Mr. President, over the past two months, President Trump has ordered 16 airstrikes in the Caribbean and eastern Pacific, killing more than 65 people. His administration boasts they are targeting drug trafficking organizations. Yet Congress and the American people have received minimal information about the intelligence supporting these strikes, the legal framework governing them, or the strategic objective they're meant to achieve.

I want to be clear about something at the outset: I have spent years advocating for strong action against the drug cartels that poison our communities. I have consistently voted to provide law enforcement with the resources they need to dismantle these criminal networks. I have supported international cooperation to target these organizations at their source. The cartels are a scourge, and they must be confronted aggressively and dismantled thoroughly.

But that is not what is happening here.

Strategic Incoherence

Let me begin with the most fundamental question: What is this operation actually meant to accomplish?

The administration has emphasized fentanyl as the primary justification for these strikes. Yet their own officials have acknowledged that cocaine is the predominant drug trafficked through these Caribbean routes. The fentanyl that is devastating American communities flows overwhelmingly through different routes. So what problem are we actually trying to solve?

You cannot bomb your way out of a drug crisis. The demand that motivates drug trafficking is not found in the Caribbean. It is located in communities across America where people are suffering from addiction, where economic opportunity has dried up, where the social fabric has frayed. Military strikes do nothing to address those root causes.

We have been down this road before in many parts of the world. We have seen what happens when military force is employed without clear objectives, without defined endpoints, without honest assessment of what military power can and cannot achieve. The so-called "war on drugs" has been waged for decades. It has cost billions of dollars and countless lives. It has not solved the problem.

As we expand this military operation in South and Central America, we have to ask: What does victory look like? How do we know when this mission is complete?

More than 65 people have been killed across 16 strikes. Boats have been blown out of the water in videos released by the administration. But has the flow of fentanyl into America decreased? Has a single trafficking network been dismantled? The administration hasn't provided any evidence that these strikes are achieving anything beyond the destruction they document on camera.

This is not a strategy. This is violence without purpose.

The administration's legal justification shifts every week. First, they simply cited the President’s Article II authority and claimed that these cartels were terrorist organizations. Then, the President decided that America is in a “non-international armed conflict,”—a dubious claim. Now, Secretary Hegseth has begun calling these cartels the "Al Qaeda of the Western Hemisphere" and declared open season on them. But he seems to have forgotten an important fact: After 9/11, Congress passed an authorization for the use of military force or AUMF to provide the legal basis for using military force against Al Qaeda. By Secretary Hegseth’s own logic, this current operation requires congressional authorization.

But there's a deeper problem with the administration’s analogy to terrorism. Terrorists pursue political objectives. Cartels pursue profit and power. They're criminals, not ideological combatants waging war against the United States. If the White House truly believes these are terrorist organizations and the Defense Secretary truly thinks Tren de Aragua compares to al Qaeda, the administration should come to Congress and request an AUMF.

The fact that they haven’t is revealing. When the legal justification keeps changing, it means there is no clear mission to begin with.

The Transparency Failure

And here's what troubles me most: the administration's refusal to explain itself – both to Congress and the American people - suggests they know this operation doesn't hold up to scrutiny.

Chairman Wicker and I have sent multiple requests to Secretary Hegseth to submit the basic information Congress is legally entitled to: execute orders, legal justifications, and intelligence underpinning the strikes. The Pentagon has taken more than two months to provide only some of this information, and has refused to answer simple questions regarding the very limited information that has been provided to date. This isn't a partisan complaint. These are statutory requirements that are being ignored.

The United Nations has stated that these strikes "violate international human rights law" and find "no justification in international law." Legal experts across the political spectrum have been nearly unanimous in denouncing these operations as unlawful. Yet the administration's response has been to withhold information rather than provide justification.

If this operation serves vital American interests, if it can achieve its stated objectives, and if it is legal under domestic and international law, then why won't the administration defend it before Congress and the American people? The obfuscation suggests they don't have genuine answers. The secrecy suggests they know this doesn't make sense.

The Risk of Wider Conflict

And now the situation grows more dangerous. The USS Gerald Ford—our largest and newest aircraft carrier—is headed to the Caribbean, bringing additional warships and thousands of sailors and Marines. This is not a limited operation. This is a major military buildup.

To what end? The administration won't say. Against what enemy? They won't specify. For how long? They refuse to answer.

These operations risk destabilizing the region and provoking direct confrontation with Venezuela. We could be stumbling into another open-ended conflict without purpose or plan. If the administration intends to escalate toward conflict with Venezuela, Congress has a constitutional duty to debate and authorize that action. We cannot sleepwalk into war through incremental escalation while being kept in the dark.

To my Republican colleagues: I know many of you share concerns about endless American wars. I know many of you have questioned open-ended military commitments that lack clear strategic objectives. You have consistently opposed executive overreach by previous Presidents in the matter of war. These SOUTHCOM operations look like the beginning of exactly that kind of entanglement—and we're being asked to accept it on faith, without information, without debate, without authorization.

Constitutional War Powers

Which brings me to the matter of constitutional authority.

The Constitution is unambiguous. Article I, Section 8 vests the power to declare war in Congress—not in the executive branch. This was not an oversight by the Founders. It was a deliberate choice, born from hard experience with monarchs who could commit their nations to war by decree.

The War Powers Resolution exists to give meaning to that constitutional principle. It requires the President to consult with Congress before introducing forces into hostilities and to obtain authorization within sixty days. The Trump Administration delivered its War Powers notification to Congress on September 4th. The 60-day window to receive congressional authorization closed on Monday, without approval being granted. A law-abiding administration would cease its operation. But the Trump administration continues on.

Incredibly, according to public reporting, the White House is apparently now arguing that these strikes don't constitute "hostilities" under the War Powers Act because American servicemembers aren't directly in harm's way while operating standoff weapons and drones. That is utterly ridiculous. Most importantly, it is an insult to the men and women who are risking their lives flying aircraft, operating ships and submarines, and conducting reconnaissance in the region. They are very much in harm’s way, and to say that this operation is so safe that is doesn’t qualify as “hostilities” is embarrassing.

This new interpretation creates a dangerous precedent. If standoff weapons exempt military operations from congressional oversight, we have effectively granted the executive branch unlimited authority to wage war anywhere in the world, so long as American forces can strike from a distance. That represents a fundamental rewriting of our constitutional order—not through amendment or legislation, but through one man’s decision.

To my colleagues on the other side of the aisle: I ask you to consider what authority you would be comfortable granting to any president—not just this one, but the next one, and the one after that. The powers we recognize today will be exercised by future administrations. Constitutional principles should not bend with political convenience.

Congressional Authority

This is not a political debate. This is about the institution of Congress and the constitutional limits on executive power. It is about insisting that before we commit American military forces to combat operations—before we take lives in America's name—we have clear legal authority, credible justification, and strategic coherence.

If this operation makes strategic sense, let the administration make that case to Congress and the American people. Let them provide the legal justification they've withheld. Let them explain the endgame. Let them show us how blowing up boats in the Caribbean solves the fentanyl crisis in each and every one of our states, including Rhode Island.

But they have not done so. And until they do, this operation does not deserve our support.

I urge my colleagues to hold the Trump Administration accountable. The Constitution requires it. And the American people deserve it.

I yield the floor.