Reed Rebukes Trump’s Military Strike in the Caribbean and “Department of War” Rebranding

WASHINGTON, DC - Today, U.S. Senator Jack Reed (D-RI), the Ranking Member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, delivered a speech on the Senate floor warning that President Trump's unauthorized military strike in the Caribbean and unilateral order to rename the Department of Defense to the "Department of War" threaten America's constitutional balance of power and risk dragging the nation into an undeclared war with Venezuela.

Senator Reed condemned the strike, which reportedly killed eleven people, as a premeditated use of lethal force carried out without congressional authorization, clear legal justification, or evidence of an imminent threat. He called for full transparency, demanding that the administration release the intelligence, legal rationale, and any presidential orders related to the attack. Reed urged Congress to reassert its constitutional war powers and prevent the United States from "stumbling into war by the reckless act of a single man."

A video of Senator Reed's remarks may be viewed here.

A transcript of Senator Reed's floor speech follows:

REED: Mr. President, last week, President Trump gave two orders to the U.S. military that were astonishing, even by this Administration's standards. First, he ordered the Department of Defense to be renamed the "Department of War" - a political theater exercise designed to sound tough while distracting from the real issues facing this nation. Second, he ordered a military strike on a speedboat operating in the Caribbean, reportedly killing eleven people on board.

In response to the attack, Venezuela has placed its military on high alert, and we are one miscalculation away from a shooting war that no one in this chamber has authorized. Rather than rebranding itself, the Pentagon should be providing to Congress and the American public answers: the intelligence that justified that strike, the legal authority the President relied upon, and an assurance that we are not drifting toward another undeclared war.

The Department of Defense was named as such after World War II for a reason. It was a deliberate statement that America's military is not a tool of conquest, but a shield designed to deter aggression, defend the Constitution, and keep the peace. Reverting to the old name would not make us safer; it would send exactly the wrong message to the world at a time when tensions are already dangerously high.

Changing the name of the Department of Defense will not improve military readiness. It will not strengthen deterrence. It will not prevent a single conflict. What it will do is signal to the world that America is abandoning its role as a stabilizing force and embracing a posture of permanent war.

I am deeply concerned about the President's military actions in the Caribbean, which were taken without congressional authorization, without clear legal justification, and without any evidence presented that it was necessary to protect the United States or its forces from an imminent threat. Now nearly a week after the operation and amid threats of additional actions, the Administration is just beginning to brief Congress on these issues.

I want to be very clear: we all share a commitment to protecting the American people from transnational criminal organizations. Cartels are violent and dangerous, and they cannot be allowed to traffic across our borders. But we cannot allow that homeland security mission to become a blank check for war. We cannot let one man's impulsive decision-making entangle this nation in another conflict we neither need nor want.

Last week's strike was no minor confrontation. This was a deliberate, lethal use of American military power. Press reports suggest that the operation was carried out by an attack helicopter or an MQ-9 Reaper drone. Neither of those platforms are deployed merely to fire warning shots. Those aircraft are designed for precision strikes. There is no evidence - none - that this strike was conducted in self-defense.

That matters, because under both domestic and international law, the U.S. military simply does not have the authority to use lethal force against a civilian vessel unless acting in self-defense. At most, and only in extraordinary circumstances, warning shots or disabling fire might be used to halt a vessel posing an imminent threat. That is the standing rule of engagement for U.S. forces worldwide. There are no indications that U.S. forces attempted to stop, board, or even contact the vessel in question. Lethal force, particularly force that kills nearly a dozen people, is reserved for moments when no other option exists, when the safety of U.S. personnel or vital interests is immediately at stake.

No such case has been made here.

The Trump Administration has offered no proof that this vessel was engaged in an attack, or even that it was engaged in drug trafficking at the time. They have offered no positive identification that the boat was Venezuelan, nor that its crew were members of Tren de Aragua or any other cartel. And even if we believe their unsupported assertions, that does not change the legal calculus. Our armed forces are not law enforcement agencies. They are not empowered to hunt down suspected criminals and kill them without trial. The Department of Defense's own senior leadership - including the Acting Assistant Secretary of Defense for Special Operations and Low-Intensity Conflict - has testified before the Armed Services Committee that the mere designation of a cartel as a "foreign terrorist organization" does not confer any new authority to use military force.

So let us be candid about what this means: eleven people were killed without any justification, other than the word of President Trump. If there is evidence that these people were indeed cartel members trafficking drugs, it needs to be made public immediately.

I would point out that the U.S. military monitors maritime drug movement in this region on a daily basis. For weeks, perhaps months, surveillance aircraft and other sensors had been tracking cartel operations in the Caribbean. This strike, therefore, was not a snap decision made in the heat of the moment. It was premeditated, and it was carried out without the legal authority to do so.

Congress received a notification from the White House on September 3, citing a number of reasons for the attack and claiming that the President acted under his Article II authority. But Article II is not a blank check. The President is the Commander-in-Chief, but Congress retains the sole power to declare war under Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution. The War Powers Resolution exists precisely to prevent unilateral military actions like this from dragging our country into undeclared wars.

The law is also clear that any change to the legal and policy frameworks governing the use of military force must be reported to Congress within thirty days. The Administration submitted its annual review in February. If President Trump issued a new order on August 8 authorizing the use of force in these circumstances, as has been reported, then Congress should have received notification immediately - and we have not. Section 1067 of the Fiscal Year 2025 National Defense Authorization Act further requires notification of any changes to an Execute Order, or EXORD. Lastly, section 130f of title 10, United States Code, requires a detailed justification for and description of military operations involving lethal force. The Department submitted a 130f notification to Congress, but its content was entirely insufficient and inconsistent with the level of detail that is normally provided in such a report.

This is a direct challenge to the separation of powers. If we allow this to stand, then Congress will have effectively ceded its war powers to the executive branch. We will have surrendered the authority the framers of the Constitution vested in us, the representatives of the people, to decide when this nation goes to war.

And we must also reckon with the risk of escalation. Venezuela has already placed its military on high alert. President Maduro's regime has accused the United States of aggression. If they retaliate - perhaps by firing on our surveillance aircraft or our naval vessels in the region, or by responding in kind against U.S. civilians - the Trump Administration has already stated that it will respond with more force. And then we are on a path toward a shooting war with a foreign nation, a war that no one in this chamber has authorized and that the American people have not been consulted about.

We have seen this pattern before. Time and again, this President has tested the limits of executive authority. He has unilaterally ordered major U.S. military operations in Iran and Yemen, and has refused to answer to Congress about these strikes. Right now, more than two thousand National Guard troops are deployed on the streets of Washington and, earlier this summer, more than four thousand National Guardsmen and Marines were deployed in Los Angeles.

Each time, we have seen the slow erosion of congressional oversight. Each time, we have seen the creeping normalization of unilateral military action. And each time, we have inched closer to a world in which the decision to wage war is made by one person alone.

That is not the system our founders designed. James Madison wrote that, quote, "the Constitution supposes, what the History of all Governments demonstrates, that the Executive is the branch of power most interested in war, and most prone to it. It has accordingly, with studied care, vested the question of war in the Legislature." We forget those words at our peril.

This chamber must act immediately. Members of Congress must receive a full briefing from the administration, including the intelligence that supposedly justified this strike, the legal analysis authorizing it, and a copy of any presidential order that purportedly expanded use-of-force authorities. If that order exists, it must be scrutinized publicly. If the President has exceeded his authority, then this body must consider all remedies available, including legislative action to limit the use of funds for further unauthorized military operations.

We cannot allow the United States to slide into another mindless conflict. We cannot risk the lives of American servicemembers based on secret orders and dubious legal theories. We owe it to the American people, to our Constitution, and to the world to stand for the rule of law. We took an oath here, all of us, not to obey the President, but to support and defend the Constitution of the United States, which is being threatened right now. We also, as Senators, have the responsibility to protect the congressional powers inherent in the Constitution, not to simply surrender them to the President for political expediency.

Let us reassert Congress's constitutional role. Let us demand accountability. And let us ensure that this nation does not stumble into war by the reckless act of a single man.

I yield the floor.

• Print
• Email
• Share
• Tweet