Senate Republicans vote down legislation to check Trump's use of war
powers against cartels
[October 09, 2025]
By STEPHEN GROVES and MARY CLARE JALONICK
WASHINGTON (AP) — Senate Republicans voted down legislation Wednesday
that would have put a check on President Donald Trump’s ability to use
deadly military force against drug cartels after Democrats tried to
counter the administration’s extraordinary assertion of presidential war
powers to destroy vessels in the Caribbean.
The vote fell mostly along party lines, 48-51, with two Republicans,
Sens. Rand Paul and Lisa Murkowski, voting in favor and Democratic Sen.
John Fetterman voting against.
It was the first vote in Congress on Trump’s military campaign, which
according to the White House has so far destroyed four vessels, killed
at least 21 people and stopped narcotics from reaching the U.S.. The war
powers resolution would have required the president to seek
authorization from Congress before further military strikes on the
cartels.
The Trump administration has asserted that drug traffickers are armed
combatants threatening the United States, creating justification to use
military force. But that assertion has been met with some unease on
Capitol Hill.
Some Republicans are asking the White House for more clarification on
its legal justification and specifics on how the strikes are conducted,
while Democrats insist they are violations of U.S. and international
law. It’s a clash that could redefine how the world’s most powerful
military uses lethal force and set the tone for future global conflict.
The White House had indicated Trump would veto the legislation, and even
though the Senate vote failed it gave lawmakers an opportunity to go on
the record with their objections to Trump’s declaration that the U.S. is
in “armed conflict” with drug cartels.
“It sends a message when a significant number of legislators say, ‘Hey,
this is a bad idea,’” said Sen. Tim Kaine, a Virginia Democrat who
pushed the resolution alongside Democratic Sen. Adam Schiff of
California.
What is the War Powers Resolution?
Wednesday's vote was brought under the War Powers Resolution of 1973,
which was intended to reassert congressional power over the declaration
of war.
“Congress must not allow the executive branch to become judge, jury and
executioner,” Paul, a Kentucky Republican who has long pushed for
greater congressional oversight of war powers, said during a floor
speech.
Paul was the only Republican to publicly speak in favor of the
resolution before the vote, but a number of GOP senators have questioned
the strikes on vessels and said they are not receiving enough
information from the administration.
Sen. Kevin Cramer, a North Dakota Republican, acknowledged “there may be
some concern” in the Republican conference about the strikes. However,
Republican leaders argued against the resolution on the Senate floor
Wednesday, calling it a political ploy from Democrats.
“People were attacking our country by bringing in poisonous substances
to deposit into our country that would have killed Americans,” said Sen.
Jim Risch, the chair of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.
“Fortunately most of those drugs are now at the bottom of the ocean.”
Risch thanked Trump for his actions and added that he hoped the military
strikes would continue.
What has the administration told Congress about the strikes?
Members of the Senate Armed Services Committee received a classified
briefing last week on the strikes, and Cramer said he was “comfortable
with at least the plausibility of their legal argument.” But he added
that no one representing intelligence agencies or the military command
structure for Central and South America was present for the briefing.
[to top of second column]
|
Early morning cloudy skies over the U.S. Capitol during the 8th day
of the government shutdown on Wednesday, Oct. 8, 2025, in
Washington. (AP Photo/John McDonnell)
“I’d be more comfortable defending the administration if they shared
the information,” he said.
Kaine also said the briefing did not include any information on why
the military chose to destroy the vessels rather than interdict them
or get into the specifics of how the military was so confident that
the vessels were carrying drugs.
“Maybe they were engaged in human trafficking, or maybe it was the
wrong ship,” Schiff said. “We just have little or no information
about who was onboard these ships or what intelligence was used or
what the rationale was and how certain we could be that everyone on
that ship deserved to die.”
The Democrats also said the administration has told them it is
adding cartels to a list of organizations deemed “narco-terrorists”
that are targets for military strikes, but it has not shown the
lawmakers a complete list.
“The slow erosion of congressional oversight is not an abstract
debate about process,” Sen. Jack Reed, the top Democrat on the
Senate Armed Services Committee, said in a floor speech. “It is a
real and present threat to our democracy.”
A visit from Rubio
Secretary of State Marco Rubio visited the Republican Conference for
lunch Wednesday to emphasize to senators that they should vote
against the legislation. He told the senators the administration was
treating cartels like governmental entities because they have seized
control of large portions of some Caribbean nations, according to
Sen. John Hoeven of North Dakota.
“These drug trafficking organizations are a direct threat to the
safety and security of the United States to unleash violence and
criminality on our streets, fueled by the drugs and the drug profits
that they make,” Rubio told reporters at the Capitol. “And the
president is the commander in chief, has an obligation to keep our
country safe.”
Still, there is worry in the Senate that the recent buildup of U.S.
maritime forces in the Caribbean was a sign of shifting U.S.
priorities and tactics that could have grave repercussions. Senators
warned that further military strikes had the potential to set off a
conflict with Venezuela.
“This is the kind of thing that leads a country, unexpectedly and
unintentionally, into war," Schiff said.
Following the vote, Sen. Todd Young, an Indiana Republican, said in
a statement that even though he voted against the resolution, he was
still “highly concerned about the legality” of the strikes.
He also raised concern that the military buildup in the Caribbean
could divert resources from countering China's military elsewhere.
Young said he would be meeting with Rubio and Defense Secretary Pete
Hegseth about those concerns and also called for a hearing in the
Senate Foreign Relations Committee.
“The administration should adhere to the Constitution and keep the
people’s representatives informed on this critical national security
issue,” he said.
___
Associated Press writer Lisa Mascaro contributed.
All contents © copyright 2025 Associated Press. All rights reserved
 |
