‘There’s No Strategy’: Lawmakers Question Trump’s Military Buildup Near Latin America

The Trump administration’s decision to redeploy the USS Gerald R. Ford to the Caribbean is raising new questions on Capitol Hill about the scale of the buildup of forces — and what the government intends to do with them.

“It’s deeply concerning for this Administration to deploy military assets without strategy or transparency,” Rep. Jason Crow, a Democrat from Colorado and a member of the House Armed Services Committee, told NOTUS in a statement. “After 25 years of war and trillions of dollars, Americans want restraint and lasting security. But Trump doesn’t see a problem he can’t bomb his way out of.”

Crow said after receiving briefings that “there’s no strategy. There’s no real plan to end the flow of drugs into the U.S. — just more conflict and more taxpayer money.”

The Ford’s arrival pushes the number of U.S. warships in the region to about a dozen, with close to 15,000 troops, an unusual buildup for an area that normally sees only one or two Navy vessels supporting Coast Guard drug missions. Since early September, the U.S. has conducted at least 21 strikes that have killed at least 80 people.

The administration has said the Ford was pulled from its Europe deployment to support the Caribbean campaign. But some lawmakers suspect there’s something bigger than boat strikes in the works.

Senior military officials on Wednesday briefed President Donald Trump on updated options for potential operations in Venezuela, including possible land strikes CBS reported.

The White House did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Analysts say the operation in the Caribbean looks far larger than what is needed for narcotics interdiction.

“This is overkill if you’re just trying to go after drug trafficking organizations,” said Bryan Clark, a former Navy officer and senior fellow at the Hudson Institute. He said the scale of the deployment signals “something more robust than just this counter-drug operation,” including the possibility of “sustained strikes ashore” or missions against criminal groups operating inside Venezuela.

Lawmakers are pushing for more answers. Crow and fellow Armed Services Committee members Democrat Rep. Seth Moulton of Massachusetts and Republicans Reps. Don Bacon of Nebraska and Michael Turner of Ohio sent a letter to the administration earlier this month asking officials to spell out the legal basis for the strikes and explain the shift from traditional interdiction to lethal military force, how it verifies targets and whether it plans to seek congressional authorization.

Lawmakers also requested a classified briefing on how targets are identified and how post-strike reviews are conducted.

“We need far more specifics about what is the endgame. How long is this going to go on?” Rep. Adam Smith of Washington, the ranking member of the House Armed Service Committee, said on MSNBC on Monday, calling the campaign “a very expensive, massive commitment of resources” with “highly questionable” legal footing.

The administration has said it can act without congressional authorization and that the U.S. is in a “non-international armed conflict” with drug cartels.

Thus far, efforts to check the president on boat strikes and Venezuela have failed.

Sen. Tim Kaine of Virginia, one of the senators who led the effort to curb the president’s war authority, told reporters last week that a classified legal memo he reviewed “makes no effort to claim that there’s a legal rationale for invading a sovereign nation,” yet the size of the force suggests something beyond routine interdiction.

Sen. Adam Schiff of California, who also pushed for the measures, said it “strains credulity to believe that you’re bringing in 15 percent of our naval forces” to target small boats, adding that such a concentration of assets increases operational risk.

Analysts differ on whether shifting forces to the region creates risk for U.S. and NATO interests.

Clark said the redeployment “actually doesn’t take that much risk on” because the Ford was nearing the end of its planned deployment, and Europe is relatively quiet. He pointed to a lull in the Middle East and stable conditions in Europe.

But he warned that could change if the operation stretches into the coming months. Extending the Ford or its escorts past their normal cycle would begin to strain crews and maintenance schedules.

“If this extends for a couple more months, then we’re going to have to start thinking about either replacing ships on deployment or extending ships to the point where now we’re going to have to think about some downstream effects,” he said.

Retired Marine Col. Mark Cancian, a defense analyst at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, said pulling the Ford out of Europe reflects a deliberate shift in the administration’s global priorities.

“The United States could launch strikes against Venezuela and counter-drug operations without the Ford,” Cancian said. He called the carrier a “useful reinforcement” but not necessary for one-off strikes. Sending it to the Caribbean “was a statement by the administration about what they believed was important.”

“The administration has said its top priority is homeland security and hemispheric security, and that Europe, for example, is less important,” Cancian said.

The real test will come if a crisis breaks out elsewhere and the administration must decide whether to pull forces back or keep them in the Caribbean, Cancian said.

“It’s a strategic choice,” Cancian said. “Not one that I would make.”