WASHINGTON, D.C. — December 21, 2025 — U.S. Senator Mike Lee (R-Utah) introduced the Cartel Marque and Reprisal Authorization Act of 2025 on December 18, aiming to revive a dormant constitutional power allowing the president to issue “letters of marque and reprisal” to private individuals or entities. These letters would permit authorized private actors to seize property or persons linked to drug cartels outside U.S. borders, in response to what proponents describe as acts of aggression against the United States, including fentanyl trafficking.
A companion bill in the House, H.R. 1238, was previously introduced by Representative Tim Burchett (R-Tennessee), with similar provisions.
The legislation draws on Article I, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution, which grants Congress the authority to issue letters of marque and reprisal — historically used to commission privateers during wartime to attack enemy ships. The last U.S. issuance occurred during the War of 1812. The bill would authorize the president to commission privately armed groups to target individuals determined to be cartel members or associates responsible for aggression against the U.S., using “all means reasonably necessary” outside American territory, on land or sea.
Proponents argue the measure addresses the ongoing threat from Mexican drug cartels, particularly the fentanyl crisis, without requiring full-scale military intervention. Senator Lee stated that cartels have “replaced corsairs in the modern era,” and the approach would give private citizens “a stake in the fight” while disrupting cartel finances at low taxpayer cost. Representative Burchett emphasized the cartels’ role in pushing fentanyl into the U.S., calling them a national security risk.
Critics have raised concerns about the proposal’s feasibility and legality. Privateering was abolished by the 1856 Paris Declaration Respecting Maritime Law, which banned the practice internationally; although the U.S. did not ratify it, experts note the country has generally adhered to the prohibition. Legal scholars and commentators have described the idea as potentially violating international law, risking escalation with Mexico through sovereignty violations, and inviting chaos from mistaken identities, misconduct, or involvement of private military contractors. Some have likened it to sanctioning modern piracy or extrajudicial actions.
The bills have been referred to committees and have not advanced further as of December 21, 2025. Similar concepts have been proposed in prior years but have not become law.