US Military Actions in Mexico - The Trump administration is considering sending US troops and intel officers into Mexico to target drug cartels, including potential drone strikes on drug labs [1] - Early training for the mission has started, but deployment is not imminent [2] - The administration believes it doesn't need congressional approval for strikes against drug smuggling [2] - The administration argues that the strikes don't meet the definition of "hostilities" under the War Powers Resolution because US troops are not directly in harm's way [4][5][6] - The administration's interpretation of the War Powers Resolution is that it does not apply to the ongoing anti-cartel campaign [3] Legal and Congressional Oversight - Under the 1973 War Powers Resolution, the president typically needs congressional approval for sustained military action longer than 60 days [3] - The administration argues that because the drone strikes are remotely operated and US forces aren't physically in danger, they don't have to abide by the War Powers Act's 60-day notification requirement [5][6] - Senators on the Senate Armed Services Committee have sent multiple letters to the Pentagon about armed forces activities and have received no response [10] Shifting Goals and Strategy - The administration's goals appear to be shifting, initially focused on stopping fentanyl, then shifting to pressuring the Venezuelan military [14][15] - Fentanyl primarily comes from Mexico, not Venezuela [14] - Potential strikes on military bases in Venezuela could be considered an act of hostility, especially if American pilots are involved [11][12]

Let's bring in Ankush Cardori, former federal prosecutor, now senior writer with Politico magazine, and Mark Lieovich, staff writer with The Atlantic, author and MSNBC political contributor. Welcome, guys. So, anush you first here because the new Washington Post report says the War Powers Resolution does not apply to deadly boat strikes, which the administration has said killed 64 people so far.And that's because US service members have not been put in harm's way. Is this argument legally sound. And if they ...

The president does not intend, as he signaled, to take any further military action against Iran. Is that vote still necessary. Absolutely. It's absolutely still necessary.Look, we have to make sure that we are having a full debate on the House floor. Out in the open, the American people have said very clearly they do not want us dragged into another war. And I just have to take issue with what my colleague Darrell Issa said on that clip that you just played.The truth of the matter is the people that were in ...