The White House argued lethal military strikes against alleged drug-trafficking boats in the Caribbean and Eastern Pacific do not rise to the level of \u201chostilities\u201d that would warrant authorization from Congress under the War Powers Resolution (WPR).<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The administration said the WPR, which Congress passed in 1973, would only apply when putting the U.S. in harm\u2019s way and that the strikes on alleged drug-smuggling boats, which so far have killed at least 64 people, are not endangering military personnel since they are \u201clargely\u201d conducted by unmanned aerial vehicles that take off from Navy vessels.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\u201cHere, the operation comprises precise strikes conducted largely by unmanned aerial vehicles launched from naval vessels in international waters at distances too far away for the crews of the targeted vessels to endanger American personnel,\u201d a senior administration official, speaking on condition of anonymity, told The Hill on Monday.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Monday marked the 60-day deadline since the White House first notified Congress of its initial strike against an alleged drug-trafficking vessel. The WPR says the president needs to discontinue military operations after 60 days if an authorization from Congress is not obtained or the commander-in-chief can request a 30-day extension.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The administration official said the escalating strikes do not meet the threshold of \u201chostilities\u201d and that the Trump administration\u2019s Office of Legal Counsel\u2019s (OLC) position on the matter is \u201cconsistent with its traditional approach,\u201d pointing to legal opinions authored by assistant attorneys general during the Clinton and Reagan presidencies.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
In a 1996 opinion<\/u><\/a>, Walter Dellinger,<\/u><\/a> the assistant attorney general in the OLC, did not discuss the 60-day limit when addressing former President Clinton\u2019s deployment of peacekeeping forces to Haiti, but added the decision would \u201cnot involve the risk of major or prolonged hostilities or serious casualties to either the United States or Haiti.\u201d <\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cThe Executive Branch has taken the position from the very beginning\u201d that the WPR \u201cdoes not constitute a legally binding definition of Presidential authority to deploy our armed forces,\u201d former Assistant Attorney General Theodore Olson wrote<\/u><\/a> in the 1984 legal opinion, referenced by the White House. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Other administrations have made similar arguments. In 2011, the Obama\u2002<\/u><\/a>administration said the WPR was not applicable since there were no U.S. troops on the ground and continued fighting with opposing forces during the air campaign against Libya. <\/p>\n\n\n\n The strikes targeting alleged drug-smuggling boats have continued, with Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth\u2002<\/u><\/a>announcing late Saturday that the U.S. military took out a \u201cnarco-trafficking\u201d vessel operated by a designated terrorist organization in the Caribbean, killing three. <\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cOn the campaign trail, President Trump\u2002<\/u><\/a>promised to take on the cartels \u2014 and he has taken unprecedented action to stop the scourge of narcoterrorism that has resulted in the needless deaths of innocent Americans,\u201d the administration official said Monday. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Lawmakers on both sides of the aisle have asked the administration for more information about the legal rationale the White House is relying on for the strikes. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Democrats on the House Armed Services Committee were not satisfied with last week\u2019s briefing on the boat strikes, expressing frustration<\/u><\/a> with the answers they have gotten on the legality of the operations and the White House\u2019s \u201cend game.\u201d <\/p>\n\n\n\n The administration official pushed back, saying by \u201cregularly notifying and briefing the House and the Senate on this important matter, the Administration continues to demonstrate great transparency in its communications\u201d with Congress.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Sens. Roger Wicker\u2002<\/u><\/a>(R-Miss.), the chair of the Senate Armed Services Committee, and Sen. Jack Reed\u2002<\/u><\/a>(D-R.I.), the top Democrat on the panel, published letters<\/u><\/a> on Friday, where they demanded the Pentagon\u2019s copies of the orders issued to strike boats, the legal opinion for the military action and a complete list \u201cof all designated terrorist organizations and drug trafficking organizations with whom the President has determined the United States is in a non-international armed conflict and against whom lethal military force may be used.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n Reed told reporters Monday the Defense Department gave the pair \u201cassurances that they\u2019ll make the information available\u201d to lawmakers. <\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cI hope that\u2019s a first step, not a final step, so that all of my members can understand what their arguments are, what their plan was,\u201d the Rhode Island senator said. <\/p>\n\n\n\n A bipartisan resolution<\/u><\/a>, which is being led by Sens. Tim Kaine\u2002<\/u><\/a>(D-Va.), Adam Schiff\u2002<\/u><\/a>(D-Calif.) and Rand Paul\u2002<\/u><\/a>(R-Ky.), which would halt the strikes, could come for a vote as soon as Wednesday, but discussions are ongoing, Schiff\u2019s spokesperson told The Hill on Monday. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Kaine told reporters on Monday he would like to put the measure up for a vote this week, but it will depend on the upper chamber\u2019s schedule. <\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cIt could be this week, we\u2019ll see tomorrow what the schedule is likely to be, including on the budget issues and stuff like that. And there could be some lean time or gap time, where we would put that in,\u201d Kaine said. <\/p>\n\n\n\n