WASHINGTON — President Donald Trump, in a memo formally submitted to Congress, has declared that the United States is engaged in a non-international armed conflict with drug cartels, classifying them as “unlawful combatants” and justifying military strikes previously carried out in the Caribbean. The moment marks a dramatic escalation in Trump’s campaign against narcotics—but raises serious legal, constitutional, and diplomatic questions.
U.S. Ships Strike in Caribbean; Conflict Declaration Follows
The administration’s shift comes after recent U.S. military actions targeting suspected drug-trafficking vessels near Venezuela, which reportedly resulted in at least 17 fatalities. The memo directs that the Pentagon “conduct operations against them pursuant to the law of armed conflict,” effectively framing cartel activity as acts of war.
“The President determined that the United States is in a non-international armed conflict with these designated terrorist organizations,” the document states, adding that such groups conduct attacks through “organized cartels” across the Western Hemisphere.
That sweeping characterization signals a departure from traditional law enforcement approaches to dealing with narcotics. Instead, it treats cartels as adversaries in a military engagement with all the authorities the law of war grants.
“It basically says … all of these vessels that are carrying enemy personnel can be targeted.” — Matthew Waxman, former national security official
Waxman, who previously served under the Bush administration, told reporters the memo gives the United States nationalist license to target cartel members with lethal force and detain them without trial—critical powers typically reserved for war, not criminal prosecutions.
Legal and Constitutional Backlash
Legal scholars, civil liberties organizations, and members of Congress immediately pushed back on the new framework. Critics argue the memo blurs the line between war and law enforcement, bypassing due process protections and congressional oversight.
Sen. Jack Reed (D-R.I.), ranking member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, called the justification “a dangerous overreach,” noting that the administration “offered no credible legal justification, evidence or intelligence” for its actions.
Some question whether designating cartels as terrorist organizations was appropriate or lawful, and whether Congress must be consulted or approve such a move. Under U.S. law, declarations of war traditionally require legislative action—something this administration is sidestepping by framing the fight as non-international armed conflict.
Moreover, opponents contend the use of the military to suppress criminal behavior infringes on domestic legal traditions that reserve force and arrests for law enforcement, not armed conflict. In targeting suspected traffickers far from U.S. territory, the administration is leaning on untested legal justifications.
Strategic and Operational Implications
The United States had already ramped up naval presence in the Caribbean through 2025, deploying warships, aircraft, and support personnel to strategic bases. According to defense monitoring, naval and Marine assets streamlined interdictions and patrols aimed at drug routes.
The memo ties cartel violence directly to the U.S. homeland, citing overdose deaths and the flow of illicit substances as “armed attacks” against American citizens. It also asserts that cartel groups now possess paramilitary capabilities, enabling transnational operations that transcend traditional law enforcement capabilities.
Nonetheless, the administration has yet to publicly name all groups included under this designation. One known example is Tren de Aragua, a Venezuelan gang already designated last year as a Foreign Terrorist Organization—a distinction that the administration has sought to expand in applying war powers to narcotics networks.
Political Stakes and Congressional Response
The move hands Trump a potent political message: that he views the drug war as a military mission, empowering him to act without apparent congressional permission. But the strategy invites backlash from both sides of the aisle.
Democratic critics warn of unchecked executive authority, while some Republicans caution that military escalation could backfire—undermining alliances, aggravating regional tensions, and eroding civil liberties.
House and Senate committees overseeing defense and foreign operations have reportedly requested classified briefings. Meanwhile, legislative efforts are emerging to restrict executive use of force unless Congress explicitly authorizes it.
International and Regional Consequences
Latin American governments could balk at the U.S. treating cartels as combatants rather than criminal targets. Venezuela, already under U.S. sanctions, may see the escalation as a precursor to broader military intervention.
In Caracas, defense officials have said U.S. aircraft were observed near coastal airspace, heightening concerns of cross-border tensions. Analysts warn that conflating narco-cartels with insurgencies may provoke diplomatic pushback and complicate cooperation in drug enforcement.
In the coming weeks and months, whether the president’s war analogy will hold in court remains uncertain. Legal challenges, foreign protests, and congressional gridlock could all stall or reshape enforcement.
But if the administration proceeds, it could mark a turning point: where the U.S. treats drug trafficking not as crime but as war. And that shift may redefine the balance between security imperatives, legal constraints, and democratic oversight in the Trump era.