Some Republican lawmakers say America is at war with foreign drug smugglers, but they have little interest in having a say in the fight — despite Congress’ constitutional responsibility to authorize military force.
Several Republican lawmakers interviewed Tuesday said they would prefer to leave it up to the president. Rep. Derrick Van Orden told NOTUS he has just one word of input for President Donald Trump after a second deadly strike on a boat carrying alleged drug smugglers from Venezuela: “More.”
“They’re narco-terrorists that are trying to smuggle poison into the United States to kill our citizens,” he said. “I have no concern about eradicating these savages, at all.”
Trump has said the first strike killed 11 people suspected of smuggling drugs earlier this month. On Monday night, he announced the U.S. military had killed three more people in a similar strike, calling them “narcoterrorists.” And on Tuesday, he said the U.S. had “knocked off” a third boat, offering no details.
In interviews with NOTUS, Republicans across the ideological spectrum praised the strikes, saying they had no worries about the president using lethal force to summarily execute noncombatants, rather than seeking to apprehend and try them through the criminal justice system. Members mostly rejected the idea that Congress should be involved and emphasized how dire America’s drug overdose crisis has been in recent years.
“I’ve said all along this is a war against the United States,” Rep. Carlos Gimenez of Florida told NOTUS. “These terrorists have been killing tens if not hundreds of thousands of Americans.”
“If you’re going to wage war on us, we’re going to wage war on you. And that’s war,” he said.
An administration official told NOTUS after the first strike that the administration “did everything to the letter of the law.” The official spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss the matter.
National security law experts have said the strikes go against the military’s longstanding practice of avoiding lethal force against noncombatants, even civilians engaged in criminal behavior. Venezuelan leader Nicolás Maduro called the strike in early September “a military attack on civilians who were not at war and were not militarily threatening any country.” Venezuela’s interior minister said the people killed in that boat strike were not members of Tren de Aragua, the gang Trump designated as a terrorist organization.
Republican Sen. Rand Paul condemned the initial strike, but most Republicans have been supportive of the president’s actions.
“I have no problem with what the president is doing,” Gimenez said. “We don’t vote on every single use of military force.”
“We’re not fighting, like, a country, right?” he added. “We’re fighting people that are waging war on us, like the war on terrorism and all that. So this is the same thing.”
Van Orden agreed. “We’re not going to declare war on Venezuela,” he said. “The president of the United States is the commander in chief, and he’s incredibly competent. Pete Hegseth is incredibly competent. Marco Rubio is incredibly competent. They’re doing their job.”
Members also dismissed the idea that the administration could prosecute suspected smugglers in court instead of executing them.
“Doing what works should be the first priority,” Rep. Scott Perry, a Pennsylvania Republican, said. “Apprehending them doesn’t do anything because they keep killing our people.”
The Trump administration has a spotty record identifying gang members, sending people unaffiliated with Tren de Aragua to a prison camp in El Salvador without due process earlier this year.
Still, Republicans brushed off questions about how they can be sure the White House is targeting the right people for these strikes.
“I’m comfortable they’ve made the right calls in the two instances I know of,” Rep. Tom Cole of Oklahoma said. “I think the president felt like we’d had enough, and it was time to take strong action.”
And Rep. Tim Burchett, a Tennessee Republican, said the strikes have sent “a message,” and officially declaring war through an act of Congress would mean “alerting the other side.”
“We’ll provide some oversight afterwards,” he told NOTUS. “If we see that there’s some violations that are going on, then we’ll correct it.”
A couple of Republicans on Tuesday agreed that some oversight may be in order at some point, but not necessarily now.
House Foreign Affairs Committee Chair Brian Mast said he’s open to a declaration of war or an authorization for the use of military force — “It’s a real conversation,” he told NOTUS — but he believes the president has enough authority to order strikes like these on his own.
And Rep. Don Bacon, a Nebraska Republican who is set to retire at the end of this Congress, said he views drug overdoses as a crisis validating the use of force.
“All I demand is, make sure you know what you’re hitting,” Bacon said. “Make sure you’re 100% confident.”
“But 100,000 people a year are dying from fentanyl,” he continued. “So I’m apt to give the president the benefit of the doubt here.”
Rep. James Comer, who chairs the House Oversight Committee, told NOTUS he needs to look into the details. “I’m still studying what they’ve done,” he said.
Even so, he deferred to Trump.
“I applaud President Trump for taking direct action,” Comer said. “We certainly need to look at the process and things like that, but at least somebody’s trying to do something to rid our country of drugs that are infesting our young people.”