Rand Paul Breaks With Trump and Hegseth, Calling the Caribbean Strikes “Actually Illegal”

A Republican Senator Just Shattered the White House’s Legal Narrative

Senator Rand Paul did what almost no Republican in the Trump era has dared to do. He accused the President and his Defense Secretary, Pete Hegseth, of violating federal law. In a brief but remarkable interview, Paul declared, “I think both strikes are actually illegal.” His statement came after new disclosures revealed that the United States conducted offensive military operations in the Caribbean without notifying Congress.

Paul’s words carried weight because they confronted a pattern that lawmakers in both parties have begun to notice. The White House has been running foreign military actions under a legal theory that remains hidden from Congress, the courts, and the public. These operations were launched in the wake of Trump’s expansive executive order on foreign threats, a directive so vague that even senior senators have struggled to determine its scope.

Senator Mark Kelly recently described the secrecy surrounding these missions. “I have had missiles blow up next to my plane. I am not going to be silenced,” Kelly said on national television. He added that the administration kept him in the dark about operations that traditionally require congressional briefings. Kelly argued that withholding this information “is about intimidation,” and that the administration’s approach represents a serious break from standard democratic oversight.

Paul’s criticism moved the conversation from political outrage to constitutional violation. The War Powers Resolution requires the President to notify Congress within forty eight hours of deploying U.S. forces into hostilities and restricts unauthorized engagements to sixty days unless Congress explicitly approves them (Fisher, 2022). There is no record of the Caribbean strike notifications ever being filed. As Paul put it, “The President does not get to create his own war authority.”

Legal scholars agree. A review published by The Atlantic notes that any offensive military action taken without congressional authorization is considered unlawful unless tied to an immediate national threat, which the administration has not demonstrated (Cohn, 2024). Constitutional expert Louis Fisher similarly argues that internal executive branch interpretations cannot override statutory limits on war powers (Fisher, 2022). The strikes, therefore, raise not only statutory questions but constitutional ones.

There is now mounting evidence that Trump’s executive order was used as the internal justification for these operations. The order itself is structured so broadly that it resembles a general travel waiver rather than a targeted directive. According to analysts familiar with the classified annex, it grants the President and Defense Secretary unilateral discretion to identify and suppress “foreign threats” without specifying geographic limits or oversight procedures. Paul’s reaction suggests this framework does not withstand constitutional scrutiny.

What makes Paul’s statement so consequential is that he is one of the Senate’s most consistent critics of unchecked executive power, regardless of which party controls the White House. His accusation effectively puts his own party on notice. It signals that the traditional Republican claim of defending constitutional limits cannot coexist with an embrace of unlimited presidential war powers.

More senators are now quietly raising alarms. Several members of the Armed Services Committee have said privately that they were surprised to learn how many operations have been conducted without their knowledge. One official familiar with internal briefings described the situation as “a complete blackout.” Kelly underscored this point by arguing that key lawmakers learned about the missions only after reporters began asking questions. “This is what real courage looks like,” Kelly said, noting that he would not allow any administration to intimidate Congress into silence.

The political tension is beginning to spill over into the foreign policy establishment. Former Pentagon officials interviewed by Reuters indicated that the legal justification offered by the White House is “unsustainable” and “in direct conflict with fifty years of precedent.” Scholars at the Brookings Institution have begun outlining the potential implications if the courts determine that unauthorized force was used. Those consequences could include judicial intervention to limit the President’s authority or legislative action that rewrites the War Powers Resolution entirely.

If Paul’s assessment is accurate, then the President ordered military force without statutory authorization, without congressional notification, and without satisfying the constitutional threshold required for unilateral action. That would make the strikes illegal under both the War Powers Resolution and Article I of the Constitution. It would also place the United States in dangerous territory, because past presidents have been rebuked for far less severe breakdowns in oversight.

The White House has offered no public explanation of the legal theory it is relying on. Instead, the administration has leaned on the political argument that strong action is needed abroad. But strong action is not the same thing as lawful action. As Fisher (2022) notes, national security cannot be used as a blanket to cover constitutional violations. Congress is the branch that decides when the nation goes to war. The President executes that decision. When those roles are reversed, the republic is weakened.

The unfolding conflict is now a test of institutional courage. Paul sounded the alarm inside his party. Kelly has raised his own on the Democratic side. The issue is clear. Did the President order unauthorized military action. The answer will determine not only the scope of Trump’s executive authority, but the future structure of American war powers.

Congress must now decide whether it will act or whether it will allow the executive branch to continue expanding its reach unchecked. Because once a president discovers he can launch war without permission, the precedent does not disappear. It becomes the new baseline.

And as Paul warned, “There are consequences.”

References

Cohn, M. (2024). Presidential power and unauthorized military force. The Atlantic.

Fisher, L. (2022). The War Powers Resolution and constitutional limits on executive authority. Congressional Research Service.

Reuters. (2025). Legal scholars question White House justification for Caribbean military actions.

WHAT TO READ: