Top Dem blasts Trump’s cartel strikes, says admin overstepping war powers
In a recent statement, Rep. Jamie Raskin, the ranking member of the House Judiciary Committee, voiced strong opposition to the Trump administration’s airstrikes in the Caribbean, particularly those targeting alleged drug cartels off the coast of Venezuela. Raskin emphasized that such military actions should only be undertaken with congressional approval, arguing that the president does not possess the unilateral authority to declare war. “Congress has got to assert our institutional prerogative,” he stated, underscoring the constitutional mandate that grants Congress the power to declare war, not the executive branch or its officials. Raskin’s remarks come in the wake of over 20 airstrikes conducted since November, which the Trump administration claims were necessary to neutralize credible terrorist threats.
The legality of these strikes has been a contentious issue, with Raskin asserting that they infringe upon due process rights. He criticized the administration’s approach, likening it to a scenario where the military acts as “police officer, prosecutor, judge, jury, and executioner.” This raises significant concerns about the potential violation of international law, particularly as the strikes target vessels in international waters. Raskin’s stance highlights a broader debate about the scope of executive power in military engagements, especially in light of historical precedents set by previous administrations. For instance, the Obama administration conducted numerous strikes in countries like Pakistan and Yemen without formal war declarations, relying instead on the Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) passed in 2001.
However, Raskin argues that the current situation is distinct, asserting that the geographical and contextual differences render the administration’s actions questionable. His criticisms reflect a growing concern among some lawmakers who believe that the executive branch is overstepping its bounds, particularly regarding military operations that lack robust legislative oversight. As the debate continues, the Department of War has yet to provide a response to Raskin’s allegations, leaving many to ponder the implications of these strikes on U.S. foreign policy and the constitutional balance of power. The ongoing discourse raises vital questions about the role of Congress in military decisions and the need for a clear legal framework governing such actions.
Rep. Jamie Raskin, D-Md., the ranking member on the House Judiciary Committee, blasted the
Trump administration’s
airstrikes in the Caribbean, arguing that they resemble powers the president would only have during wartime.
To conduct any of the strikes — and to continue them — Trump should seek congressional approval, Raskin argued.
“Congress has got to assert our institutional prerogative. We have the power to declare war. Not Donald Trump, not JD Vance, not Pete Hegseth, not Tulsi Gabbard,” Raskin said, referring to the country’s top security officials. “Nobody in the administration has the right to declare war. Only Congress has the right to declare war. And we’ve got to take that back.”
GOP LAWMAKERS RALLY BEHIND TRUMP’S VENEZUELA STRIKES AS CRITICS QUESTION LEGALITY
Shortly after Trump’s inauguration, the administration designated several drug cartels operating in the United States — and internationally — as terrorist organizations. In recent months, it has used Navy strikes in the Caribbean off the coast of Venezuela to eliminate what it has identified as credible terrorist threats in the United States.
The administration has conducted over 20 strikes since November.Â
That framing has come under fire in recent weeks as questions have emerged about whether striking boats in international waters
violates international law.
To Raskin, the strikes have encroached on questions of due process.
HEGSETH SAYS MILITARY CONDUCTED ANOTHER STRIKE ON BOAT CARRYING ALLEGED NARCO-TERRORISTS
“We don’t allow the military to act as [a] police officer, the prosecutor, the judge, the jury and executioner. And we don’t just give massive death penalties by virtue of some imaginary collective punishment or guilt by association. So, we’ve got to rein the administration in and bring them back to the rule of law in the Constitution,” Raskin said.
Some lawmakers, including Rep. Dan Crenshaw, R-Texas, have pushed back on Raskin’s criticisms by noting the United States has conducted strikes in other countries in the absence of a declaration of war.
Under the Obama administration, for instance, the United States carried out thousands of strikes in Pakistan, Somalia, Yemen and Libya — all without a formal war designation. Congress did, however, pass the
Authorization for Use of Military Force
in 2001, allowing the Bush administration to “use all necessary and appropriate force” to combat the terrorists responsible for the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks on the World Trade Center.
It fell short of a formal war declaration.
DEM PRESSURE BUILDS FOR ANSWERS ON TRUMP’S CARIBBEAN STRIKES, COMMANDER’S SUDDEN EXIT
Raskin did not readily address why analogous strikes in the Middle East didn’t compare directly to the strikes
off the coast of Venezuela
or why the terrorist designation fell outside the norm of what past administrations have done. He said he believed a difference in location wasn’t the issue.
“[Arguing] if this were a different event that took place in a different place at a different time, it would be lawful. Well, it’s gobbledygook,” Raskin said.
The Department of War did not immediately respond to Fox News Digital’s request for a response to Raskin’s criticism.
