The Cartel Marque and Reprisal Authorization Act of 2025 (S. 3567) seeks to revive a historically significant but long-dormant constitutional power—the issuance of letters of marque and reprisal—to combat drug cartels and related organizations perceived as threats to U.S. national security. The bill, introduced in the Senate on December 18, 2025, and referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations, authorizes the President to commission privately armed individuals and entities under official letters of marque and reprisal to seize, outside U.S. geographic boundaries, the persons and property of those deemed responsible for acts of aggression against the United States. This includes members of cartels, cartel-linked organizations, or conspirators associated with such groups.
Section 2 outlines Congress's findings, citing Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution, which grants Congress the power to issue letters of marque and reprisal, and asserting that cartels pose an extraordinary threat to U.S. national security and foreign policy. Section 3 details the bill's operative provisions: subsection (a) grants the President authority to issue such letters, requiring suitable instructions to commissioned private forces to employ 'all means reasonably necessary' to apprehend or seize targets beyond U.S. borders. Subsection (b) mandates that no letter be issued without a security bond, the amount of which the President determines sufficient to ensure compliance with the letter's terms. Subsection (c) defines 'cartel' either as organizations designated under an Executive Order from January 20, 2025, titled 'Designating Cartels And Other Organizations As Foreign Terrorist Organizations and Specially Designated Global Terrorists,' or as 'transnational criminal organizations' under section 3003(5) of Public Law 118-50 (21 U.S.C. 2341(5)).
The bill represents a significant expansion of executive power in the realm of foreign adversaries and non-state actors, leveraging a constitutional mechanism last used broadly during the War of 1812. By authorizing private citizens or entities to engage in what amounts to extraterritorial law enforcement or military-style operations—potentially including lethal force—the legislation raises profound questions about accountability, oversight, international law, and the risks of privatizing force. The security bond requirement aims to mitigate some risks by ensuring financial responsibility for unlawful actions, but critics argue it may be insufficient to prevent abuses or unintended escalations. Proponents, however, contend that the bill provides a necessary tool to counter cartel violence and aggression that traditional law enforcement and military channels have failed to adequately address.
Ask This Bill
Ask a specific question about this bill’s actual text — answers cite the section they come from.
+Offers an innovative approach to addressing the devastating impact of cartel violence on U.S. communities, particularly along the Southwest border and in areas affected by drug trafficking.
+Could supplement under-resourced federal efforts to dismantle cartel networks by leveraging private capabilities and intelligence.
+The security bond requirement reflects an attempt to impose financial responsibility and deter reckless or unlawful conduct by private actors.
+If narrowly tailored and tightly supervised, the measure could target specific individuals responsible for acts of aggression without broader military engagements.
+Revives a historical tool that, in theory, allows for precise, targeted responses to non-state threats without declaring war.
MIGHT OPPOSE
−Raises serious constitutional and legal concerns regarding due process, as individuals targeted under letters of marque may be deprived of life, liberty, or property without trial or judicial review.
−Risks violating international law, including the sovereignty of other nations, if private forces conduct seizures or violent operations within foreign territories without host-nation consent.
−Privatizing the use of force against cartels could lead to human rights abuses, lack of transparency, and impunity for violations committed by contractors or mercenaries.
−May escalate violence and instability in regions where cartels operate, potentially harming civilian populations and undermining long-term diplomatic and development efforts.
−Diverts focus from proven strategies such as intelligence sharing, international cooperation, and addressing root causes of drug demand and cartel recruitment.
Republicans
MIGHT SUPPORT
+Strengthens national security by providing the President with a flexible tool to combat transnational criminal organizations that threaten U.S. interests.
+Leverages private sector initiative and resources, potentially reducing the burden on the U.S. military and federal law enforcement agencies.
+Aligns with a strict constitutional interpretation, utilizing an underused Congressional power expressly granted by Article I, Section 8.
+May deter cartel aggression by increasing the perceived risk and cost of attacks against the United States through the threat of private reprisal actions.
+The security bond requirement introduces a layer of accountability, ensuring that private actors have financial skin in the game to conduct operations lawfully.
MIGHT OPPOSE
−Risk of mission creep and unintended escalation, as private actors may interpret 'all means reasonably necessary' too broadly, potentially leading to violations of sovereignty or international law.
−Difficulty in overseeing and controlling private forces operating abroad, which could result in actions that contradict U.S. foreign policy objectives or diplomatic relations.
−Potential for abuse if the President defines 'acts of aggression' or 'cartel-linked' too expansively, targeting political opponents or engaging in unlawful killings without sufficient judicial oversight.
−Creates a dangerous precedent for privatizing warfare, which could undermine state control over the use of force and lead to unaccountable armed groups operating globally.
−May provoke retaliatory actions from cartels or their state sponsors, endangering U.S. citizens abroad and complicating international counter-narcotics efforts.
![Sen. Lee, Mike [R-UT]](https://www.congress.gov/img/member/l000577_200.jpg)