National Security Leaders for America Urges Congress to Conduct Thorough Oversight of Military Force in Drug Interdiction Operations

Calling for Transparency, Legal Clarity, and Public Accountability in Operation Southern Spear

December 16, 2025

Washington, DC, — National Security Leaders for America (NSL4A) remains concerned by conflicting public accounts regarding the September 2, 2025, follow-on strike and urges Congress to continue its investigation of that incident and the overall conduct of Operation Southern Spear to ensure meaningful public accountability.

“The American people are entitled to transparency regarding the policies, decisions, and orders given to U.S. service members conducting these strikes,” said NSL4A Founder and President retired Rear Admiral Mike Smith. “As we emphasized in our earlier statement on December 1, adherence to the rule of law and established norms governing the use of force is fundamental to military professionalism and democratic trust.”

Former Air Force Deputy Judge Advocate General Major General Steven Lepper, USAF (Ret.), added, “Persistent uncertainty about what occurred, why decisions were made, and under what legal authority lethal force was employed underscores the need for prompt, bipartisan congressional investigation, oversight, and accountability.”

NSL4A urges the relevant congressional committees—including the House and Senate Armed Services Committees, and where appropriate, the oversight committees of both chambers—to prepare and make publicly available detailed reports addressing two core questions:

What legal authority governs Operation Southern Spear in the Caribbean and Eastern Pacific?

What were the circumstances of, and legal basis for, the September 2, 2025, follow-on strike?

To enable meaningful oversight, NSL4A further urges Congress to secure and release to the public the Office of Legal Counsel opinion or comparable legal analysis that reportedly sets forth the Administration’s legal basis for Operation Southern Spear, with only those redactions strictly necessary to protect intelligence sources and methods.

Clear answers are necessary to establish the governing legal framework—whether the operation is properly characterized as military or law-enforcement activity, whether and how the Law of Armed Conflict applies, and what authorities govern the use of lethal force—and to assess the decision-making surrounding the follow-on strike, including what commanders knew, what legal advice was provided, and how core principles such as distinction, military necessity, and proportionality were applied.

In addition to any classified briefings, Congress should ensure its oversight produces a durable public record that affirms the United States’ commitment to the rule of law and the ethical conduct of its military.