Western Hemisphere Anti-Cartel Partnership Authorization Act

Congress must authorize this mission because the Constitution gives Congress control over war, armies, and captures. Article I, Section 8, Clauses 10 through 12 grant Congress power over piracy and offenses against the law of nations, declarations of war, and support of armies, with funding control. Article II, Section 2, Clause 1 makes the President Commander-in-Chief to direct forces, but not to create armies, funds, or war authority. The Fifth Amendment Due Process Clause limits seizures and penalties. That division is why a proclamation alone cannot fund partner militaries or take territory and funds. This SI statute would give lawful grounding to the goals stated in Proclamation 11015. It would authorize a focused partnership to weaken cartel and designated terrorist networks in the Western Hemisphere. It would permit training, advice, intelligence sharing, and security assistance to vetted partner forces. It would not authorize sustained combat by United States ground forces in foreign territory without a further vote of Congress. Funds would be limited and controlled. Congress would authorize up to $750 million per year from the general fund, subject to annual review, with a total cap over four years. No funds could be moved from unrelated accounts without approval in law. Assistance would be barred to any foreign unit found to engage in torture, extrajudicial killing, or large-scale corruption until that unit is cleared through human rights vetting. Oversight would be steady and public where possible. An oversight board led by the Secretaries of State and Defense would manage the program, with review by inspectors general. The board would send Congress a public report and a classified annex every 180 days on spending, results, partner conduct, and risks to civilians. The authority would end after four years unless Congress votes to extend it. Rights would be protected. Property seizures, sanctions, and criminal cases under this program would follow existing federal law and court process. A person or business directly harmed by a freeze or designation under this statute would have a clear path to challenge it in federal court in Washington. Nothing in this law would permit detention or targeting in violation of the Fifth Amendment or the laws of armed conflict. The strongest objection is that firm limits could slow action against violent groups. This draft answers that concern by funding intelligence, joint planning, and rapid support to trusted partners, while keeping the decision on wider conflict where the Constitution places it, with Congress.