Monday, November 03, 2025

War Powers Law Does Not Apply to Trump's Boat Strikes, Administration Says

The move deepened the idea that a Vietnam-era law, which says congressionally unauthorized deployments into "hostilities" must end after 60 days, does not apply to airstrike campaigns.

Posted by truthhurts at 12:31 PM | 15 COMMENTS | permalink

More

The Justice Department told Congress this week that President Trump could lawfully continue his lethal military strikes on people suspected of smuggling drugs at sea. The move rests on the idea that a Vietnam-era law called the War Powers Resolution does not apply to airstrike campaigns.

[image or embed]

-- The New York Times (@nytimes.com) Nov 2, 2025 at 12:05 PM

Comments

The absurdity of the regime's argument is beyond comprehension.

The WPA does not apply to them murdering civilians because is it not hostilities because essentially our troops are immune from response.

that argument says they could shoot an ICBM nuclear missile into Venezuela and that wouldn't be hostilities

To say nothing of the basis of their argument is that "narco-terrorists" are involved in hostilities by killing Americans

Thanks magat scum.

Our president is no longer beholden to congress to implement wars in even the smallest nominal way.

#1 | Posted by truthhurts at 2025-11-02 05:18 PM

And just so you understand, the WPA requires the president to come to Congress to get authorization for military force after 60 days of hostility.

IOW the WPA prohibits the president from further military action.

#2 | Posted by truthhurts at 2025-11-02 05:19 PM

"that argument says they could shoot an ICBM nuclear missile into Venezuela and that wouldn't be hostilities"

These are the same Republicans who said it isn't torture until it results in organ failure or death.

#3 | Posted by snoofy at 2025-11-02 05:21 PM

#1

These are the same Republicans who said it isn't torture until it results in organ failure or death.
#3 | POSTED BY SNOOFY

Interesting doing some research. Obama (Libya) and Clinton (Kosovo) did this similar side step with the same response. Kosovo and Libya had the military much more exposed than today.

"that argument says they could shoot an ICBM nuclear missile into Venezuela and that wouldn't be hostilities"

I didn't find any one making that claim for Clinton or Obama; For sure Obama would have benefited from this policy, as the US lost a F-15 in Libya due to malfunction;

But I did find this ...


President Bill Clinton didn't bother to get prior legislative permission for his Kosovo war and sidestepped the War Powers Resolution thereafter. And Mr. Obama hasn't lifted a finger in the last two months to get Congress's consent for his Libyan operation.

When Mr. Obama first announced the Libyan intervention along with our NATO allies, he claimed constitutional authority as chief executive and commander in chief and said he was acting "consistent with" the War Powers Resolution. Congress has shown no interest in authorizing our limited military operations, nor has it provided any funding. At this point, if the president were to seek approval, Congress would likely refuse.

www.aei.org

The administrations argued that the WPA's 60-day limit was not triggered because the mission constituted "kinetic military action" rather than full-scale "hostilities" involving a significant risk of U.S. casualties or ground troops.

I suppose it's bad when Trump does it but not when Obama and Clinton do it? Seems that is what the "brain trust" of TruthLies & Snoofy claim?

Do you guys research anything? I mean seriously this wasn't hard to find.

#4 | Posted by oneironaut at 2025-11-02 06:19 PM

BOTH SIDES

*drink*

#5 | Posted by Alexandrite at 2025-11-02 06:22 PM

I suppose it's bad when Trump does it but not when Obama and Clinton do it?

Is Trumps water heavy?

You would excuse anything the man did, because you voted for him, and your ego doesn't allow for you to be wrong.

#6 | Posted by Alexandrite at 2025-11-02 06:23 PM

In a briefing, the official who leads the department's Office of Legal Counsel, T. Elliot Gaiser, said the administration did not think the operation rose to the kind of "hostilities" covered by the 60-day limit, a key part of a 1973 law called the War Powers Resolution, according to several people familiar with the matter.

I wonder what other laws they're playing these kinds of word games with so they can crack down on citizen's rights.

Patently absurd to anyone who isn't drinking the kool aid and, were it not for Trump's control of DoJ, would get laughed out of a court room in about 30 seconds.

#7 | Posted by jpw at 2025-11-03 09:34 AM

As usual, oneirons*&^bag shows up to carry this administration's water.

Duhhhhhhh ObMaZ!!!

#8 | Posted by jpw at 2025-11-03 09:37 AM

So, my belief that EVERY SINGLE AMERICAN PRESIDENT IN MY LIFETIME IS A WAR CRIMINAL, is apparently correct?

That's validating to discover.

I'm 62, that's a lot of War Crimes.

Kennedy to Trump. At least.

The Supreme War Criminal of Course, was before My time.

That would be Harry S. TRUMAN.

The man who Made Nukes Acceptable.

To Use on Civilians, no less.

#9 | Posted by Effeteposer at 2025-11-03 10:14 AM

#10 | Posted by C0RI0LANUS at 2025-11-03 02:47 PM

OneIQirony:

aren't you back in China yet?

#11 | Posted by e1g1 at 2025-11-03 05:27 PM

Laws don't apply to Trump

#12 | Posted by hamburglar at 2025-11-03 05:54 PM

I am not a federal Supreme Court Justice, but I know that murder is murder, in every jurisdiction in these United States, to kill a criminal suspect in an extrajudicial way is in fact murder.

#13 | Posted by Hughmass at 2025-11-04 08:35 AM

#4

Yes, Clinton and Obama ARE war criminals. It's NOT just the Rethuglicans.

I have no problem with ALL of them being shipped off to The Hague for trial.

#14 | Posted by DarkVader at 2025-11-04 09:12 AM

Do you guys research anything? I mean seriously this wasn't hard to find.

#4 | POSTED BY ONEIRONAUT

Everyone gather round!

The hostile foreign commie agitator is gonna teach us about our government!

Oh do tell commie agitator. How should a democratic republic blow up foreign brown people without any due process?

Because maybe it was done that way in the past?

Wow. There is profound logic right there!

So glad you were able and so eager to share it with us!

I feel so much more enlightened about how my government should and is rightfully killing people I have NO quarrel with in my name. Thank you so much!

#15 | Posted by donnerboy at 2025-11-04 11:59 AM

Drudge Retort Headlines

Kyle Rittenhouse Appearance Derails After Angry Locals Raise Hell (207 comments)

House of Representatives Voted to Condemns Socialism (67 comments)

Marjorie Taylor Greene Resigning (45 comments)

Teacher Fought Grizzly Bear to Protect Students (35 comments)

US Insists It Authored Ukraine Peace Plan (29 comments)

In Reversal, Coast Guard Again Classifies Swastikas as Hate Symbol: WaPo (20 comments)

The Best Part of the Trump-Zohran Meeting (19 comments)

Bondi and Patel Waiting to Be Fired: Pro-Trump outlet (19 comments)

General Kellogg 'Quits' After Trump's Surrender Plan Leaks (15 comments)

Bolsonaro Arrested After Being Deemed a Flight Risk (11 comments)