The White House has contended that its military actions targeting alleged drug-trafficking vessels in the Caribbean and Eastern Pacific do not constitute “hostilities” as defined by the War Powers Resolution (WPR), and thus do not require Congressional approval.

According to the administration, the War Powers Resolution, enacted by Congress in 1973, is applicable only when U.S. forces are placed in direct danger. The strikes, which have reportedly resulted in the deaths of at least 64 individuals, are considered to be low-risk to American troops since they are primarily carried out by drones launched from Navy ships.

“These operations involve precise drone strikes from naval vessels stationed in international waters, keeping our personnel safely distanced from any potential threats posed by the targeted vessels,” a senior administration official, who wished to remain anonymous, explained to The Hill on Monday.

This statement comes as the 60-day deadline approaches since the White House initially informed Congress about its first strike against a suspected drug-trafficking boat. The WPR mandates that military activities be halted after 60 days unless Congress grants authorization or the president requests an additional 30-day period.

The official emphasized that the current operations do not meet the “hostilities” criteria, noting that the Trump administration’s Office of Legal Counsel’s interpretation aligns with past legal stances from the Clinton and Reagan eras, as detailed in opinions by former assistant attorneys general.

In a 1996 opinion, Walter Dellinger, the assistant attorney general in the OLC, did not discuss the 60-day limit when addressing former President Clinton’s deployment of peacekeeping forces to Haiti, but added the decision would “not involve the risk of major or prolonged hostilities or serious casualties to either the United States or Haiti.” 

“The Executive Branch has taken the position from the very beginning” that the WPR “does not constitute a legally binding definition of Presidential authority to deploy our armed forces,” former Assistant Attorney General Theodore Olson wrote in the 1984 legal opinion, referenced by the White House. 

Other administrations have made similar arguments. In 2011, the Obama administration said the WPR was not applicable since there were no U.S. troops on the ground and continued fighting with opposing forces during the air campaign against Libya. 

The strikes targeting alleged drug-smuggling boats have continued, with Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth announcing late Saturday that the U.S. military took out a “narco-trafficking” vessel operated by a designated terrorist organization in the Caribbean, killing three. 

“On the campaign trail, President Trump promised to take on the cartels — and he has taken unprecedented action to stop the scourge of narcoterrorism that has resulted in the needless deaths of innocent Americans,” the administration official said Monday. 

Lawmakers on both sides of the aisle have asked the administration for more information about the legal rationale the White House is relying on for the strikes. 

Democrats on the House Armed Services Committee were not satisfied with last week’s briefing on the boat strikes, expressing frustration with the answers they have gotten on the legality of the operations and the White House’s “end game.” 

The administration official pushed back, saying by “regularly notifying and briefing the House and the Senate on this important matter, the Administration continues to demonstrate great transparency in its communications” with Congress.

Sens. Roger Wicker (R-Miss.), the chair of the Senate Armed Services Committee, and Sen. Jack Reed (D-R.I.), the top Democrat on the panel, published letters on Friday, where they demanded the Pentagon’s copies of the orders issued to strike boats, the legal opinion for the military action and a complete list “of all designated terrorist organizations and drug trafficking organizations with whom the President has determined the United States is in a non-international armed conflict and against whom lethal military force may be used.”

Reed told reporters Monday the Defense Department gave the pair “assurances that they’ll make the information available” to lawmakers. 

“I hope that’s a first step, not a final step, so that all of my members can understand what their arguments are, what their plan was,” the Rhode Island senator said. 

A bipartisan resolution, which is being led by Sens. Tim Kaine (D-Va.), Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) and Rand Paul (R-Ky.), which would halt the strikes, could come for a vote as soon as Wednesday, but discussions are ongoing, Schiff’s spokesperson told The Hill on Monday. 

Kaine told reporters on Monday he would like to put the measure up for a vote this week, but it will depend on the upper chamber’s schedule. 

“It could be this week, we’ll see tomorrow what the schedule is likely to be, including on the budget issues and stuff like that. And there could be some lean time or gap time, where we would put that in,” Kaine said.