A fresh Senate briefing has undercut the White House narrative behind a lethal campaign of boat strikes in the Caribbean and Pacific, raising legal and strategic questions as the death toll climbs. Sen. Mark Kelly said senators were shown material that contradicted the administration’s claim that targeted vessels were ferrying fentanyl toward the United States. “We were presented some evidence that does not back up the story that the White House is telling to the American people,” Kelly told ABC’s This Week, adding that there were drugs on some boats, but not fentanyl.
Since early September, the Pentagon has carried out a string of attacks on alleged smuggling craft, actions that Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth has framed as necessary to confront criminal networks. Reporting shows at least ten strikes and at least 43 people killed, a striking departure from traditional interdictions handled by the Coast Guard. The administration has compared the effort to counterterror operations, a framing that alarms legal experts and several lawmakers.
The policy case for using missiles against small boats looks even shakier in light of long standing federal assessments about how fentanyl actually enters the country. The Drug Enforcement Administration’s National Drug Threat Assessment has identified Mexico and China as primary sources of fentanyl flowing into the United States, with India emerging, a trafficking pattern that typically relies on land borders and parcel shipments, not Caribbean speedboats.
On Capitol Hill, pushback is growing. Earlier this month, the Senate narrowly blocked an attempt to even debate legislation that would curb President Trump’s authority to continue the strikes without congressional approval. Republicans Rand Paul and Lisa Murkowski joined nearly all Democrats in favor, while Democrat John Fetterman voted with Republicans, underscoring the uneasy cross currents around the campaign. A follow up effort led by Sens. Adam Schiff and Tim Kaine has kept the pressure on leadership to revisit the question.
Kelly, a Navy veteran, pressed the core issue, whether the intelligence matches the public rationale. On ABC he said the evidence senators reviewed did not substantiate the fentanyl storyline, and he warned that escalating to open conflict would be reckless. “This doesn’t make the United States more safe. This makes us less safe,” he said. “Starting a war against [a country] over what is a law enforcement action does not make any sense.” His comments track with a broader concern voiced by colleagues that the administration has not shown why suspected smugglers should be treated like enemy combatants.
Outside the Senate chamber, veterans of drug policy and regional experts note that strikes on the high seas risk civilian casualties and diplomatic blowback, particularly as the United States ramps up pressure on Venezuela’s Nicolás Maduro. Analysts point out that even when drugs are aboard, the use of military force rather than interdiction and arrest can complicate evidence chains and erode legitimacy in the region. Those warnings have grown louder as Hegseth orders additional deployments, including an aircraft carrier strike group off Venezuela.
Lawmakers from both parties have complained that classified briefings have not answered basic questions about target selection, rules of engagement, and why interdiction or boarding is not feasible in many cases. One senator told colleagues on the floor that the maritime routes in question are historically linked to other narcotics, not fentanyl, casting further doubt on the stated rationale for lethal force.
