In recent weeks, Secretary of War Pete Hegseth has faced intense criticism for authorizing U.S. forces to interdict and “neutralize” Venezuelan drug-trafficking vessels that are flooding America’s streets with deadly fentanyl and other narcotics. These operations—targeted, proportionate strikes against armed narco-combatants operating go-fast boats and semi-submersibles—are portrayed by some in the media and political opposition as reckless or unlawful overreach.
This criticism is not only misplaced but reveals a glaring partisan double standard. Hegseth’s actions are fully legal under the president’s Article II authorities as Commander in Chief, existing counter-narcotics statutes, and longstanding maritime interdiction protocols.
More importantly, they are necessary.
Fentanyl kills over 100,000 Americans annually, fuels transnational criminal organizations, erodes border security, and constitutes a direct assault on U.S. national sovereignty. Neutralizing a handful of armed drug-running vessels crewed by combatants is a restrained defensive measure to protect American lives.
History shows that presidents of both parties have taken far bolder military actions—often with greater scope, higher civilian risk, and less direct connection to immediate U.S. security—yet faced dramatically different levels of scrutiny depending on their party affiliation.
Consider the Record:
President Ronald Reagan authorized military operations in the 1980s against drug cartels, including support for interdictions that resulted in armed engagements.
President George H.W. Bush ordered the full-scale invasion of Panama in 1989 to apprehend drug kingpin Manuel Noriega—a military operation involving thousands of troops and civilian casualties.
President Bill Clinton launched cruise missile strikes on Sudan and Afghanistan in 1998 and conducted a 78-day bombing campaign in Kosovo in 1999 without explicit congressional authorization.
President Barack Obama dramatically expanded the use of drone strikes and manned airstrikes across multiple theatres (Iraq, Syria, Libya, Yemen, Somalia, Pakistan). In 2016 alone, the U.S. dropped over 26,000 bombs—part of an expansive campaign that continued broad interpretations of the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) and resulted in hundreds of reported civilian deaths. These operations often proceeded with limited advance congressional notification or specific approval.
Press Double Standard On Display
While these Democratic administrations faced some criticism, it was generally muted compared to the wall-to-wall condemnation that greets any assertive national security move by Republican presidents—especially those of Donald Trump. Media coverage and congressional oversight during Obama-era operations tended to emphasize strategic context and humanitarian intent, even amid acknowledged civilian casualties. By contrast, similar or lesser actions under Republican leadership are routinely framed as dangerous escalation or abuse of power.
This disparity is not accidental. It reflects a deeper institutional and media bias that views executive action through a sharply partisan lens: restrained when exercised by Democrats, reckless when exercised by Republicans. The current outrage over targeted strikes on drug-trafficking combatants—vessels that are often armed, evasive, and that directly enable the poisoning of American communities—fits this pattern precisely.
America cannot afford selective indignation on national security. The broad and illegal importation of fentanyl is a clear and present danger, exacerbated by weak borders and foreign-based cartels. Secretary Hegseth’s operations represent a responsible, calibrated, response in defense of the American people. Critics who remained silent (or supportive) during far more expansive uses of force under prior administrations should examine their own consistency before questioning measures that save lives and secure our nation.
This is not partisanship—it is pragmatism.
Protecting the homeland demands resolve, not selective outrage.
I understand the desire to stop the flow of drugs into the country, but drug enforcement in international waters is a law enforcement action. It’s backed by international maritime law, including UNCLOS, UN resolutions, and the U.S. MDLEA. Conservatives condemn Democrats for lawlessness all the time, yet now they selectively abandon the law when it becomes inconvenient or politically satisfying? If America wants AUMF expanded to narcotics trafficking, then Congress should legislate that, and the State Dept should then work on the diplomacy with our allies.
We’re in murky waters, using the post-9/11 AUMF, a terrorism authority, to stretch it to drug traffickers. There’s no fentanyl that comes from Venezuela, and most of these drugs do not reach U.S. shores. The cost-benefit of violating the law isn’t there. This is opening a can of worms worldwide in international waters and could prevent our allies from working with us on interdiction, where we stop things other than drugs, like weapons, contraband, and terrorism funds. I’d rather be on the right side of the law.
We should intercept these vessels, stop them at sea, seize their cargo, and when they violently resist interdiction, use deadly force. Most smugglers give up when confronted. They are not combatants.
The people on boats are not cartel leaders, decision makers, trying to “war” on America. They are literally forced labor, driving a boat from point A to point B, and many teenagers are trafficked into service.
And there’s a moral inconsistency here that deserves scrutiny. Some who would support an absolute abortion ban for a 14-year-old Venezuelan girl raped by cartel members seem perfectly comfortable with indiscriminately dropping a bomb on that same baby when trafficked as a 14-year-old. It's hard for me to reconcile that.
Stopping drug traffickers is necessary. Abandoning legal and moral coherence to do so is not a strength; it’s hypocrisy. I hold myself to a higher standard as an American, and I’m confident I’ve spent more hours doing this type of work, with my butt on the line, than most here.
My best friend from growing up, who was 18 years old, died from a drug overdose, and my dad years later, in the exact same neighborhood. That still doesn't justify violating my integrity as an American.
Great article, and its complicated and we the general public are not aware of the full story and all the actions that have been taken diplomatically or other to stem the flow. Imagine trying to negotiate a deal with a drug lord/cartel?
I am for any governmental action against an economy that relies on the sale of drugs at the detriment of others for their own selfish greed and power. A quick Google search said that there were 23000+ deaths in 2023 due to cocaine overdose. So IDC if it is fentanyl, cocaine or or other, these countries and their drug lords are exploiting and praying on citizens of the US and it has to stop.
Just ask any family who has had a member die from an overdose of coke or fentanyl.
Ask our economist what the cost of emergency care, ask our medical professionals what the resources are, list goes on.