But is it really?

In a memo sent to Congress last week, the Trump administration said it had “determined that the United States is in a non-international armed conflict with these designated terrorist organizations” and that these strikes are actions the U.S. must take in self-defense. Democrats in the Senate have attempted to block Trump’s strikes in the Caribbean, but were stymied last week by Republicans. Democratic lawmakers in particular keep pressing the White House to supply more evidence as to how it knows who is on these boats and what they’re carrying.

“They are illegal killings because the notion that the United States—and this is what the administration says is their justification—is involved in an armed conflict with any drug dealers, any Venezuelan drug dealers, is ludicrous,” Rep. Jim Himes (D–Conn.) told CBS host Margaret Brennan during a Face the Nation interview. “It wouldn’t stand up in a single court of law.”

Past administrations have simply used interdiction—not deadly strikes—to combat this same chronic issue. This means deploying maritime law enforcement, like the Coast Guard, to attempt to surveil vessels engaged in narcotrafficking, as well as authorities sometimes boarding and seizing their cargo. Interdiction clearly hasn’t completely worked, but it’s also not clear that, uh, on-the-spot execution is consistent with U.S. law either, or that Congress would approve Trump’s actions if he sought their approval (as he is ultimately supposed to).

“Congress is being told nothing on this,” Himes continued. “And that’s okay, apparently, with the Republican majorities in the House and the Senate. It’s not okay with me.”

When the first strike was carried out in September, Democrats in the House responded swiftly to decry Trump’s action as a “dangerous expansion and abuse of presidential authority.”

“The lack of transparency and information sharing with Congress, which has the constitutional responsibility to declare war and authorize or limit the use of force, poses an even greater threat to our democratic system of government,” they wrote. They’re not wrong. At the same time, lawmakers must contend with the limits to the interdiction approach. And it’s possible—likely, even—that this is all part of Trump’s 4D chess approach to unseating Nicolás Maduro.

Scenes from New York: At a rally in Washington Heights on Monday night, socialist mayoral candidate Zohran Mamdani said that he is leading a “movement that won the battle over the soul of the Democratic Party.”

What exactly does this movement stand for? “We are an existential threat to billionaires who think their money can buy our democracy,” said Mamdani. “We are an existential threat to a broken status quo that buries the voices of working people beneath corporations. And we are an existential threat to a New York where a hard day’s work isn’t enough to earn you a good night’s rest.”