Mr. Kaine and Mr. Schiff on the measure that would limit the president’s power to strike Venezuelan territory, which is on track for a vote next week. A libertarian who opposes American involvement in foreign conflicts, the Kentucky Republican has warned in recent days about the prospect that the United States could be headed into a ground war to depose Venezuela’s authoritarian president, Nicolás Maduro.
“I’ve got no love lost, obviously, for Maduro and the government, but I think an offensive war for regime change — it would be a mistake,” Mr. Paul said.
For now, senators are getting by with what some Republicans privately complain is limited and sporadic information from the Trump administration about the offensive, with many learning of the strikes at the same time as the public does, through social media posts from Mr. Trump or Mr. Hegseth.
Senators have received limited classified briefings on the attacks, some restricted to leaders and relevant committees and others expanded to broader groups.
A month after the first strike, Republicans and Democrats on the Armed Services Committee pressed the Pentagon’s top lawyer, Earl Matthews, in a closed-door meeting to explain the legal basis for the military’s attacks.
Mr. Matthews repeatedly referred to the president’s designation of certain Latin American drug cartels as foreign terrorist organizations, which he said granted the Pentagon unilateral authority to use military force against them, said officials familiar with the confidential session, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss it.
Senators from both parties who attended expressed frustration and concern about that rationale, and urged the administration to articulate a stronger legal case. But Mr. Matthews refused to provide a written justification for the strikes, the officials said.
Most Republicans have expressed full-throated support for the administration’s strategy.
Representative Brian Mast, Republican of Florida and chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee, said the strikes were based on “credible intelligence provided by numerous agencies.”
“The cartels are terrorists who produce and distribute a worldwide supply of illicit drugs, murder countless people and traffic even more,” he added.
Senator John Kennedy, Republican of Louisiana, said that Secretary of State Marco Rubio had assured G.O.P. senators in a briefing that the “administration is on solid legal ground.” Mr. Kennedy recalled Mr. Rubio characterizing the intelligence supporting the operation as “exquisite.”
Still, Mr. Kennedy conceded that further scrutiny was warranted, particularly after a survivor of a strike carried out on Oct. 16 was repatriated and eventually released. “At some point, we will have oversight hearings,” he said.
But Senator Jim Risch, Republican of Idaho and the chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, has shown little interest in scheduling one.
“The president of the United States saved lives, lots of lives,” he said in a recent interview. “We should be commending him, not trying to undercut him.”
The Constitution gives Congress the authority to declare war, but formal declarations are rare and have not been issued since World War II. Lawmakers have more often passed authorizations for the use of military force against specific targets, but presidents of both parties have asserted broad power to determine how and when to do so.
Many Republicans have argued that Mr. Trump is well within his rights to unilaterally carry out his campaign against drug trafficking into the United States.
“He’s the commander in chief, and he’s got to make the decisions that are in the best interest of the United States to protect the people of the United States,” Mr. Risch said. “He should be commended for what he’s doing against those drug traffickers. He’s saving thousands of kids’ lives.”
Others called the operation an antiterror campaign that clearly warrants the use of deadly force.
“If the boat had a bunch of terrorists on it — Al Qaeda or ISIS types — we’d blow them up,” Senator Lindsey Graham, the South Carolina Republican and vocal defense hawk, said in September.
The White House echoed that argument in a notice to Congress last month that stated that the U.S. was engaged in a formal “armed conflict” with members of the criminal organizations labeled by the administration as “unlawful combatants.”
Mr. Trump on Thursday called the Latin American drug cartels “the ISIS of the Western Hemisphere.”
Eric Schmitt and Julian Barnes contributed reporting.
Megan Mineiro is a Times congressional reporter and a member of the 2025-26 Times Fellowship class, a program for early-career journalists.
The post Republicans Who Have Rarely Opposed Trump Raise Questions About His Drug War appeared first on New York Times.
