Follow us on social

Proposed war authorization could allow Trump to target 60+ countries

Proposed war authorization could allow Trump to target 60+ countries

An 'insanely broad' draft AUMF could provide the president with wide latitude to go after supposed 'narco-terrorists'

Reporting | Global Crises

A draft proposal to authorize the use of U.S. military force against drug cartels is currently floating around Congress and the White House, according to a recent New York Times report. Although an official version of the proposal has yet to be released, publicly available information suggests that it could be used to justify U.S. military intervention in at least 60 countries.

The U.S.-led “War on Drugs” has escalated rapidly over the last month: after the White House signed a secret directive authorizing attacks on Latin American drug cartels, the U.S. built up its military presence in the region and began conducting a series of deadly airstrikes on alleged drug-smuggling civilian boats in the international waters of the Caribbean. Human Rights Watch called the strikes “unlawful extrajudicial killings.”

How far Washington should go in its new counternarcotics campaign has been a source of controversy within the Trump administration. When the Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) proposed the use of the U.S. military to attack cartels within Mexican territory during a White House meeting earlier this year, officials from the Defense Department and other agencies reportedly objected, in part because the executive branch lacked sufficient legal authorization to do so.

An “Authorization for Use of Military Force” (AUMF) is the instrument most often used to provide legal justification for military hostilities today. AUMF legislation passed in response to the 9/11 attacks laid the groundwork for a “Global War on Terror” that included targeting many suspects who had nothing to do with 9/11. Because of its extremely broad language, the 2001 AUMF has since been used to justify military interventions in at least 22 countries.

A proposal reportedly brought forth by Rep. Cory Mills (R-Fla.) for a new AUMF aimed at “narco-terrorists” began circulating around Washington last week. Apparently modeled on the 2001 AUMF, Mills’ new AUMF is similarly broad: although it only lasts for five years, the authorization does not identify specific targets and contains no geographic restrictions.

In comments given to the Times, Harvard Professor Jack Goldsmith described the proposal as “insanely broad,” essentially “an open-ended war authorization against an untold number of countries, organizations and persons that the president could deem within its scope.” The version of the AUMF that has been attributed to Rep. Mills would give the president the ability to use “all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations or persons the President determines are designated narco-terrorists,” including those who provide financing or support to narco-terrorists.

Earlier this year, the White House added a long list of Latin American drug cartels to the national “Foreign Terrorist Organizations” (FTO) list. Although the full text of Mills’ AUMF hasn’t been confirmed, under his reported proposal, the president could have the authority to wage war against any of these organizations, regardless of where they are operating. Given the highly globalized nature of the drug trade and the contested definition of who is included within “drug cartels,” this could include U.S. military action in dozens of different countries. Based on what is known about it so far, Mills’ proposal would leave “a large amount of discretion in the hands of the executive to make determinations about who ‘counts’ within the scope of targeting,” said Elizabeth Beavers, assistant professor of law at Widener University’s Delaware Law School.

The Sinaloa Cartel, for example, designated as a FTO by the Trump administration in February, operates in “at least 47 countries,” according to the DEA. In a five-part series of articles on the “foreign policies of the Sinaloa Cartel and CJNG [another Mexican cartel]”, scholar Vanda Felbab-Brown lists some of the countries that are allegedly involved in the Sinaloa’s activities: Albania, Australia, Belgium, Cape Verde, Chile, China, Colombia, the DRC, Ecuador, France, Germany, Ghana, Guinea-Bissau, Ireland, India, Italy, Mali, Morocco, Mozambique, the Netherlands, New Zealand, the “Northern Triangle” nations of Central America, Nicaragua, Nigeria, Peru, Portugal, Romania, Senegal, Serbia, Slovakia, Spain, and the UK. Other countries with Sinaloa Cartel activity include Belize, Canada, Costa Rica, the Dominican Republic, Guyana, Panama, and Thailand.

If the proposed AUMF had targeted the Sinaloa Cartel alone, it could theoretically authorize U.S. military interventions in at least 42 nations. But this is only one of many cartels that has been designated as a terrorist organization by the Trump administration. War against the CJNG would add Argentina, Brazil, Paraguay, Turkey, Uruguay, and Venezuela to the list. Cartels like Tren de Aragua have an established presence in Costa Rica. Meanwhile, the Trump administration designated several more countries as high-priority drug transit routes, specifically arguing that our “assistance” was “vital to the national interests of the United States” in Afghanistan, Bolivia, Colombia, Myanmar, and Venezuela.

Taken together, the combined forces of the proposed AUMF and the terrorist designations for cartels could allow the U.S. president to intervene in almost every nation in the continental Americas. Taken literally, the AUMF might even be abused to justify hostilities within the United States, as the terrorist-designated MS-13 gang was created in Los Angeles and maintains extensive operations throughout the U.S. In practice, however, this is highly unlikely.

“There are still a whole host of constitutional protections against extrajudicial targeting of persons within the U.S. that an AUMF doesn't just sweep away,” said Beavers. Still, this assumes that the president would be willing to abide by these protections. “This entire conversation about lawfulness rests entirely on what the other branches of government, including the courts, are willing to do about such violations,” she added.

U.S. authorities have long tried to expand their power by blending together the War on Drugs and the War on Terror, often using the controversial idea of “narco-terrorism” to make the connection. In 2011, the DEA claimed that 39% of Foreign Terrorist Organizations had “confirmed links to the drug trade.” This newly-proposed AUMF could therefore be applied to many traditional terrorist organizations, including al-Qaeda, Hezbollah, and the Taliban. This means the AUMF could provide additional authorities (on top of those from prior AUMFs) for the U.S. to involve itself in the countries where these groups operate. Such a list would likely include the Taliban’s involvement in Afghanistan and Pakistan, Hezbollah’s involvement in Lebanon, and a long list of countries alleged by the U.S. government to have al-Qaeda affiliates: Algeria, Burkina Faso, Iran, Iraq, Libya, Mali, Somalia, Syria, and Yemen.

The U.S. has also long accused the Colombian National Liberation Army (ELN) of narco-trafficking. Because of Cuba’s involvement in negotiations between the ELN and the Colombian government, Washington has insisted upon the classification of the island nation as a “State Sponsor of Terrorism.” Thus, the White House could theoretically use this proposed AUMF to engage in military hostilities in Cuba. Similarly, U.S. attempts at linking Venezuela’s government leadership with an alleged “Cartel of the Suns” could be used to engage in a war against the Venezuelan military, not just the cartels alleged to operate within the nation.

Adding together all of these potential applications of the proposed AUMF, the bill would create justifications for the White House to engage in offensive military activity in more than 60 nations. While there’s currently no indication that Congress is eager to take up, let alone pass, an extremely broad new military force authorization, if it were to become law, it would fully merge two of the largest policy failures in U.S. history — the War on Drugs and the War on Terror — into one singular concept that could expand armed conflict throughout the entire Western hemisphere and beyond.


Top image credit: Countries which the US government could militarily intervene in under a potential Authorization ofMilitary Force against 'narco-terrorists.' Via Brett Heinz
Reporting | Global Crises
Trump returns to a failed playbook in Africa
Top image credit: 3rd SFG Soldiers on the range with Republic of Mali Armed Forces during a training exercise. Fort Bragg, NC. 8/4/2009 US Army Special Operations Command

Trump returns to a failed playbook in Africa

Africa

The Trump administration is reportedly increasing its intelligence sharing and military support to military-ruled Mali, Burkina Faso, and Niger — all as part of a transactional framework aimed at boosting American access to critical minerals while also contesting Russian and Chinese influence in Africa. The administration’s approach may well find a receptive audience in Bamako, Ouagadougou, and Niamey, as well as within hawkish elements of the national security bureaucracy back in Washington. Yet the enhanced support is unlikely to make a meaningful difference in combating insurgencies in the troubled Sahel region.

The central Sahelian countries have been troubled by jihadist activity since the 2000s, and a rebellion in northern Mali in 2012 provided jihadists an even greater role in the region. Intensive French counterterrorism operations from 2013 to 2022 initially knocked jihadists back. Yet from 2015 onwards, insurgency spread from northern Mali into central zones of that country and into Burkina Faso and Niger, eventually spilling over into Benin, Togo, and Cote d’Ivoire as well (although Cote d’Ivoire has achieved some tenuous success in blunting jihadists’ momentum there).

keep readingShow less
Ursula von der Leyen Benjamin Netanyahu
Top image credit: miss.cabul and noamgalai via shutterstock.com

Europe finally stands up to Israel — but only halfway

Europe

In a significant and long-overdue shift, the European Commission has finally moved to recalibrate its relationship with Israel. Its proposed package of measures — sanctioning extremist Israeli ministers and violent settlers and suspending valuable trade concessions — marks the most substantive attempt by the EU to impose consequences for the Netanyahu government’s conduct in Gaza and the West Bank.

Commission President Ursula von der Leyen, who once stood accused of a pronounced pro-Israeli bias, now states unequivocally that “the horrific events taking place in Gaza on a daily basis must stop.” Her declaration that the EU remains an “unwavering champion of the two-state solution” being “undermined by the Israeli government’s recent settlement actions” is a stark admission that Brussels can no longer ignore the chasm between its stated principles and its enabling actions.

These steps are important. They signal a breaking point with an Israeli government that has dismissed, with increasing contempt, the concerns of its European partners. The proposed tariffs, reinstating Most Favored Nation rates on €5.8 billion of Israeli exports, are not merely symbolic; they are a tangible economic pressure designed to get Jerusalem’s attention. The targeted sanctions against ministers responsible for inflammatory rhetoric and policies add a necessary layer of personal accountability.

Yet, for all its heft, this package suffers from critical flaws: it is horribly late, it remains dangerously incomplete, and it is a crisis, to a large degree, of Europe’s own making.

First, the delay. For almost two years since Hamas’ attack on Israel and Israel’s military campaign in Gaza leading to the killing of more than 60,000 people the world has watched the devastating conflict unfold. The EU, “the biggest donor of humanitarian aid,” has been forced to react to a catastrophe its own trade and political support helped underwrite. This response, only now materializing after immense public and diplomatic pressure, feels less like proactive statecraft and more like a belated attempt to catch up to reality — and to the moral courage already shown by several of its own member states.

Second, and most glaringly, the package omits the most logical and legally sound measure: a full ban on trade with Israel’s illegal settlements in the occupied West Bank. This is a profound failure of principle and policy. The settlements are universally recognized under international law as illegal. They are the very engine of the occupation that von der Leyen now claims is undermining the two-state solution.

While the Commission hesitates, what the Brussels-based head of the European Middle East Project Martin Konecny calls “a domino effect” is taking hold at the national level. The Dutch government has just announced it will ban imports from Israeli settlements, becoming the fifth EU member state to do so, following recent and decisive moves by Ireland, Slovenia, Belgium, and Spain. This growing coalition underscores both the moral imperative and the political feasibility of such a measure that the Commission continues to avoid.

Furthermore, this is not merely a political choice; it is a legal obligation. The International Court of Justice (ICJ), in its landmark opinion last year, made clear that all states are required to cease trade and support that facilitates Israel’s illegal settlement regime. As a matter of EU law, a union-wide ban could — and should — be implemented by a qualified majority vote as a necessary trade measure to uphold fundamental legal principles. The continued failure to do so renders the EU complicit in perpetuating the very system it now claims to oppose.

Third, the Commission’s entire approach suffers from a crippling legal and moral loophole: its proposed measures are framed purely through a humanitarian lens, deliberately sidestepping the EU’s explicit legal obligations to prevent genocide. By focusing solely on suspending parts of the Association Agreement, the proposal ignores the most direct form of complicity — the continued flow of arms from member states to Israel.

These lethal transfers, which fall outside the Agreement’s scope, are the subject of Nicaragua’s landmark case against Germany at the ICJ, which argues that providing weapons to a state plausibly committing genocide is a violation of the Genocide Convention. According to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, Germany alone accounted for 30% of Israel’s major arms imports in 2019-2023. Berlin continued licensing the arms exports after the outbreak of war in 2023. The Commission’s failure to even address, let alone propose to halt, this pipeline of weapons from the member states while invoking “horrific events” reveals a strategic timidity that undermines the very rule of law it claims to defend.

keep readingShow less
House seeks to expand secretive arms stockpile used in Gaza war
Israeli soldiers prepare shells near a mobile artillery unit, amid the ongoing conflict between Israel and the Palestinian Islamist group Hamas, in Israel, January 2, 2024. (REUTERS/Amir Cohen)

House seeks to expand secretive arms stockpile used in Gaza war

Washington Politics

The House is poised to expand the use of a secretive mechanism for funneling weapons to Israel.

Hidden deep in a must-pass State Department funding bill is a provision that would allow for unlimited transfers of U.S. weapons to a special Israel-based stockpile in the next fiscal year, strengthening a pathway for giving American weapons to Israel with reduced public scrutiny. The House Foreign Affairs Committee is set to discuss the bill Wednesday morning.

keep readingShow less

LATEST

QIOSK

Newsletter

Subscribe now to our weekly round-up and don't miss a beat with your favorite RS contributors and reporters, as well as staff analysis, opinion, and news promoting a positive, non-partisan vision of U.S. foreign policy.