Senator Rand Paul (R-KY) just threw a legal grenade at President Donald Trump’s military tactics in the Caribbean.
The Hill reported that during a heated discussion on NBC’s “Meet the Press” on Sunday, Paul slammed Trump’s authorization of military strikes on suspected drug boats, calling them outright illegal while pointing out the tragic loss of over 20 lives in six separate incidents.
Trump has green-lit military action against speed boats in the Caribbean, vessels suspected of drug trafficking but located a whopping 2,000 miles from American shores.
These strikes aren’t just a show of force; they’ve resulted in more than 20 deaths, and Paul isn’t mincing words about the lack of due process.
“No, they go against all of our tradition,” Paul declared on “Meet the Press,” arguing that killing individuals without identifying them or presenting evidence is a dangerous precedent.
Well, isn’t that a kicker? If we’re blowing up boats without even knowing who’s on board, we’re not just playing judge and jury—we’re playing executioner without a trial.
Paul also brought up a sobering statistic from the Coast Guard: about 25% of the time they board a ship, no drugs are found.
Think about that for a second—if a quarter of these vessels are clean, are we risking innocent lives over mere suspicion? That’s not the American way, no matter how tough we want to get on crime.
These speed boats, Paul noted, are likely peddling their wares—if they even have drugs—to nearby islands like Trinidad or Tobago off Venezuela, not heading for our shores.
Speaking of distance, let’s not ignore that 2,000-mile gap between these boats and the United States, which Paul argues makes the threat to our homeland a speculative leap.
“The idea of them coming here is a huge assumption and he should be able to present some proof,” Paul added on “Meet the Press,” emphasizing the difference between war and peace.
Proof, folks—that’s the key word. Without it, we’re not just overreaching; we’re potentially igniting conflicts that Congress hasn’t even voted on, a point Paul drives home with precision.
Paul’s larger concern is the absence of a declaration of war, a constitutional check that seems to have been sidestepped in this aggressive policy.
If we’re going to treat every suspected boat as an enemy combatant, shouldn’t Congress have a say, rather than leaving it to executive whim? That’s not anti-Trump; it’s pro-Constitution.
While supporting a strong stance against drug trafficking is a no-brainer for many conservatives, Paul’s critique reminds us that how we fight matters just as much as why we fight.