Shadow Lines: Washington’s Growing Unease Over Covert Strikes Near Venezuela
Whispers of a conflict the government has never declared are rippling through the corridors of Washington.
Over the past several weeks, reports have emerged of U.S. military operations targeting small vessels off the coast of Venezuela — boats that American officials allege are linked to powerful transnational drug cartels. The missions, carried out with minimal public acknowledgment and no explicit authorization from Congress, have already claimed more than twenty lives.
Behind closed doors, lawmakers from both parties are voicing discomfort. Some quietly wonder whether the nation is slipping into a new kind of shadow war — one waged not against countries with flags and borders, but against names, organizations, and networks whose identities and legitimacy remain cloaked in ambiguity.
Senate Divided Over Unchecked Presidential Power
The tension erupted on the Senate floor this week, where lawmakers fiercely debated a Democratic resolution aimed at curbing President Trump’s ongoing use of military force in the Caribbean. The proposal, led by Senators Adam Schiff of California and Tim Kaine of Virginia, invoked the War Powers Act to halt the strikes until Congress explicitly authorizes them.
After hours of deliberation, the motion failed by a narrow 48–51 margin — a vote that starkly exposed the growing fracture between the legislative and executive branches over who truly controls America’s military machinery.
“There has been no congressional authorization for these actions,” Schiff declared before the vote. “Each new strike draws us closer to a conflict the Constitution never sanctioned. If this continues unchecked, we risk turning covert missions into open warfare.”
The Administration’s Defense
According to administration officials, four targeted operations have taken place since early September, each aimed at intercepting what they describe as “armed narcotics vessels” tied to international criminal syndicates. Intelligence briefings link these boats to Venezuela’s Tren de Aragua, Mexico’s Sinaloa Cartel, and El Salvador’s MS-13 — all groups Washington has labeled as foreign terrorist organizations.
In a formal notification to Congress following the second strike, the White House asserted that the United States is now engaged in a “non-international armed conflict” with these cartels.
The administration’s report described the cartels’ activities as an “armed attack” against U.S. citizens, arguing that the global narcotics trade constitutes a national security threat comparable to terrorism.
Secretary of State Marco Rubio, addressing Republican senators behind closed doors before the vote, strongly defended the president’s actions. “These are precise, defensive operations targeting imminent threats,” Rubio stated. “They are lawful, constitutional, and necessary to protect the American people from transnational criminal violence.”
Democratic Pushback — and Dissent Within the GOP
Despite these assurances, Democrats — joined by a small but vocal group of Republicans — remain skeptical. Senator Tim Kaine accused the White House of withholding critical intelligence and sidestepping legal obligations. “The administration has offered no transparent justification,” Kaine said during floor debate. “If the president can wage war against unnamed actors without oversight, then Congress becomes irrelevant.”
Kaine, a long-time advocate for reasserting congressional war authority, reminded his colleagues of the 1973 War Powers Resolution, a law enacted after the Vietnam War to rein in unilateral military action. The act requires that any significant use of armed force be reported to Congress within 48 hours and halted after 90 days unless lawmakers formally authorize it.
Among Republican dissenters was Senator Rand Paul of Kentucky, whose libertarian streak has made him a consistent critic of executive overreach. Following the first reported strike, Paul condemned what he called “extrajudicial killings under the banner of national security,” arguing that due process and transparency have been abandoned.
“If justice still means anything in this country,” Paul said on the Senate floor, “then we should at least know who we’re killing and why before we take their lives. The Constitution demands no less.”
Still, many within his party rallied behind the administration. Senator Mike Crapo of Idaho insisted the strikes were both “legally sound and morally necessary,” emphasizing that drug cartels pose a tangible danger to U.S. citizens through the steady flow of fentanyl and other deadly narcotics.
Echoes of Past Power Struggles
The current debate mirrors earlier fights over the limits of presidential war powers. Earlier this year, Kaine led a separate, unsuccessful push to constrain Trump’s authority to carry out military action against Iran after a series of strikes on nuclear-related sites. Each time, the same fundamental question resurfaces: Who decides when America goes to war?
Schiff, echoing this sentiment, warned of the global implications of unchecked power. “If we normalize launching missiles across international waters without oversight,” he cautioned, “what stops other nations from doing the same and calling it self-defense? We risk erasing the moral and legal boundaries that have guided international conduct for decades.”
The Larger Picture: A War in Everything but Name
As the dust settles from this week’s Senate vote, Washington finds itself no closer to consensus. The administration maintains that the strikes are narrow, justified responses to criminal threats. Critics counter that they amount to undeclared warfare, conducted under the veil of national security.
Meanwhile, questions multiply. Who were the individuals killed in these strikes? Were they combatants or civilians? Were the operations coordinated with any international partners or local governments? The lack of answers — and the government’s silence — only deepens public unease.
In the words of one senior congressional aide, speaking on background, “It’s starting to feel like we’ve entered a war we’re not allowed to call a war.”
For now, the operations continue off the Venezuelan coast, far from the scrutiny of the American public. But inside the Capitol, the debate over the balance between security and accountability grows louder with each passing day.
Conclusion
The controversy surrounding these covert strikes highlights a deeper struggle over the essence of American democracy — the tension between swift executive action and the constitutional duty of oversight. As lawmakers grapple with the limits of presidential power, the shadow of past conflicts looms large.
Whether history will remember this moment as a necessary defense or as the quiet beginning of another undeclared war remains to be seen. But one thing is certain: the silence off Venezuela’s shores now echoes in Washington’s halls, reminding a nation that even hidden wars carry consequences.