What presidents went into other countries and took out leaders and drug cartel without congressional approval
Executive summary
The historical record shows that U.S. presidents from both parties have ordered military operations inside other countries without a formal congressional declaration of war, relying instead on executive authority, United Nations actions, or congressional Authorizations for Use of Military Force (AUMFs) — examples cited in the literature include Franklin D. Roosevelt, Harry S. Truman, Bill Clinton, Barack Obama, Donald Trump and Joe Biden [1] [2] [3] [4] [5]. Reporting and legal analysis make clear that these unilateral acts range from troop deployments and air strikes to targeted killings, but the sources supplied do not comprehensively document specific, verified episodes in which presidents personally “went into other countries and took out” foreign leaders or cartel bosses without any congressional involvement; thus, the answer rests on cataloguing the broader pattern of executive action [6] [7].
1. Presidents acting without a formal declaration: a long bipartisan practice
Since the 19th century U.S. executives have deployed force without Congress issuing a formal declaration of war — Abraham Lincoln carried out a naval blockade and other measures he acknowledged were taken without prior congressional approval [6], and in the 20th century presidents continued the pattern, with Franklin D. Roosevelt ordering occupations and protective naval actions prior to formal declarations [1] and Harry Truman committing troops to Korea without a declaration from Congress [2] [7].
2. Post‑Vietnam law and presidential workarounds: the War Powers Resolution and its loopholes
Congress passed the War Powers Resolution in 1973 to constrain unilateral deployments, but scholars and practitioners note the law contains exemptions and has been regularly sidestepped; presidents routinely invoke commander‑in‑chief powers, AUMFs, or limited self‑defense authority to justify operations up to the statutory time limits or as “limited strikes,” creating recurring legal and political disputes rather than clear judicial resolution [1] [6] [4].
3. Modern examples: targeted strikes, interventions and the claim of executive authority
Recent decades feature frequent instances where presidents ordered military action without seeking a formal congressional authorization: Bill Clinton used force in several countries absent a formal declaration [3], Barack Obama led an intervention in Libya in 2011 and launched airstrikes in Syria and elsewhere invoking executive authority [4] [8], and both Donald Trump and Joe Biden carried out unilateral strikes—Trump’s 2025 strikes on Iranian facilities and Biden’s targeted killings of militia figures in Iraq were defended by administrations as within presidential authority or under earlier AUMFs [5] [9]. Analysts emphasize that these are part of a long continuum rather than novel exceptions [10] [9].
4. “Took out leaders and drug cartel” — what the sources do and do not show
The supplied reporting documents presidents ordering force abroad without congressional declarations and approves specific strike authorities, but it does not provide a verifiable, source‑by‑source list of presidents who personally ordered operations that singularly “took out” foreign heads of state or cartel bosses without any congressional notice; narratives about removing figures like Manuel Noriega or targeted counter‑drug actions are referenced only obliquely in overviews of interventions (e.g., mentions of Panama among unilaterally ordered actions) rather than in detailed sourcing here [10] [3]. Consequently, while the pattern of unilateral presidential military action is well documented across administrations, the supplied sources do not allow a definitive, sourced list matching the precise phrasing “went into other countries and took out leaders and drug cartel” for each president named.
5. Competing legal and political narratives
Administrations assert Article II commander‑in‑chief powers, treaty obligations or prior AUMFs to justify unilateral operations, while critics contend those justifications erode Congress’s constitutional war powers and the War Powers Resolution’s intent; the scholarship and contemporary reporting included here record both claims and counterclaims and note that Congress has often chosen political remedies—debates, resolutions, or limited oversight—rather than clear legal reversals [4] [9] [6].