Speaker Mike Johnson defends U.S. strikes against Venezuela-based narco-terrorists, citing Trump’s 20+ classified briefings, September 2 video evidence shared with the Gang of Eight, and an OLC opinion reviewed by 150 members—unlike Obama’s 2009–2015 drone program killing 3,700 without legal oversight. He frames drug-related deaths as surpassing major conflicts’ tolls in four years, while Tim Burchett questions unintended civilian harm despite high-speed boats and mercury engines. Jason Crow insists congressional authorization is needed, underscoring the debate over executive vs. legislative war powers in modern counterterrorism. [Automatically generated summary]
I think legally they've got all the legitimacy they need, but the Democrats would block that anyway, because then they'd have to admit they were wrong for the last four years.
Yeah, so we just received a briefing from the Secretary of War and the Secretary of State and our top military officials on the strikes against the narco-terrorists off the coast of Venezuela.
Questions are still being answered by members, but I think the information that was provided was very helpful.
It affirms what many of us have already known.
And I'm going to share some thoughts with you about what was shared in there, but ultimately the big question about what authority supports all this.
The President of the United States has directed these actions consistent with his responsibility.
And that responsibility is clear to protect Americans and United States interests abroad and in furtherance of the United States national security and foreign policy interests pursuant to his constitutional authority.
He has that authority as Commander-in-Chief and as the Chief Executive to conduct foreign relations.
As the Commander-in-Chief, President Trump has both the authority and the obligation to defend our homeland, and I think that's beyond dispute.
Pursuant to this constitutional authority and the law of armed conflict, the President determined that the United States is in non-international armed conflict.
That's NIAC, as the acronym is known.
And that is with designated terrorist organizations and their affiliates who have evolved into complex structures with financial means and parliamentary capabilities needed to operate with impunity, engage in violence and terrorism.
That presents a clear and present danger to the security of America and threaten other nations in our hemisphere.
I want to make this point very clear.
Over the last four years alone, America has lost more lives to drug overdoses and other drug-related deaths than we did to the enemy actions in World War II, Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan, and Iraq combined.
This is a serious problem that a serious administration is addressing.
These are highly organized and sophisticated narco-terrorist organizations, and they operate, as we said, with impunity.
And the President has determined that these cartels constitute the legally defined groups that allow us to take these actions.
The Trump administration, by the way, has been much more forthcoming with the legal rationale behind these strikes than prior administrations.
And I want to point out this one example.
From 2009 to 2015, President Obama conducted over 500 drone strikes, killing over 3,700 persons, some of whom were United States citizens.
And he never offered any legal justification to Congress at all.
The Department of War has now briefed Congress more than 20 times in bipartisan classified settings on these strikes.
Secretary Rubio and Secretary Hegseth have briefed the Gang of Eight and the Gang of 16 as well.
I've been in those briefings myself.
The administration has also made available multiple documents to the Hill, including the Office of Legal Counsel opinion, which has been reviewed by over 150 members.
The Department of War has shown video of the September 2nd strike to the Gang of Eight and leadership of the Armed Services and Appropriations, Defense Appropriations Committees.
They'll be made available to all members of the Armed Services Committee this week.
This is exquisite intelligence that supports these actions.
It is certainly appropriate, and it's necessary to protect the United States and our interests.
That's what was presented today.
Different members have different questions.
I hope and assume that all those are being answered.