-
Click here to listen to this article - Share via
See more from the L.A. Times in Google Search. Set us as preferred
American forces are conducting combat operations in South America right now. If that comes as news, it is because the administration has disclosed the mission only in fragments, and Congress has not forced a public accounting.
United States Green Berets are operating alongside Ecuadorian forces in the northern province of Esmeraldas in what the provincial governor described as joint operations against “narcoterrorism.”
Neither government has said which organizations the ground operations are targeting, what the troops are doing or how many Americans are involved. The governor said American forces had been there “for some time” and would remain “for as long as necessary.” Ecuador has authorized U.S. military personnel and contractors to enter without visas for up to 180 days and granted them immunity under existing agreements.
On March 6, American and Ecuadorian forces conducted what U.S. Southern Command called “lethal kinetic operations” against a site near the Colombian border. Three days later, the White House formally notified Congress that American forces had helped plan and execute the strike. President Trump cited his authority as commander in chief and chief executive.
Two U.S. warships and three Black Hawk helicopters have also joined the campaign. Ecuador’s defense minister said the deployment would triple the country’s maritime interdiction capacity.
Since late August, U.S. forces have boarded and sunk three vessels in the eastern Pacific that SOUTHCOM said served as floating refueling stations for drug traffickers. On September 5, they conducted a fourth interdiction involving a multi-vessel refueling station, transferring the people aboard the main vessel to Ecuadorian authorities before sinking it and the attached support vessels.
Operations in Ecuador are part of a broader campaign. Since September 2025, American forces have conducted lethal 68 strikes against alleged drug-smuggling vessels in the Caribbean and eastern Pacific, killing at least 227 people. The government has offered almost no public evidence about the people or cargo aboard the vessels.
Trump has initiated and expanded an unconstitutional, open-ended American combat campaign in Ecuador and at sea without congressional authorization.
The Constitution assigns Congress the power to decide whether the country will enter war. The president commands the armed forces once they are lawfully employed and may act without prior congressional authorization to respond to sudden attacks and protect Americans in immediate danger. The administration has not claimed that this campaign began under either circumstance. This is a deliberate and expanding military commitment chosen by the executive branch.
Ecuador has suffered devastating cartel violence and asked the U.S. for help. Part of a serious policy debate might well have been whether military force should play a role in a broader regional response to transnational criminal organizations. Trump never took that question to Congress or the nation. He simply committed American forces to combat.
Ecuador’s consent may address the international question of its sovereignty. It does not answer the constitutional question in the U.S. A foreign government cannot grant an American president authority that the Constitution assigns to Congress.
Calling drug-trafficking organizations “terrorists” does not create that authority either. A terrorist designation is not an authorization for war. Congress has not authorized force against any of these organizations. Executive labels do not transfer Congress’ war powers to the president.
A constitutional process was available. Trump could have identified the organizations the United States proposed to fight, explained why military force was necessary and defined the mission’s objectives, geographic limits and expected duration. Congress could have established reporting requirements and funding limits. Congress might have authorized that mission. Instead, the administration bypassed the debate altogether.
A handful of lawmakers have demanded answers about Ecuador. But five months after the White House formally notified Congress of the March strike, Congress has neither authorized the campaign nor acted to stop it.
A request to authorize military force produces hearings, testimony, reporting and public debate. Military and civilian leaders must explain what they intend to accomplish and what they are asking American troops to risk. Citizens have an opportunity to judge whether the objective justifies the cost.
When a president ignores that process, those questions remain unanswered. A combat mission can quietly accumulate troops, ships, aircraft and targets while the American public remains largely unaware that it exists.
If constitutional deliberation seems too cumbersome, we should ask what the Constitution is for. It exists in part to check executive power when unilateral action would be easier. Its allocation of war powers requires a president to obtain congressional authorization before beginning a sustained military campaign.
Nothing a nation asks of its troops is more consequential than placing them where they may have to kill or be killed. They deserve leaders willing to state the objective, defend the strategy and accept accountability for the war they are asking others to fight.
Citizens who claim to believe in limited government bear responsibility too. Those willing to treat the Constitution’s allocation of war powers as optional because they approve of this president or despise his targets must be equally comfortable with every future president claiming the authority to decide alone when, where and against whom the United States goes to war.
Whether the U.S. should confront drug cartels through law enforcement or military force is a question Congress and the American public should debate. Trump denied the public that opportunity, and Congress has failed to insist on it.
The country barely knows this war exists. American troops are fighting anyway. That should stop the country cold.
Jon Duffy is a retired Naval officer. He writes about leadership and democracy.
Insights
L.A. Times Insights delivers AI-generated analysis on Voices content to offer all points of view. Insights does not appear on any news articles.
Viewpoint
Perspectives
The following AI-generated content is powered by Perplexity. The Los Angeles Times editorial staff does not create or edit the content.
Ideas expressed in the piece
- The article argues that American special forces are conducting combat operations alongside Ecuadorian troops in Esmeraldas under the banner of fighting “narcoterrorism,” while both governments release only fragmentary information about targets, tactics and the scale of U.S. involvement.[1][2][4]
- The article contends that these operations form part of a wider maritime and aerial campaign in the Caribbean and eastern Pacific, in which U.S. forces are sinking suspected smuggling vessels and killing alleged cartel members without presenting public evidence about who was aboard, raising serious concerns about transparency, accountability and possible misidentification.
- Building on those concerns, the article argues that President Trump has initiated and expanded an open-ended combat campaign without the congressional authorization the Constitution requires, stressing that war powers belong to Congress except in cases of sudden attack or immediate danger to Americans—conditions the administration has not claimed here.[5][6][8]
- The piece emphasizes that Ecuador’s consent and cooperation, including visa waivers and legal immunity for U.S. personnel, may resolve questions of Ecuadorian sovereignty but do not supply the domestic constitutional authority that must come from Congress, underscoring that no foreign government can grant powers the U.S. Constitution assigns elsewhere.[1][2][3]
- In examining the administration’s reliance on “narcoterrorism” rhetoric, the article stresses that designating cartels as terrorist organizations is not itself an authorization for war, pointing to the gap between terrorism listings and explicit force authorizations and warning that executive labels cannot lawfully transfer Congress’s war powers to the president.[5][6][8]
- The article further criticizes Congress for what it describes as passive acquiescence: despite formal notifications of strikes against cartel-linked vessels and facilities, lawmakers have neither authorized the broader campaign nor moved decisively to curtail it, allowing presidential war powers to expand through silence.[5][6]
- Finally, the piece suggests that bypassing open debate denies both troops and citizens essential clarity about objectives, limits and risks, arguing that those who support unilateral action against cartels today must accept that the same unchecked authority could be wielded by future presidents in very different conflicts.
Different views on the topic
- In contrast, U.S. defense officials and Ecuadorian leaders describe the joint missions as a necessary, cooperative response to surging cartel violence, portraying U.S. Green Berets, air assets and warships as helping a beleaguered partner state regain control of border regions and critical ports used for drug shipments to the United States and Europe.[1][2][3]
- These officials highlight operational results, noting that combined forces have targeted suspected drug-smuggling sites, interdicted refueling vessels at sea and seized large quantities of cocaine, and they frame such actions as concrete steps toward dismantling transnational criminal networks rather than as an undeclared war.[1][3][7][9][10]
- At the same time, administration statements and legal justifications presented to Congress assert that cartel activities amount to an “armed attack” and pose an imminent threat to U.S. national security, characterizing cartel members as unlawful combatants and arguing that these conditions warrant the use of military force under the president’s inherent Article II authority and existing law.[5][6]
- Furthermore, legal and policy analyses note that designating cartels as Foreign Terrorist Organizations and Specially Designated Global Terrorists, while not a formal war authorization, reclassifies them as national security threats and creates a political and legal framework in which the executive can more readily invoke self-defense and other security authorities to support military operations.[5][6][8]
- In addition, some national security commentators contend that the administration has complied with the War Powers Resolution’s reporting requirements and that, when combined with terrorism designations and longstanding counter-narcotics mandates, these notifications provide sufficient legal basis for limited, geographically focused strikes without a new, stand-alone authorization for the use of military force.[5][6][8]
- Ecuadorian officials and supportive U.S. voices also stress that the operations occur at Ecuador’s request and under its consent, portraying the campaign as an example of regional burden-sharing in which U.S. capabilities help a partner confront cartels that have devastated communities with killings, kidnappings and extortion.[1][2][9][10]
More From the Los Angeles Times
Podcasts
In this episode, we bring you the update on how an Altadena resident and her neighborhood are coming along, plus a re-run of the two-part series we did on the Poppyfields people back in June.
California once bet big on offshore wind to help power its clean-energy future, but the Trump administration is now paying developers billions to walk away from their projects. As California’s remaining offshore-wind leases hang in the balance, the state is fighting back in court.
The Hillside Strangler murders terrorized Los Angeles in the late 1970s. The killers were a pair of sadistic cousins. One confessed. The other was set to stand trial—until L.A. prosecutors flinched.
