Senator Warner Calls for Transparency on Pentagon Drug Strike Intelligence

A screengrab from a video posted by Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth shows two boats moments before a missile strikes them in the Eastern Pacific on October 27, 2025. In his post, Hegseth claimed that U.S. military forces struck these boats and two others, killing 14 people and leaving one survivor. Pete Hegseth/X

Democratic Senator Mark Warner expressed confidence in the intelligence information the Pentagon is using for strikes on suspected drug traffickers in the Pacific, but urged the Trump administration to disclose more data to a skeptical public, as Democrats continue to question the legal basis for continuing the strikes.

After a briefing with Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, Warner stated:

“I think our intelligence capabilities are quite good,” he explained, adding that the administration has “visibility” into the trafficking of illegal drugs.

Transparency of Intelligence Data and Government Demands

The Virginia senator’s closing remarks also underscored that pursuing continuation of actions without transparent demonstration to the public that the strike forces are actually destroying the drug trade would be a serious misstep and would undermine trust in the administration’s actions.

“The notion of kinetic strikes without actually stopping and showing the American public that they are transporting drugs and that among them are the bad guys is a huge mistake and undermines trust in the administration’s actions.”

Warner also stated that it is good that all senators can now review the detailed legal justification for the strikes in a closed session, but noted that colleagues should have the opportunity to hear official administration representatives during a broad discussion of authorities in the region.

“It’s good that all senators can now review the detailed legal justification for the administration’s strikes in a classified session.”

Members of Congress continue to discuss whether there is a single framework to ensure that peaceful civilians do not become casualties of counterterrorism operations and how to regulate the president’s powers in the region.

“I am not worried that there is a link between these boats and the trafficking networks,” Jim Himes said during a press briefing. “However, it is not entirely clear whether there exists the same structure to prevent the deaths of innocents as in traditional counterterrorism strikes.”

In response to the incident, Rubio and Hegseth briefed the “Gang of 12” – leaders from both chambers and top representatives from both parties on key committees, and the administration described this group as the forum for discussing the legal basis for the strikes.

“The ‘Gang of 12’ are leaders from both chambers and top Republicans and Democrats on key committees who have received the administration’s briefings on both military and legislative grounds.”

Gregory Meeks, a Democratic representative from the House and a member of the Foreign Affairs Committee, said that behind closed doors he had not heard anything that would persuade him of the legality of the strikes. He also noted that he had not seen evidence linking ships or their passengers to drug trafficking, although officials, including Rubio, had repeatedly stated such evidentiary material.

“I did not hear anything that would convince me of the legality of the strikes during the closed briefing.”

According to Meeks, the administration cites a memorandum from the Office of Legal Counsel stating that Congress does not need authorization for military action, but the memo itself was provided to legislators. He also noted that he is still seeking an answer as to why a war powers notification was issued after the first strike if it was not legally required.

“It seems they are cooking up elaborate justifications to evade Congress’s role in matters of war and peace. With their legal justification, which they call lawful permission, I do not buy it completely.”

The House Speaker Mike Johnson argued that “excellent intelligence” supports the legal basis for the strikes, based on a “military paradigm” rather than the traditional law-enforcement protocol. He also said that this is a “necessary, timely, and lawful response,” since the cartels allegedly declared war on us, and statistics show drug-related deaths have claimed more lives in recent years than during the Vietnam War.

Regarding the possibility that the administration was aware of the people on board the vessels, Johnson said he did not know the exact answer, but believed a high level of reliability that the passengers were connected to cartels, rather than accidentally on board the boat.

“This is a necessary, timely, and lawful response,” Johnson said, adding that “intelligence” confirms the grounds for the strikes.

Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer called for a full joint briefing with all senators on the matter, noting after the closed-door meeting: “What we heard is not enough. We need a lot of answers.”

“What we heard is not enough. We need a lot of answers.”

On the other hand, Hakeem Jeffries also expressed a desire to hear “more information,” partly blaming Johnson for the decision not to convene the House during the stalemate, which led to a lack of full congressional briefing information.

“I want to hear more information.”

In summary, the briefing materials point to a persistent demand for intelligence data and the legal justification for the strikes, as well as a need for a more candid discussion between the legislative and executive branches regarding the president’s powers and the protection of citizens.

Overall, the discussion continues, as the balance between national security and democratic transparency remains a key issue for future debates and decisions in Congress.