X/@SenAdamSchiff
The Senator from California, Adam Schiff, who is poised to put in a War Powers Resolution to challenge President Donald Trump’s authorization of military strikes against vessels labeled by the President as operating as narco-terrorist activities, maintains that these acts have no legal justification and may result in diplomatic conflict. This move is to give back to Congress the authority over declarations of war and approvals of the actual use of force.
Advertisement
Senator Schiff is attacking head-on the alleged illegal wars waged by President Trump. In a statement, he said that he is preparing a War Powers Resolution to stop the latest naval strikes reportedly conducted by the administration on ships supposedly involved in drug trafficking.
The California Democrat insisted that the President himself does not have the authority to order these strikes. “He does not,” said Schiff in his video address. “It is our power to declare war or authorize use of force or to refuse to do so.”
Schiff said he was particularly concerned about the consequences of the operations. He warned that other Nations might begin using this sort of reasoning to justify attacking American vessels themselves, which could lead to armed conflict: “You can imagine what our response to that would be,” he said. “I don’t want to see us get into some war with Venezuela because the President is just blowing ships willy-nilly out of the water.”
The senator expressed that it was his experience prosecuting drug traffickers that convinces him there are proper legal channels by which one could pursue those narcotics operations without resorting to extrajudicial military action currently taking place.
The response of the public to Schiff’s announcement revealed the deep political divide in the country at present. Most of his detractors feel his attempts are nothing more than political grandstanding. One user commented on the resolution: “You mean ‘without your permission’? Good luck with that.” This user was expressing their doubts about the resolution being successful in a divided Congress.
There were supporters questioning Schiff’s motives for opposing these attacks. One questioned, “I guess you want Americans to kill themselves with deadly drugs,” while another said, “So you’re pissed off because your shipment isn’t going to make it,” insinuating that Schiff had ulterior motives for wanting to halt the strikes.
Another commenter seemed reminded of administrations past. “And Obama blew up innocent civilians in Syria. In the 100s. Get a clue, pencil neck,” one commenter responded.
Fundamentally, the dispute is essentially a legal and constitutional debate on limits of presidential war powers versus congressional authority. At any rate, the passing of Schiff’s resolution would force the Senate to at least vote in favor or against whether they consider the actions of the president as an illegal use of military force that, at the minimum, should have been subjected to congressional approval.
Other commentators presented another side to this argument, with one arguing, “MS-13, Tren de Aragua and the other Cartels are ‘foreign terrorist organizations’. They have killed more Americans than all other terrorists. Congress has given the President broad powers to wage war on terrorists.”
The resolution has an uncertain fate in the Senate, where Schiff intends to garner at least some measure of bipartisan support on the floor. Schiff said he knew of at least one Republican senator who has come out against the administration’s position but declined to reveal the identity of that lawmaker.
Donald Trump just blew up another boat in the middle of the ocean with no legal justification.
I’m drafting a resolution and forcing a vote to reclaim Congress’s power to declare war.
Before Trump’s actions provoke one. pic.twitter.com/wwlbZC1ldf
— Adam Schiff (@SenAdamSchiff) September 16, 2025
It is the very newest development in an unfolding saga on the very far-flung long-time dispute between the legislative and executive branches on war powers authority. The placing of this case might very well set dangerous precedents for how all future administrations will treat this same category of security threat, namely non-state actors conducting activities on international waters.
Advertisement
Given an ongoing situation with both parties having dug in so deep from a national security concern perspective balanced against the constitutional principle of separation of powers and congressional oversight power with respect to military actions, it will be interesting to observe how the resolution shall meander its way in Congress and whether Schiff will be able to rally the necessary coalition willing to oppose the present administration’s direction on striking back against drug trafficking operations at sea. This political maneuvering has drawn comparisons to the kind of pressure campaigns discussed by commentators like Sean Hannity. Furthermore, the senator’s recent public engagements, including a watermelon farm visit, have also sparked conversation. His criticism extends to the President’s spending, as he has slammed Trump’s $200 million ballroom plan amid economic concerns. In a separate media-related claim, Schiff has suggested that the Stephen Colbert show cancellation was linked to Trump pressure.