The head of the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel, T. Elliot Gaiser, briefed select Senate and House lawmakers on Thursday, telling them that recent U.S. strikes on alleged drug boats in the Caribbean Sea and Pacific Ocean did not trigger statutory requirements tied to hostilities and therefore did not require Congress’s approval, according to people familiar with the briefings who spoke on the condition of anonymity. The Washington Post first reported on the meeting.

Lawmakers were told that these operations, conducted under the Trump administration, fell outside the legal definition that would compel a declaration of war or invoke other formal congressional authorizations. The OLC is the Justice Department’s authoritative legal adviser to the executive branch, and its interpretations often shape how administrations marshal the president’s constitutional powers on the use of force.

The disclosure comes amid renewed friction between the White House and Capitol Hill over the executive branch’s latitude to conduct limited strikes or interdictions without seeking formal congressional consent. Advocates of expanded executive authority argue that nimble action is necessary to counter transnational drug networks that operate across maritime zones and exploit gaps in regional law enforcement. Skeptics warn that narrowing the statutory threshold for “hostilities” could erode congressional oversight and establish a precedent for broader military actions without legislative scrutiny.

Details about the specific incidents remain limited. According to a post on X by Pete Hegseth, two people aboard one of the vessels were killed. Beyond that public comment, officials who described the OLC briefing to reporters did so anonymously, saying the sensitive nature of the legal assessment and ongoing operations made public attribution inappropriate.

Internationally, the legal rationale advanced by the OLC could invite scrutiny from neighboring states and partners in Latin America and the Pacific. Use-of-force incidents at sea often involve complex questions of jurisdiction, flag state consent, and the law of the sea. Regional governments may view unilateral strikes as encroachments on sovereignty unless coordinated through bilateral arrangements or multinational frameworks for maritime interdiction and counter‑narcotics cooperation.

The OLC’s position also raises potential issues under international humanitarian law and human rights frameworks, which assess necessity, proportionality and the protection of civilians in uses of force. While U.S. law distinguishes domestic war powers procedures from international legal obligations, the administration’s advice to Congress will likely be parsed by legal scholars and foreign governments for implications beyond U.S. constitutional formalities.

For Congress, the briefing sets the stage for renewed debate over whether existing statutes adequately channel executive authority in fast‑moving security operations or whether lawmakers should pursue clearer limits and reporting requirements. In an era where small, targeted strikes and law enforcement‑style military actions are increasingly common, the legal boundaries between policing and warfare remain contested terrain—both in Washington and abroad.