ºÃÉ«tv

It was the first vote in Congress on Trump’s military campaign, which according to the White House has so far , killed at least 21 people and stopped narcotics from reaching the U.S.. The war powers resolution would have required the president to seek authorization from Congress before further military strikes on the cartels.

The Trump administration has asserted that are armed combatants threatening the United States, creating justification to use military force. But that assertion has been met with some unease on Capitol Hill.

Some Republicans are asking the White House for more clarification on its legal justification and specifics on how the strikes are conducted, while Democrats insist they are violations of U.S. and international law. It’s a clash that could redefine how the world’s most powerful military uses lethal force and set the tone for future global conflict.

The White House had indicated Trump would veto the legislation, and even though the Senate vote failed it gave lawmakers an opportunity to go on the record with their objections to Trump’s declaration that the U.S. is in “armed conflict� with drug cartels.

“It sends a message when a significant number of legislators say, ‘Hey, this is a bad idea,’� said Sen. Tim Kaine, a Virginia Democrat who pushed the resolution alongside Democratic Sen. Adam Schiff of California.

What is the War Powers Resolution?

Wednesday's vote was brought under the War Powers Resolution of 1973, which was intended to reassert congressional power over the declaration of war.

“Congress must not allow the executive branch to become judge, jury and executioner,� Paul, a Kentucky Republican who has long pushed for greater congressional oversight of war powers, said during a floor speech.

Paul was the only Republican to publicly speak in favor of the resolution before the vote, but a number of GOP senators have questioned the strikes on vessels and said they are not receiving enough information from the administration.

Sen. Kevin Cramer, a North Dakota Republican, acknowledged “there may be some concern� in the Republican conference about the strikes. However, Republican leaders argued against the resolution on the Senate floor Wednesday, calling it a political ploy from Democrats.

“People were attacking our country by bringing in poisonous substances to deposit into our country that would have killed Americans,� said Sen. Jim Risch, the chair of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. “Fortunately most of those drugs are now at the bottom of the ocean.�

Risch thanked Trump for his actions and added that he hoped the military strikes would continue.

What has the administration told Congress about the strikes?

Members of the Senate Armed Services Committee received a classified briefing last week on the strikes, and Cramer said he was “comfortable with at least the plausibility of their legal argument.� But he added that no one representing intelligence agencies or the military command structure for Central and South America was present for the briefing.

“I’d be more comfortable defending the administration if they shared the information,� he said.

Kaine also said the briefing did not include any information on why the military chose to destroy the vessels rather than interdict them or get into the specifics of how the military was so confident that the vessels were carrying drugs.

“Maybe they were engaged in human trafficking, or maybe it was the wrong ship,� Schiff said. “We just have little or no information about who was onboard these ships or what intelligence was used or what the rationale was and how certain we could be that everyone on that ship deserved to die.�

The Democrats also said the administration has told them it is adding cartels to a list of organizations deemed “narco-terrorists� that are targets for military strikes, but it has not shown the lawmakers a complete list.

“The slow erosion of congressional oversight is not an abstract debate about process,� Sen. Jack Reed, the top Democrat on the Senate Armed Services Committee, said in a floor speech. “It is a real and present threat to our democracy.�

A visit from Rubio

Secretary of State visited the Republican Conference for lunch Wednesday to emphasize to senators that they should vote against the legislation. He told the senators the administration was treating cartels like governmental entities because they have seized control of large portions of some Caribbean nations, according to Sen. John Hoeven of North Dakota.

“These drug trafficking organizations are a direct threat to the safety and security of the United States to unleash violence and criminality on our streets, fueled by the drugs and the drug profits that they make,� Rubio told reporters at the Capitol. “And the president is the commander in chief, has an obligation to keep our country safe.�

Still, there is worry in the Senate that the recent buildup of U.S. maritime forces in the Caribbean was a sign of shifting U.S. priorities and tactics that could have grave repercussions. Senators warned that further military strikes had the potential to set off a conflict with Venezuela.

“This is the kind of thing that leads a country, unexpectedly and unintentionally, into war," Schiff said.

Following the vote, Sen. Todd Young, an Indiana Republican, said in a statement that even though he voted against the resolution, he was still “highly concerned about the legality� of the strikes.

He also raised concern that the military buildup in the Caribbean could divert resources from countering China's military elsewhere. Young said he would be meeting with Rubio and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth about those concerns and also called for a hearing in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.

“The administration should adhere to the Constitution and keep the people’s representatives informed on this critical national security issue,� he said.

___

Associated Press writer Lisa Mascaro contributed.