Democrats pressure Trump to show proof deadly boat strike was legal

Democrats are amplifying pressure on the Trump administration to produce evidence that last week’s military strike in the Caribbean Sea killed 11 drug smugglers, which the president has claimed, as lawmakers from both parties question the legal basis for the surprise use of force.

On Wednesday, more than 20 Democrats petitioned President Donald Trump to clarify a host of facts about the operation, including the military assets involved and how the administration confirmed the targets were part of a drug network. Their outreach followed a closed-door briefing by the Pentagon to bipartisan staff from the principal national security committees, a meeting that two people familiar with the matter characterized as vague and unsatisfying.

Sen. Tim Kaine (Virginia) framed the issue as a faceoff between an administration insistent it has sweeping authority to carry out U.S. foreign policy - including through military force - and a Congress trying to reassert its role in the process.

“Either they’re going to provide me the facts or they’re going to refuse to, and if they refuse to provide the facts, I think I am more likely to get more votes on a war powers resolution,” Kaine said in an interview, alluding to a law that allows Congress to check a president’s use of the military.

The Democrats’ effort represents a public push for accountability in the attack, and the prelude to a potential formal challenge through the War Powers Act.

The administration has said it will carry out a broader military campaign against Latin American cartels in a bid to thwart the flow of illicit drugs into the United States, which it says is justified by a Trump executive order designating several groups in the region as “foreign terrorist organizations.”

Democrats argue that the Trump administration itself has acknowledged in past congressional testimony that such a designation alone does not permit the use of lethal force.

In announcing the strike on Sept. 2, Trump said the vessel’s crew had been “positively identified” as members of Tren de Aragua, a criminal group his administration has sought to connect to Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro and violent crime in the U.S. He claimed later that the U.S. government has “tapes” of the suspects speaking, but to date the administration has not released evidence verifying who - and what - was aboard the boat blown up by U.S. forces.

Kaine and other Democrats have cast doubt on the administration’s statements and questioned why the boat wasn’t stopped by a U.S. vessel, consistent with long-standing efforts to interdict suspected drug smugglers.

Anna Kelly, a White House spokeswoman, accused Democrats of “running cover for evil narcoterrorists trying to poison our homeland as over 100,000 Americans die from overdoses every year.” In a statement, she repeated the administration’s contention that Trump “acted in line with the laws of armed conflict to protect our country” and said he is “delivering on his promise to take on the cartels and eliminate these national security threats.”

The administration made similar arguments when formally notifying lawmakers of the strike on Thursday. “It is not possible at this time to know the full scope and duration of military operations that will be necessary,” Trump wrote in a letter to congressional leaders. His defense secretary, Pete Hegseth, was in Puerto Rico earlier this week as the Pentagon weighs plans to make the island territory a part of its counternarcotics efforts.

No Republicans signed the Democrats’ letter to Trump, but at least one - Sen. Rand Paul (Kentucky) - has publicly criticized the strike and the legal basis behind it.

“If the new policy is that we will blow you up if we think you might be a drug dealer, that’s kind of a worrisome policy,” Paul said earlier this week, criticizing remarks by Vice President JD Vance, who has said the deadly strike represents the “highest and best” use of America’s military.

The Pentagon’s classified briefing Tuesday was restricted to select staff from some of the national security committees, who pressed the administration’s representatives to explain the legal authority for the strike, why officials waited to inform lawmakers it had occurred and what U.S. military assets were used, said two people familiar with the matter. Like some others, they spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss a sensitive issue.

The Pentagon sent no lawyers to the Hill for Tuesday’s briefing, which these people interpreted as a deliberate effort to avoid addressing the strike’s legality. During the meeting, defense officials cited the president’s broad authority under Article II of the Constitution to conduct foreign policy deemed in the national interest and said lawyers within the administration had deemed the attack legal, the people familiar with the matter said, noting that the Pentagon’s representatives declined to identify the lawyers or provide further documentation.

Sean Parnell, a spokesman for the Pentagon, disputed their account of the briefing, saying defense officials “clearly relayed” the administration’s “legal authority” to conduct the strike. The Pentagon’s representatives “also presented information that proved the government knew exactly who the terrorists on the boat were, which foreign terrorist organization they were connected to, and where their final destination was,” Parnell said in a statement.

The briefing was scheduled for last Friday but was abruptly postponed after the Pentagon told lawmakers’ staff that it could not initially answer all of their questions surrounding the legal basis for the strike and the targets involved, people familiar with the matter said.

Democrats have grown increasingly critical of the Trump administration’s explanation for the attack, intensifying their rhetoric in the absence of a fuller accounting of what transpired and why the White House deemed it necessary.

Speaking Tuesday on the Senate floor, Sen. Jack Reed (Rhode Island), the Senate Armed Services Committee’s top Democrat, demanded release of the intelligence underpinning the attack, the administration’s legal rationale and any relevant presidential orders.

U.S. and international law forbids the military from using deadly force against “a civilian vessel” unless it’s an act of self-defense, Reed said, adding, “There is no evidence - none - that this strike was conducted in self-defense.”

“Eleven people were killed without any justification, other than the word of President Trump,” Reed said. “If there is evidence that these people were indeed cartel members trafficking drugs, it needs to be made public immediately.”

In the summer, Kaine led a separate war powers resolution intended to restrain Trump from entering a conflict with Iran. The effort failed, as the administration conducted a massive bombing campaign against the country’s nuclear program.

Kaine said this week that he may do so again if the White House does not provide a satisfactory response, though he acknowledged the likelihood of passing one was low in a Republican-controlled Congress.

“I think the administration actually does not even look for legal rationales,” he said. “I think they do what they want, and they either dare a Republican-majority Congress or the courts to stop them if you can.”