Executive Summary
The Story So Far
Why This Matters
Who Thinks What?
President Donald Trump’s administration has formally informed Congress that the United States is engaged in an “armed conflict” with drug cartels designated as terrorist organizations. This determination, outlined in a Pentagon notice provided on Wednesday, also declares cartel smugglers as “unlawful combatants,” providing a legal basis for the Defense Department to conduct military strikes against them. The US military has reportedly carried out at least three such strikes in the past month, resulting in 17 fatalities, though the notice to Congress specifically mentioned only one strike on September 15.
Legal Justification for Military Action
The Pentagon’s notice asserts that President Trump has determined these cartels are “non-state armed groups” whose actions constitute an “armed attack against the United States.” This legal framework allows for military operations against them. Earl Matthews, the Pentagon’s general counsel, along with uniformed department representatives, briefed lawmakers on Wednesday, largely reiterating the points made in the written notice.
The administration describes the cartels as increasingly “armed, well organized, and violent,” possessing “financial means, sophistication, and paramilitary capabilities needed to operate with impunity.” The notice highlights their transnational nature and ongoing attacks across the Western Hemisphere.
Shift in Combatant Status
This designation marks a significant shift in how the US government approaches drug cartels. Historically, cartel members and drug smugglers have been treated as criminals subject to due process rights. Under the new determination, classifying them as “unlawful combatants” strips them of these rights, allowing for their lawful killing through military action.
CNN previously reported in May that the administration was considering applying an “enemy combatant” designation to suspected narco-terrorists, both domestically and internationally, to justify indefinite detention or lethal strikes.
Military Strikes and Congressional Concerns
The notice to Congress specifically detailed a strike in the Caribbean on September 15, which President Trump stated targeted suspected smugglers affiliated with the Venezuelan criminal organization Tren de Aragua. While the notice only mentioned this single incident, CNN has reported at least three military strikes over the last month, killing 17 people in total. The reason for not mentioning the other strikes in the notice remains unclear.
The description of these military actions as part of an “armed conflict” suggests a long-term campaign rather than isolated acts of self-defense. This has raised questions, particularly after CNN reported that at least one boat struck last month was heading away from the US, suggesting it may not have posed an imminent threat.
Democratic Sen. Jack Reed, the ranking member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, has voiced strong objections, stating that the Trump administration has “offered no credible legal justification, evidence, or intelligence for these strikes.” Sen. Reed emphasized that drug cartels should be handled by law enforcement and expressed alarm over the President’s decision to “wage secret wars against anyone he calls an enemy” without informing Congress or the public.
Presidential Authority and Oversight
President Trump’s administration cites Article II of the Constitution for the authority to use military force when it serves the national interest and does not constitute “war” in the constitutional sense, which would require an act of Congress. However, the President is still required to establish that targets of US military attacks are legitimate combatants under both international and domestic law.
The declaration of an “armed conflict” and the designation of cartel members as “unlawful combatants” fundamentally alters the legal framework for US engagement with these organizations. It represents a significant expansion of presidential power in addressing transnational criminal threats, sparking a contentious debate over legal justification, congressional oversight, and the treatment of individuals traditionally considered criminals.
