On Thursday, Senate Judiciary Committee Chair Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) shot down a demand from every Democrat on the panel for a public hearing on the Trump administration’s boat strike campaign in the Caribbean.
The issue at hand is the administration’s series of military airstrikes targeting suspected drug trafficking vessels, with at least 25 strikes since September resulting in 95 deaths, prompting Democrats to cry foul over potential violations of U.S. law while Grassley stands firm on the campaign’s legal grounding.
For American taxpayers, this isn’t just a policy spat—it’s a question of whether their hard-earned dollars are funding operations that could expose the nation to legal liability or international backlash, risking costly lawsuits or diplomatic fallout down the line.
Since September, the Trump administration has authorized at least 25 known strikes on boats suspected of drug smuggling in the Caribbean, leaving a grim tally of 95 lives lost.
Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee, clearly rattled, penned a letter on Wednesday to Grassley, demanding a public hearing to grill Justice Department officials over the legal rationale for these deadly operations.
They’re waving red flags, suggesting these strikes might trample on U.S. criminal statutes, but let’s be real—drug trafficking isn’t a game of patty-cake, and tough measures often stir up tough questions.
On Thursday, Grassley put his foot down, rejecting the Democrats’ plea for a public showdown over the strikes.
He pointed to a classified Justice Department opinion from earlier this summer, arguing it provides solid legal cover for the administration’s actions. If the memo’s as airtight as he claims, why the fuss?
“I personally made sure that both the majority and minority sides of the committee got access to the Office of Legal Counsel’s well-written classified opinion explaining the administration’s lawful authority to conduct these strikes,” Grassley said, sounding like a man who’s done his homework.
Democrats aren’t buying Grassley’s reasoning, dismissing the legal opinion as flimsy and branding the strikes as potential war crimes—a charge that’s sure to raise eyebrows among conservatives who see drug cartels as the real criminals.
“There is not, nor can there be, any justification for state-sanctioned extrajudicial killings,” the Democratic members of the committee declared, doubling down with, “Summary executions have no place in a constitutional democracy operating under the rule of law, no matter how heinous the accusations a government makes against someone.”
That’s a lofty sentiment, but when deadly drugs flood our streets, isn’t it worth asking if the rule of law sometimes demands a heavier hand?
Adding to the drama, Democrats this week ramped up pressure on the Pentagon to release unedited footage of a second strike on September 2 near Venezuela, where two survivors of an earlier hit were killed.
Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth rebuffed the request on Tuesday, citing classified information, though Navy Adm. Frank Bradley hinted a day later at possibly wider release—talk about mixed signals.
Meanwhile, Senate Republicans blocked an attempt by Sen. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) on Wednesday evening to force a vote on mandating the Pentagon to publish the video, proving the partisan divide on transparency and accountability isn’t budging anytime soon.
