GOP Lawmakers Defend Trump Airstrikes: ‘Necessary Force Against Terror on Our Streets’

Paul Riverbank, 12/17/2025Trump airstrikes spark fierce debate over legality, oversight, and threats near American shores.

Senator Markwayne Mullin of Oklahoma didn’t hesitate when pressed for his view. Visibly frustrated, he brushed off the uproar as “ridiculous” and insisted that the outrage is misplaced. In a hallway gaggle with reporters, Mullin reminded everyone that the Obama administration launched hundreds of similar strikes—“Underneath Obama, he had 500 strikes, 3,700 different individuals were killed,” he rattled off. “There wasn’t a big show about this.” The numbers hung in the air, as if begging the question: why the handwringing now?

For Mullin, the matter is blunt: these strikes are targeting criminal groups, not political adversaries. “Cartels are the threat. They’re drugging your streets, my streets—everybody’s streets.” His numbers are more than just rhetoric. “Cartels killed more people in 2024 on our streets than we lost in the entire Vietnam War,” he declared, leaving little room for ambiguity about his support for decisive action.

Senator Tim Sheehy, who brings his own military experience to the table, stepped into the fray as well. He found himself defending Admiral Frank Bradley’s controversial decision to launch a second strike—what critics have labeled a “double tap”—on survivors from an earlier bombing. Some say that’s an overstep, but Sheehy, speaking with precision, insisted that the approach is “legally sound,” rooted in decades of precedent. In his words, “If you choose interdiction instead of an airstrike, you risk American lives. Those kinds of choices aren’t made lightly.”

Not all Republican voices were singing from the same hymnal, however. Rand Paul, the irascible senator from Kentucky, poked holes in the prevailing logic during a heated TV interview. His argument? “Did we even check the survivors for drugs? Or just ship them home?” Paul’s skepticism cut to the heart of due process: “You can’t just allege guilt and hand out a death sentence.” He referenced U.S. Coast Guard statistics showing that roughly a quarter of vessels searched don’t carry narcotics at all. “So who decides which boats are worth blowing up?”

Cautionary notes also came from Republican Rep. Mike Turner of Ohio, hardly known for grandstanding. Turner suggested that a follow-up strike on already-disabled vessels could well cross the legal line.

According to the Pentagon, these airstrikes have taken the lives of at least 95 people in the Caribbean in recent months—a figure that continues to climb. White House officials, meanwhile, have dug in their heels, insisting that every boat targeted was trying to bring dangerous drugs into American communities.

Tensions ramped up even further in a private, classified congressional briefing. Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth faced tough questioning behind closed doors. House Speaker Mike Johnson came out of the meeting all but glowing. “This is some exquisite intelligence that supports these actions,” he told reporters, crediting the administration’s strategy as both “appropriate” and “necessary.”

Rubio, careful on the details, stuck to the big picture. He skirted questions about the actual airstrikes but stressed that the ongoing mission is about “dismantling the infrastructure” of terrorist-linked organizations operating dangerously close to home. “It’s a highly successful mission that’s ongoing,” he assured lawmakers, even as scrutiny from both sides simmered.

Hegseth, for his part, promised members of Congress that they’d see full, unredacted footage of a strike carried out on September 2—a transparency measure, at least for those with clearance. Thus far, though, most details remain locked under classified stamp and key. Hegseth was adamant: the admiral who made the call will walk committee members through the specifics.

Inside the tense closed-door session, friction erupted between Hegseth and Arizona Democratic Senator Mark Kelly—a Navy veteran with a penchant for straight talk. Kelly pressed for information about oversight and the rules of engagement, only for Hegseth to fire back by drawing attention to an unrelated investigation targeting Kelly. The exchange was heated enough that Kelly’s legal team later hinted the senator might go to court if the Pentagon’s probe moves forward.

Beyond the personalities and politics, lawyers and some members of Congress have started to wonder aloud whether these continuing strikes toe the line of legality, particularly if civilian safety and transparency aren’t up to snuff.

If there’s an emerging theme from all this, it’s a government divided—not just along party lines, but by how lawmakers balance public safety with the imperative for oversight. The White House and its top lieutenants remain adamant: these operations rest on solid intelligence and legal grounding. Yet, as more details trickle out, the sharp questions and calls for scrutiny are unlikely to fade.

For now, airstrikes in Caribbean waters continue apace, with strong support from key Washington figures—but the debate over where the line should be drawn shows no sign of letting up.

The heat in Washington is real these days, and not just because of the weather. The recent U.S. airstrikes on boats near Venezuelan waters—officially aimed at clamping down on drug cartels—have whipped lawmakers into a frenzy, stirring debate that reaches far beyond the marble halls of Congress.Senator Markwayne Mullin of Oklahoma didn’t hesitate when pressed for his view. Visibly frustrated, he brushed off the uproar as “ridiculous” and insisted that the outrage is misplaced. In a hallway gaggle with reporters, Mullin reminded everyone that the Obama administration launched hundreds of similar strikes—“Underneath Obama, he had 500 strikes, 3,700 different individuals were killed,” he rattled off. “There wasn’t a big show about this.” The numbers hung in the air, as if begging the question: why the handwringing now?For Mullin, the matter is blunt: these strikes are targeting criminal groups, not political adversaries. “Cartels are the threat. They’re drugging your streets, my streets—everybody’s streets.” His numbers are more than just rhetoric. “Cartels killed more people in 2024 on our streets than we lost in the entire Vietnam War,” he declared, leaving little room for ambiguity about his support for decisive action.Senator Tim Sheehy, who brings his own military experience to the table, stepped into the fray as well. He found himself defending Admiral Frank Bradley’s controversial decision to launch a second strike—what critics have labeled a “double tap”—on survivors from an earlier bombing. Some say that’s an overstep, but Sheehy, speaking with precision, insisted that the approach is “legally sound,” rooted in decades of precedent. In his words, “If you choose interdiction instead of an airstrike, you risk American lives. Those kinds of choices aren’t made lightly.”Not all Republican voices were singing from the same hymnal, however. Rand Paul, the irascible senator from Kentucky, poked holes in the prevailing logic during a heated TV interview. His argument? “Did we even check the survivors for drugs? Or just ship them home?” Paul’s skepticism cut to the heart of due process: “You can’t just allege guilt and hand out a death sentence.” He referenced U.S. Coast Guard statistics showing that roughly a quarter of vessels searched don’t carry narcotics at all. “So who decides which boats are worth blowing up?”Cautionary notes also came from Republican Rep. Mike Turner of Ohio, hardly known for grandstanding. Turner suggested that a follow-up strike on already-disabled vessels could well cross the legal line.According to the Pentagon, these airstrikes have taken the lives of at least 95 people in the Caribbean in recent months—a figure that continues to climb. White House officials, meanwhile, have dug in their heels, insisting that every boat targeted was trying to bring dangerous drugs into American communities.Tensions ramped up even further in a private, classified congressional briefing. Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth faced tough questioning behind closed doors. House Speaker Mike Johnson came out of the meeting all but glowing. “This is some exquisite intelligence that supports these actions,” he told reporters, crediting the administration’s strategy as both “appropriate” and “necessary.”Rubio, careful on the details, stuck to the big picture. He skirted questions about the actual airstrikes but stressed that the ongoing mission is about “dismantling the infrastructure” of terrorist-linked organizations operating dangerously close to home. “It’s a highly successful mission that’s ongoing,” he assured lawmakers, even as scrutiny from both sides simmered.Hegseth, for his part, promised members of Congress that they’d see full, unredacted footage of a strike carried out on September 2—a transparency measure, at least for those with clearance. Thus far, though, most details remain locked under classified stamp and key. Hegseth was adamant: the admiral who made the call will walk committee members through the specifics.Inside the tense closed-door session, friction erupted between Hegseth and Arizona Democratic Senator Mark Kelly—a Navy veteran with a penchant for straight talk. Kelly pressed for information about oversight and the rules of engagement, only for Hegseth to fire back by drawing attention to an unrelated investigation targeting Kelly. The exchange was heated enough that Kelly’s legal team later hinted the senator might go to court if the Pentagon’s probe moves forward.Beyond the personalities and politics, lawyers and some members of Congress have started to wonder aloud whether these continuing strikes toe the line of legality, particularly if civilian safety and transparency aren’t up to snuff.If there’s an emerging theme from all this, it’s a government divided—not just along party lines, but by how lawmakers balance public safety with the imperative for oversight. The White House and its top lieutenants remain adamant: these operations rest on solid intelligence and legal grounding. Yet, as more details trickle out, the sharp questions and calls for scrutiny are unlikely to fade.For now, airstrikes in Caribbean waters continue apace, with strong support from key Washington figures—but the debate over where the line should be drawn shows no sign of letting up.