In the wake of President Trump’s fiery United Nations address pledging military action against Venezuelan drug cartels and gangs like MS-13, legal scholars are raising questions about the constitutional limits of executive power. On Chicago’s Morning Answer, Dan Proft spoke with Andrew McCarthy, former chief assistant U.S. attorney for the Southern District of New York and contributing editor at National Review, about whether the president has the legal authority to use lethal force in these circumstances.
McCarthy argued that while the president may deploy military assets, using them to destroy drug boats or criminal networks without congressional authorization falls outside the law. He noted that U.S. statutes treat narcotics trafficking as a crime for prosecution, not a justification for unilateral military strikes. Although Trump has designated several gangs and cartels as terrorist organizations, McCarthy said such a label only enables financial sanctions and prosecutions for material support—not military force. He pointed to the precedent of al-Qaeda, designated a terrorist group in 1999 but still requiring a congressional Authorization for Use of Military Force after the 9/11 attacks before combat operations could begin.
The conversation also touched on the broader issue of presidential power. McCarthy cautioned that both Republican and Democratic administrations have stretched the limits of the 2001 AUMF to justify far-reaching military actions abroad, but Trump’s unilateral approach marks an even more aggressive step. He warned that absent congressional action, the practical check on presidential overreach is political rather than legal, since courts and prosecutors are unlikely to intervene.
Turning to Trump’s recent Truth Social posts demanding prosecutions of figures like James Comey, Adam Schiff, and New York Attorney General Letitia James, McCarthy dismissed the likelihood of cases moving forward. He argued that while Trump’s frustrations are clear, the lack of evidence and statutes of limitation make prosecutions implausible, and prosecutors risk embarrassment if they bring cases that cannot stand in court.
McCarthy concluded that the debate underscores both the growth of presidential authority in national security matters and the unwillingness of Congress to assert its role. Without legislative boundaries, he said, the scope of executive power remains largely defined by politics rather than law.