military operation

WASHINGTON — President Trump has declared drug cartels to be unlawful combatants and says the United States is now in a “non-international armed conflict,” according to a Trump administration memo obtained by the Associated Press on Thursday, following recent U.S. strikes on boats in the Caribbean.

Congress was notified about the designation by Pentagon officials on Wednesday, according to a person familiar with the matter who was not authorized to comment publicly and spoke on the condition of anonymity.

The memo, startling in scope, signals a potential new moment not just in the Trump administration’s willingness to reach beyond the norms of presidential authority to wage war but in Trump’s stated “America First” agenda. It also raises stark questions about how far the White House intends to use its war powers and if Congress will exert its authority to approve — or ban — such military actions.

The move comes after the U.S. military last month carried out three deadly strikes against alleged drug-smuggling boats in the Caribbean. At least two of those operations were carried out on vessels that originated from Venezuela.

Those strikes followed up a buildup of U.S. maritime forces in the Caribbean.

“Although friendly foreign nations have made significant efforts to combat these organizations, suffering significant losses of life, these groups are now transnational and conduct ongoing attacks throughout the Western Hemisphere as organized cartels,” according to the memo, which refers to cartel members as “unlawful combatants.” “Therefore, the President determined these cartels are non-state armed groups, designated them as terrorist organizations, and determined that their actions constitute an armed attack against the United States.”

Pentagon officials could not provide a list of the designated terrorist organizations at the center of the conflict, a matter that was a major source of frustration for some of the lawmakers who were briefed, according to the person.

Lawmakers have been pressing Trump to go to Congress and seek war powers authority for such operations.

The White House and the Pentagon did not respond to requests for comment. Multiple defense officials reached Thursday appeared to be caught off guard by the determination and would not immediately comment or explain what the president’s action could mean for the Pentagon or military operations going forward.

What the Trump administration laid out at the closed-door classified briefing was perceived by several senators as pursuing a new legal framework that raised questions particularly regarding the role of Congress in authorizing any such action, the person familiar with the matter said.

As the Republican administration takes aim at vessels in the Caribbean, senators and lawmakers of both major political parties have raised stark objections. Some had previously called on Congress to exert its authority under the War Powers Act that would prohibit the administration’s strikes unless they were authorized by Congress.

The first military strike, carried out on Sept. 2 on what the Trump administration said was a drug-carrying speedboat, killed 11 people. Trump claimed the boat was operated by the Tren de Aragua gang, which was listed by the U.S. as a foreign terrorist organization earlier this year.

The Trump administration had previously justified the military action as a necessary escalation to stem the flow of drugs into the United States.

But several senators, Democrats and some Republicans, as well as human rights groups questioned the legality of Trump’s action. They called it potential overreach of executive authority in part because the military was used for law enforcement purposes.

By claiming his campaign against drug cartels is an active armed conflict, Trump appears to be claiming extraordinary wartime powers to justify his action.

Sen. Jack Reed of Rhode Island, the top Democrat on the Senate Armed Services Committees, said the drug cartels are “despicable and must be dealt with by law enforcement.”

“The Trump Administration has offered no credible legal justification, evidence, or intelligence for these strikes,” said Reed, a former Army officer who served in the 82nd Airborne Division.

The Trump administration has yet to explain how the military assessed the boats’ cargo and determined the passengers’ alleged gang affiliation before the strikes.

Madhani and Mascaro write for the Associated Press. AP writer Konstatin Toropin contributed reporting.

WASHINGTON — Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth appeared to acknowledge that the Pentagon has developed plans to take over Greenland and Panama by force if necessary but refused to answer repeated questions at a hotly combative congressional hearing Thursday about his use of Signal chats to discuss military operations.

Democratic members of the House Armed Services Committee repeatedly got into heated exchanges with Hegseth, with some of the toughest lines of questioning coming from military veterans as many demanded “yes” or “no” answers and he tried to avoid direct responses about his actions as Pentagon chief.

In one back-and-forth, Hegseth did provide an eyebrow-raising answer. Rep. Adam Smith (D-Wash.) asked whether the Pentagon has developed plans to take Greenland or Panama by force if necessary.

“Our job at the Defense Department is to have plans for any contingency,” Hegseth said several times.

It is not unusual for the Pentagon to draw up contingency plans for conflicts that have not arisen, but his handling of the questions prompted a Republican lawmaker to step in a few minutes later.

“It is not your testimony today that there are plans at the Pentagon for taking by force or invading Greenland, correct?” said Rep. Mike Turner (R-Ohio).

As Hegseth started to repeat his answer about contingency plans, Turner added emphatically, “I sure as hell hope that is not your testimony.”

“We look forward to working with Greenland to ensure that it is secured from any potential threats,” Hegseth responded.

Time and again, lawmakers pressed Hegseth to answer questions he has avoided for months, including during the two previous days of hearings on Capitol Hill. And frustration boiled over.

“You’re an embarrassment to this country. You’re unfit to lead,” Rep. Salud Carbajal snapped, the California Democrat’s voice rising. “You should just get the hell out.”

GOP lawmakers on several occasions apologized to Hegseth for the Democrats’ sharp remarks, saying he should not be subject to such “flagrant disrespect.” Hegseth said he was “happy to take the arrows” to make tough calls and do what’s best.

Questions emerge on Signal chats and if details Hegseth shared were classified

Hegseth’s use of two Signal chats to discuss details of the U.S. plans to strike Houthi rebels in Yemen with other U.S. leaders as well as members of his family prompted dizzying exchanges with lawmakers.

Hegseth was pressed multiple times over whether or not he shared classified information and if he should face accountability if he did.

Hegseth argued that the classification markings of any information about those military operations could not be discussed with lawmakers.

That became a quick trap, as Hegseth has asserted that nothing he posted — on strike times and munitions dropped in March — was classified. His questioner, Rep. Seth Moulton, a Massachusetts Democrat and Marine veteran, jumped on the disparity.

“You can very well disclose whether or not it was classified,” Moulton said.

“What’s not classified is that it was an incredible, successful mission,” Hegseth responded.

A Pentagon watchdog report on his Signal use is expected soon.

Moulton asked Hegseth whether he would hold himself accountable if the inspector general finds that he placed classified information on Signal, a commercially available app.

Hegseth would not directly say, only noting that he serves “at the pleasure of the president.”

He was asked if he would apologize to the mother of a pilot flying the strike mission for jeopardizing the operation and putting her son’s life at risk. Hegseth said, “I don’t apologize for success.”

Trump’s speech at Fort Bragg raises Democratic concerns about politics in the military

Gen. Dan Caine, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, who appeared along with Hegseth, was questioned about Trump’s speech at Fort Bragg this week and whether the military was becoming politicized.

The Defense Department has a doctrine that prohibits troops from participating in political activity while in uniform. Members of the 82nd Airborne Division were directed to stand behind Trump at Fort Bragg, and they booed and cheered during his incendiary remarks, including condemnation of his predecessor, Joe Biden.

There also was a pop-up MAGA merchandise stand selling souvenirs to troops in uniform.

Caine repeatedly said U.S. service members must be apolitical but that he was unaware of anything that happened at Fort Bragg.

Hegseth is pressed about policies on women in uniform and transgender troops

Hegseth got into a sharp debate about whether women and transgender service members should serve in the military or combat jobs.

He said he has worked to remove diversity programs and political correctness from the military. He said he has not politicized the military but simply wants the most capable troops.

Rep. Chrissy Houlahan (D-Pa.) demanded to know if Hegseth believes that both men and women can pull a trigger, cause death, operate a drone or launch a missile.

“It depends on the context,” Hegseth said, adding that “women carry equipment differently, a 155 round differently, a rucksack differently.”

Hegseth, who has previously said women “straight up” should not serve in combat, asserted that women have joined the military in record numbers under the Trump administration. He said the military “standards should be high and equal.”

He also was asked about three female service members — now being forced out as part of the Pentagon’s move to ban transgender troops.

Hegseth agreed that their accomplishments — which Houlahan read out — were to be celebrated, until he learned they were transgender.

Republican lawmakers jumped to his defense, criticizing any Pentagon spending on gender transition surgery.

Democrats ask about plans for action against Greenland and Panama

President Trump has said multiple times that he wants to take control of the strategic, mineral-rich island nation of Greenland, long a U.S. ally. Those remarks have been met with flat rejections from Greenland’s leaders.

“Greenland is not for sale,” Jacob Isbosethsen, Greenland’s representative to the U.S., said Thursday at a forum in Washington sponsored by the Arctic Institute.

In an effort not to show the Pentagon’s hand on its routine effort to have plans for everything, Hegseth danced around the direct question from Smith, leading to the confusion.

“Speaking on behalf of the American people, I don’t think the American people voted for President Trump because they were hoping we would invade Greenland,” Smith said.

Baldor and Copp write for the Associated Press. AP writer David Klepper in Washington contributed to this report.