(DDM) — A new political rift is unfolding in Washington as the Trump administration insists it has given seven classified briefings to Congress regarding recent U.S. military strikes on suspected drug boats, a claim that several lawmakers are now disputing as misleading and incomplete.
Diaspora Digital Media (DDM) gathered that the controversy stems from growing tensions between the White House and Capitol Hill over the administration’s transparency on military actions carried out under the banner of counter-narcotics operations in international waters.
In a statement to CNN, a senior administration official said the government had “provided Congress seven separate classified briefings since early September,” covering members and staff from key bodies including the House and Senate Armed Services Committees, Intelligence Committees, and Foreign Relations Committees, among others.
The official added that the sessions were designed to keep lawmakers “fully informed” about the nature and scope of the strikes, which targeted what U.S. defense officials describe as “narco-trafficking vessels” allegedly linked to transnational crime syndicates.
However, several congressional aides, particularly from the Democratic side, are contesting that claim, arguing that the administration is inflating the number of briefings by counting repeat sessions held for small groups of staff or individual members as separate events.
One Democratic Senate aide told CNN that “seven briefings is highly misleading,” noting that “the administration appears to be counting the same meeting given multiple times to certain groups of people.”
Conversely, a Republican aide from the House Armed Services Committee defended the administration, confirming that the committee had indeed received “three separate classified briefings — two for staff and one for members.”
The development underscores a deeper divide over how much information the Trump administration is sharing with Congress on sensitive military operations, particularly those conducted without broad public disclosure.
DDM learned that these strikes, often conducted in coordination with regional partners, are part of a broader anti-narcotics strategy that the administration claims has disrupted several smuggling routes across the Caribbean and the Pacific.
Yet, lawmakers continue to demand greater detail on the legal justification, operational oversight, and potential civilian impact of such missions.
Observers say the controversy echoes a familiar struggle between the executive and legislative branches over war powers and intelligence transparency, issues that have historically strained U.S. administrations across both parties.
Legal analysts told DDM that while classified briefings are standard for matters of national security, Congress retains a constitutional right to full oversight, particularly when military force is used abroad without direct congressional authorization.
The White House has yet to release any public record of the operations in question, and the Pentagon has remained tight-lipped, citing national security reasons.
As pressure mounts on Capitol Hill, Democrats are reportedly considering a formal request for a comprehensive joint briefing before the House and Senate committees to clarify inconsistencies in the administration’s claims.
For now, the issue remains a flashpoint, reflecting not only a debate over transparency but also a broader question about the limits of executive power in America’s global military campaigns.
