The Trump administration has faced scrutiny for its military actions and the use of chemical weapons in domestic law enforcement. Recent reports indicate that the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) allocated over $5 million for chemical weapons since January 2025, a figure significantly higher than previous spending levels. This funding has been directed towards agencies such as Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP), raising alarms among advocacy groups about potential health risks and civil liberties implications.

George Retes, a U.S. Army veteran, reported being forcibly removed from his vehicle and subjected to pepper spray during an immigration raid in California. Reverend David Black, a pastor, also claimed to have been struck by chemical agents during a prayer vigil outside an ICE facility. Both individuals are part of a growing number of plaintiffs alleging excessive force by federal agents during immigration enforcement operations.

In parallel, President Trump recently reversed his commitment to release drone footage of a military airstrike conducted off the coast of Venezuela, which resulted in the deaths of at least 86 individuals. Initially stating that the public would have access to the footage, Trump later deferred the decision to Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, leading to concerns about the transparency of military operations. Lawmakers who viewed the footage expressed alarm over the ethical implications of the strikes, which have been justified by the administration as necessary to combat drug trafficking.

Congress is now seeking to enhance transparency regarding military strikes, with proposed legislation mandating the Department of Defense to provide detailed orders and unedited video footage of operations targeting vessels in international waters. This bipartisan effort reflects a growing concern among lawmakers about the lack of access to critical information regarding military actions.

Legal and ethical questions surrounding these military strikes have intensified, particularly following a second strike that targeted survivors of an initial attack. Rights organizations, including the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), have filed complaints seeking documentation of the legal justifications for these actions, arguing that the rationale provided by the administration distorts legal principles governing warfare.

Experts have raised concerns that the targeting of drug-runners, who do not meet the criteria for armed military forces, may violate international law. The ongoing military operations and the use of chemical weapons in domestic contexts highlight the broader implications of state aggression and the need for accountability in the face of potential human rights violations.