Senate Republicans—joined by one high-profile Democrat—on Wednesday blocked a War Powers resolution that sought to stop President Donald Trump from continuing airstrikes on suspected drug-smuggling boats in the Caribbean. The measure failed in a 51–48 vote, with Pennsylvania Democratic Sen. John Fetterman breaking ranks to vote against it, while Republican Sens. Rand Paul of Kentucky and Lisa Murkowski of Alaska sided with Democrats.

The resolution, spearheaded by Democratic Sens. Adam Schiff of California and Tim Kaine of Virginia, would have required congressional authorization before the U.S. military could engage in hostilities with any non-state drug-trafficking organizations, including those that the Trump administration has labeled “foreign terrorist organizations.” The White House has already conducted four strikes on vessels near Venezuela since early September, and has declared the U.S. is in a “non-international armed conflict” with cartels.

Get 40% off new DailyWire+ annual memberships with code FALL40 at checkout! 

“The Administration strongly opposes passage of S.J. Res. 83, a joint resolution that would direct the removal of United States Armed Forces from hostilities against any foreign terrorist organization or specially designated global terrorist designated on or after February 20, 2025, engaged in the promotion, trafficking, or distribution of illegal drugs, and other related activities,” the Trump administration stated on Tuesday.

At the beginning of October, the White House sent a memo to Congress stating that the drug cartels were terrorist organizations and unlawful combatants. “The United States has now reached a critical point where we must use force in self-defense and defense of others against the ongoing attacks by these designated terrorist organizations,” it declared.

“As we have said many times, the President acted in line with the law of armed conflict to protect our country from those trying to bring deadly poison to our shores, and he is delivering on his promise to take on the cartels and eliminate these national security threats from murdering more Americans,” White House spokeswoman Anna Kelly commented.

GOP Senator Mike Crapo of Idaho said the strikes were “fully compliant and fully justified.” Sen. Rick Scott (R-FL) called the cartels “narco-terrorists” and praised Trump for “trying to get drugs out of this country.”

Sen. Paul argued, “Is it too much to ask to know the names of those we kill before we kill them? To know what evidence exists of their guilt?” He added: “Death is generally not the penalty for drug smuggling.”

Fetterman’s vote gave the administration the edge it needed. He has demonstrated a willingness to break with Democrats before, especially regarding the Israel-Hamas war.

Fuck Hamas. pic.twitter.com/1j2nOcn1IO

— U.S. Senator John Fetterman (@SenFettermanPA) October 6, 2025

California’s current crime conundrum can be told as a story with (at least) three parts. Voters passed 2014’s Proposition 47, 2016’s Proposition 57, and finally 2024’s Proposition 36.

In the first two, voters went along with progressive policies — sold using feel-good language — that created more homelessness, crime, and human misery. In the third, though, voters overwhelmingly rejected the failures caused by these earlier policies.

But now, California Governor Gavin Newsom and his state-level legislative allies are trying to undermine voters calling for more criminal accountability — including time in prison for those who break the law — by refusing to adequately fund Prop. 36’s proposals.

For those unfamiliar, Prop. 47 downgraded most types of theft under $950 from felonies to misdemeanors and made it impossible to charge most simple possession cases as felonies rather than misdemeanors.

Combined with the fact that California’s rogue prosecutors in cities like San Francisco, Los Angeles, and Oakland — just to name a few — refused to prosecute most misdemeanor offenses, lawlessness flourished.

Amid this front-end problem, California voters approved Prop. 57 in 2016. Voters were told this proposal was designed to allow “nonviolent” offenders who had been rehabilitated to be released from prison early.

Sounds good. Right?

Here’s the problem: The California legislature had previously redefined “nonviolent” offenses to include crimes like assault with a deadly weapon, soliciting murder, intimidating a witness, resisting arrest that causes harm to a police officer, elder or child abuse, arson with injury, human trafficking, certain types of manslaughter, rape of an unconscious person (though this has since changed), sex trafficking, and trafficking of children.

Most people would agree that those are not “nonviolent” crimes. And yet, because the California legislature had declared it so, those who committed these heinous offenses began to be released under Prop. 57’s regime.

Sensing that something wasn’t quite right, and that these soft-on-crime policies were hurting their communities rather than helping them, Californians took action.

Not only did they vote out of office the rogue district attorneys in San Francisco, Los Angeles, and Oakland, but they also passed — with almost 70% of the vote — Prop. 36, which rolled back many of Prop. 47’s soft-on-crime policies.

Under Prop. 36, repeat shoplifters can now be charged with a felony punishable by up to three years in state prison. Those convicted of certain drug-dealing offenses must serve their sentences in state prison rather than county jail. (This matters because in 2011, the California legislature passed AB 109, which allows those who commit many types of crimes to serve their sentences in a county jail instead of a state prison. With jail overcrowding posing a real issue, many served far less time than they were supposed to.)

Those accused of certain drug possession offenses or who have multiple past convictions for drug crimes can be charged with a “treatment-mandated felony” — meaning that if a person completes a drug rehab program, his or her charges will be dismissed. If not, that person can face up to three years in state prison. Finally, Prop. 36 requires courts to warn those who come before them that if they provide illegal drugs to someone, they could be charged with murder if that person overdoses and dies as a result.

Governor Gavin Newsom opposed Prop. 36 and vigorously campaigned against it. Now that California voters have rejected his soft-on-crime policies, he’s pitching a temper tantrum and is actively opposing funding many of Prop. 36’s proposals.

In May 2025, Newsom said, “There were a lot of supervisors in the counties that promoted it … So, this is their opportunity to step up. Fund it!”

One state senator reacted, saying, “He is being absolutely recalcitrant because the voters didn’t vote the way he wanted them to and the way he told them to . . . He’s taking his football and going home.”

After dragging his feet for the first half of 2025, Newsom finally offered some funding for Prop. 36’s proposals. But critics argue that this money was already allocated and not enough to carry out the reforms in Prop. 36.

Newsom’s recalcitrance is unfortunate. Not only is he subverting the will of the voters, he’s also pushing back against commonsense policies designed to control California’s crime problem.

Californians know there needs to be accountability when someone breaks the law. They voted for it. And now Newsom and the California legislature need to fund it.

* * *

Zack Smith is a Senior Legal Fellow and Manager, Supreme Court and Appellate Advocacy Program, The Heritage Foundation.

The views expressed in this piece are those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of The Daily Wire.

Get 40% off new DailyWire+ annual memberships with code FALL40 at checkout!