The Dangerous Precedent: How Secret Memos Are Redefining Executive Power and Undermining Constitutional Safeguards

The Facts: Secret Authorization of Lethal Force

A recently revealed secret memorandum from the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel has granted presidential approval for military strikes against suspected drug traffickers in international waters, resulting in 80 fatalities to date. This 40-page document, completed in late summer, provides legal justification for President Trump’s authorization of boat strikes in the Caribbean Sea and eastern Pacific Ocean based on the unprecedented assertion that the United States exists in a state of armed conflict with drug cartels.

The memo’s legal reasoning hinges entirely on accepting White House assertions at face value, particularly the characterization of drug cartels as “narco-terrorists” rather than criminal organizations. It claims these groups are intentionally trying to kill Americans and destabilize the Western Hemisphere, thereby justifying military action under the president’s wartime powers. The document further argues that vessels carrying narcotics constitute legitimate military targets because their cargo generates revenue that could fund cartels’ purported war efforts.

Legal Context and Constitutional Questions

The memorandum represents a significant departure from traditional legal interpretations governing the use of military force. Historically, the United States has treated drug interdiction as a law enforcement matter, involving interception, boarding, and arrest procedures rather than lethal strikes. The memo’s authors attempt to bridge this conceptual gap by designating cartels as terrorist organizations—a classification the Trump administration itself implemented just months earlier.

Perhaps most concerning are the memo’s provisions regarding legal immunity. It asserts that everyone in the chain of command following orders compliant with laws of war enjoys battlefield immunity because this constitutes an armed conflict. Additionally, it addresses the lack of congressional authorization by claiming the president has constitutional authority as commander-in-chief to order these strikes independently, arguing they don’t constitute “hostilities” under the War Powers Resolution because they don’t put U.S. personnel in danger.

The Slippery Slope of Executive Overreach

This secret memo represents one of the most dangerous expansions of executive power in recent memory. By accepting White House assertions without critical examination and constructing legal justification around predetermined political objectives, the Office of Legal Counsel has abandoned its role as an independent legal arbiter. This isn’t legal analysis—it’s legal facilitation of predetermined outcomes, and it sets a terrifying precedent for future administrations regardless of political affiliation.

The memo’s reasoning creates a circular logic that should alarm every defender of constitutional governance: The White House declares cartels to be terrorists, then uses that designation to justify military action, which then requires treating them as combatants in an armed conflict. This self-referential reasoning bypasses congressional oversight, judicial review, and public accountability. When executive branch lawyers become mere rubber stamps for presidential desires rather than guardians of constitutional principles, we’ve fundamentally compromised our system of checks and balances.

Due Process and the Right to Life

At its core, this policy represents a wholesale abandonment of due process protections that form the bedrock of American jurisprudence. The individuals targeted in these strikes—80 human beings—were never charged, tried, or convicted of any crime. They received no opportunity to present evidence in their defense, no access to legal representation, and no impartial judicial review. Their right to life was extinguished based on executive assertion rather than judicial process.

This administration’s willingness to designate suspects as “combatants” after their deaths represents a particularly disturbing aspect of this policy. The post-hoc justification of killings through semantic reclassification undermines fundamental human rights principles that America has historically championed. When we start redefining reality to justify extrajudicial executions, we’ve crossed a moral threshold that should concern every American regardless of political affiliation.

The International Law Implications

The memo’s legal reasoning stretches international law beyond recognition. The concept of “collective self-defense” cited to justify attacks on cartels operating in other countries’ territories raises serious questions about sovereignty and international legal norms. Notably, the memo fails to address whether any foreign government requested U.S. military intervention—a standard requirement for invoking collective self-defense under international law.

Colombia’s president has explicitly demanded that the United States cease these strikes, calling them “murders.” This rejection by a key regional partner undermines the administration’s claims about acting in collective defense and highlights the diplomatic damage caused by this unilateral approach. When allied nations condemn our actions as unlawful killings, we’ve not only compromised our moral standing but our strategic interests as well.

The Chilling Expansion to Land Strikes

Most alarmingly, there are indications this policy may expand to include land-based strikes, potentially in Venezuela. The movement of naval firepower appropriate for major land attacks rather than small boat operations suggests preparation for escalated military engagement. Should this occur, it would represent an even more dramatic expansion of executive power without congressional authorization or public debate.

The existing memo doesn’t address land strikes, meaning the administration would need to develop new legal justifications for such actions. This pattern of creating legal frameworks to justify predetermined military actions fundamentally corrupts the rule of law and turns legal analysis into a mere tool of policy implementation rather than an independent constraint on government power.

Conclusion: Defending Constitutional Principles

This secret memo and the policy it justifies represent everything that defenders of constitutional democracy should fear: unchecked executive power, circumvention of congressional authority, abandonment of due process, and the normalization of extrajudicial killings. The fact that these actions are being justified through legalistic reasoning developed in secret should alarm every American who values transparency, accountability, and constitutional governance.

We must recognize that powers claimed by one administration become available to all subsequent administrations. The precedent set today—that presidents can unilaterally declare armed conflicts against non-state actors and authorize lethal force based on secret legal opinions—will haunt our democracy for generations. The defense of liberty requires vigilance against all threats to constitutional governance, regardless of which political party occupies the White House. This moment demands that citizens, lawmakers, and legal professionals across the political spectrum stand together in defense of the constitutional principles that make America exceptional.