Hickenlooper, Colleagues Pressure Trump Administration for Answers on Caribbean Military Strike

Senators question why the individuals were not intercepted to gather potentially valuable intelligence

WASHINGTON – Today, U.S. Senator John Hickenlooper joined 24 of his Senate democratic colleagues to demand answers from the Trump administration about the September 2nd military strike in the Caribbean. The administration provided no legal justification or evidence for the strike – which reportedly killed all 11 aboard – or its threats of future action in the region.

“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,” wrote the senators. “Your administration has asserted, without evidence, that the individuals on the vessel and the vessel’s cargo posed a threat to the United States.”

In the letter, the senators ask the President for answers regarding the legality of the strike and  the intelligence that led the administration to strike the vessel. They called for the administration to explain 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.

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 4th 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 4th, 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.

 ###