Kaine Leads Pressure on Trump Administration for Answers on Strike in Caribbean

WASHINGTON, D.C. - Today, U.S. Senator Tim Kaine (D-VA), the top Democrat on the Senate Foreign Relations Subcommittee on the Western Hemisphere and the Senate Armed Services Subcommittee on Seapower, led 24 senators in pressing the Trump Administration for answers regarding the September 2 U.S. military strike on a vessel in the Caribbean Sea that reportedly killed all 11 passengers on board. The Trump Administration has yet to provide Congress or the American people with any legitimate legal justification for the strike, or any evidence to support its claims regarding the basis for this strike or the future strikes it has openly threatened to launch across the region.

"On September 2, 2025, the U.S. military at your direction struck a vessel in the Caribbean Sea, hundreds of miles from the United States and reportedly killing all 11 individuals onboard. Your Administration has asserted, without evidence, that the individuals on the vessel and the vessel's cargo posed a threat to the United States," wrote the senators.

The senators continued, "This strike followed press reports in early August that your Administration had secretly signed a directive for the use of U.S. military force across Latin America - despite the lack of any legal basis for such use of military force."

In the letter, the senators ask President Donald Trump for answers regarding the legality of the strike, the intelligence that led the Administration to strike the vessel, the rationale for striking the vessel rather than conducting a standard interdiction operation, and the Administration's threats to launch additional illegal lethal military strikes in the Caribbean and across the Hemisphere.

In addition to Kaine, the letter was signed by U.S. Senators Cory Booker (D-NJ), Chris Coons (D-DE), Tammy Duckworth (D-IL), Dick Durbin (D-IL), John Hickenlooper (D-CO), Mazie Hirono (D-HI), Mark Kelly (D-AZ), Andy Kim (D-NJ), Angus King (I-ME), Amy Klobuchar (D-MN), Jeff Merkley (D-OR), Patty Murray (D-WA), Jack Reed (D-RI), Bernie Sanders (I-VT), Brian Schatz (D-HI), Adam Schiff (D-CA), Elissa Slotkin (D-MI), Tina Smith (D-MN), Chris Van Hollen (D-MD), Jeanne Shaheen (D-NH), Mark Warner (D-VA), Elizabeth Warren (D-MA), Peter Welch (D-VT), and Ron Wyden (D-OR).

Full text of the letter is available here.

Dear President Trump:

On September 2, 2025, the U.S. military at your direction struck a vessel in the Caribbean Sea, hundreds of miles from the United States and reportedly killing all 11 individuals onboard. Your Administration has asserted, without evidence, that the individuals on the vessel and the vessel's cargo posed a threat to the United States. This strike followed press reports in early August that your Administration had secretly signed a directive for the use of U.S. military force across Latin America - despite the lack of any legal basis for such use of military force. Your September 4^th War Powers Report to Congress following the strike noted "the potential for future such actions," but provided no legitimate legal justification and was scant in details regarding the legal or substantive basis for this or any future strikes.

On issues of national security, protecting Americans, American interests, and our servicemembers who put their lives on the line every day are our top priorities. In the interest of ensuring that Congress's response to this unprecedented step is consistent with these priorities, we assert that Congress made no declaration of war nor did it authorize the use of military force for future similar operations. Classifying a clear law enforcement mission as counterterrorism does not confer legal authority to target and kill civilians.

Further, we request immediate answers from your Administration to the following questions:

1. Your Administration has confirmed multiple times in multiple venues that the Department of State's designation of an entity as a sanctioned Foreign Terrorist Organization does not confer authority for the Department of Defense to use military force against that entity. In light of this legal fact, please clarify the legal and substantive basis for targeting and killing civilians suspected of being affiliated with a designated entity. Please also provide a copy of all legal assessments conducted by the White House, Department of Justice, Department of Defense, or any other entity prior to the strike.
2. As noted above, in your War Powers Report to Congress of September 4^th, you note the "potential for further such actions." However, you do not specify in that report, nor have you specified elsewhere, any legal authority to take military action to target and kill civilians, including those suspected of committing crimes. What is your legal authority to conduct lethal military operations against civilians at sea, within Venezuela or other Latin American countries?
3. Please confirm whether you intend to comply with the reporting and withdrawal requirements of sections 4(a)(1) and 5(b) of the 1973 War Powers Resolution. If not, why not?
4. Who were the individuals targeted in the strike, and what intelligence does the Administration have regarding their identities, any imminent threat they did or did not pose, what crimes they were accused or suspected of, and what alleged affiliations they had with a narcotrafficking criminal organization?
5. How were the individuals targeted in the strike positively identified as lawful targets for lethal military force? What legal review was conducted for assessing whether the use of lethal force in this context and against these particular criminal suspects was lawful under both domestic and international law?
6. The Administration initially stated that the vessel - reportedly a speedboat - was in transit to Trinidad & Tobago, but then later asserted it was en route to the United States. What was the reason for this discrepancy? Can the Administration clarify the expected destination of the vessel? What type of vessel was it and what was the estimated fuel capacity of the vessel? Was additional fuel identified onboard the vessel, and if so, what was the estimated quantity?
7. Did the individuals on that vessel pose an imminent threat to the lives of others? If so, what was the nature of that threat and what other measures short of lethal force were available to avert that threat? Were any escalation of force measures, including interdiction of the vessel, conducted or attempted prior to the strike? If so, what measures were attempted?
8. If so, what rationale was utilized to support the assessment that standard interdiction tactics-such as boarding, seizure, and arrest-were insufficient or inapplicable in this scenario? If no assessment was conducted, why not?
9. What assessment, if any, was conducted regarding whether the use of lethal force in this context could undermine intelligence-gathering opportunities that would come from capturing potential traffickers alive?
10. What assessment, if any, was conducted regarding whether the use of lethal force in this context and against the individuals killed would violate any U.S. laws or place U.S. personnel in jeopardy of violating domestic or international law?
11. Has the intelligence community conducted an assessment of the potential responses by Tren de Aragua or other Latin American criminal entities to lethal strikes by the U.S. military, including the potential for violent action in the United States? If so, please provide a copy of that assessment.

We request that you provide urgent responses to these questions no later than the close of business on Wednesday, September 17.

###