Category: War on Drugs

Trump Strikes Drug Boats Off Mexico, Provokes International

The Trump administration escalated military operations against alleged drug traffickers, resulting in the deaths of 14 individuals in strikes off Mexico’s Pacific coast. The Pentagon confirmed the attacks occurred in international waters, drawing condemnation from Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum. She expressed her government’s strong disapproval, demanding compliance with international treaties.

In a troubling development for U.S.-Mexico relations, Sheinbaum noted that the assaults were carried out without proper coordination or agreement, further complicating diplomatic efforts. She issued directives for discussions with the U.S. ambassador following the incident, citing the need for respectful collaboration in addressing drug trafficking without military aggression.

This military action aligns with Trump’s broader strategy of labeling drug cartels as “narco-terrorists,” legitimizing strikes that many experts argue violate international and U.S. laws. The campaign has already resulted in over 57 alleged traffickers being killed in similar operations aimed at combating drug shipments to the U.S., primarily from Venezuela and Colombia.

Sheinbaum’s administration stands at a crossroads, balancing the need to address drug trafficking with the imperative of protecting Mexico’s sovereignty. Trump has boldly claimed unilateral authority to target drug traffickers, disregarding the limits imposed by Congress and international law. This posturing has provoked backlash from numerous Latin American nations, including Colombia and Venezuela, which have characterized these actions as politically motivated incursions.

While military operations may provide temporary disruptions to cartels, security consultants warn that these tactics could inadvertently bolster alternate trafficking routes. The heart of the matter remains the urgent need for diplomatic engagement that respects sovereignty while collaboratively addressing the complex challenges posed by drug-related crime.

Vance Jokes About Trump’s Caribbean Airstrikes

At a recent rally in Michigan, Vice President JD Vance expressed pride in President Donald Trump’s controversial decision to authorize airstrikes against Venezuela-based vessels allegedly involved in drug trafficking. This action has drawn laughter from attendees, who seem to find humor in militaristic responses to drug crime.

Trump claimed that the airstrikes, which were broadcast on his Truth Social platform, targeted “narcoterrorists” and highlighted a narrative portraying these actions as crucial to national security. While officials in the Trump administration, including Vance, showcased the airstrikes as a deterrent against drug smuggling, they have also dismissed legal concerns regarding military actions in international waters, raising alarms about the implications for international law.

During the rally, Vance recounted a conversation with Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth, who allegedly stated that drug boats have ceased approaching American waters. Vance dramatically warned, “I would stop too,” framing the airstrikes as essential operations and suggested that a dedicated military under Trump’s command prioritizes American safety.

The administration’s rationale for the strikes centers on a national crisis concerning drug trafficking, with Hegseth alluding to a dire statistic: approximately 100,000 American lives lost each year due to drugs, which they attribute to prior policy failures regarding borders and trafficking. Vance echoed this sentiment, promoting a narrative that positions the current government as actively fighting for the American people’s interests.

However, the underlying ethical and legal implications of conducting such bombings raise significant questions about the administration’s approach and whether these actions embody a troubling precedent for U.S. foreign policy, questioning the morality of using military force in such contexts.

Trump Orders Military Strike on Drug Traffickers, Killing Three

The U.S. military conducted a lethal strike against a vessel in international waters, allegedly linked to drug trafficking from Venezuela, resulting in the deaths of three individuals. This second strike, ordered by President Donald Trump, reflects his administration’s aggressive stance on what Trump labels “narcoterrorists” threatening national security.

In a message on Truth Social, Trump stated that the military action targeted “extraordinarily violent drug trafficking cartels,” claiming these groups pose a severe risk to U.S. interests and safety. The operation follows a recent earlier strike that killed eleven supposedly related to the Tren de Aragua gang, heightening scrutiny and skepticism regarding the administration’s justifications for military engagement in such contexts.

Despite these claims, criticism emerged about the legality and evidence supporting the strikes. Senator Jack Reed, attending to oversight duties, noted that there is no confirmed evidence necessitating such military action against what were civilian vessels. This raises significant legal concerns under both U.S. and international law regarding the use of force against non-combatants.

The escalation in military readiness correlates with increasing tensions between the U.S. and Venezuela, underscoring an aggressive U.S. foreign policy approach under Trump. While U.S. officials, including Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth, assert that ongoing operations are justified, the lack of transparency surrounding intelligence and operational details fuels further scrutiny of their motives and methods.

As the situation develops, this aggressive posturing may have implications for U.S.-Venezuelan relations, with Venezuelan officials asserting their desire to avoid conflict. The ramifications of these military actions could lead to increased tensions and challenges in achieving diplomatic resolutions.

(h/t: https://www.cnn.com/2025/09/15/politics/trump-strike-international-waters)

Trump’s Reckless Plan for Drone Strikes on Mexican Cartels Threatens Sovereignty and Stability

The Trump administration is considering launching drone strikes against Mexican drug cartels, reflecting a reckless escalation in U.S. military strategy that undermines international norms and jeopardizes relations with Mexico. Discussions among high-level officials, including the White House and the Defense Department, have focused on potential drone operations targeting cartel leadership and infrastructure. Despite the absence of a formal agreement, unilateral action remains on the table, raising alarming ethical and legal concerns.

Current and former military and intelligence sources indicate that the Trump administration’s push for drone strikes is unprecedented, promising heightened U.S. involvement in foreign conflict under the guise of targeting narcotics trafficking. Presidential nominee Ronald Johnson has not dismissed the idea of unilateral strikes within Mexico, echoing a troubling trend of aggressive military assertions. Trump’s past inquiries about firing missiles into Mexico to obliterate drug labs only confirm a dangerous inclination towards intervention without coordination or consent from the Mexican government.

Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum responded emphatically, rejecting any form of U.S. intervention, reinforcing Mexico’s sovereignty and emphasizing that real solutions must target the root causes of drug trafficking. Her statements reflect a growing frustration with the U.S.’s continuous pressure tactics, which demean Mexico’s ability to handle its own security challenges. The concept of American drone strikes may further exacerbate tensions, as unilateral military actions would violate international laws and could severely damage bilateral ties.

Though some within Trump’s administration argue that military pressure might destabilize cartel operations, experts caution that such reckless tactics often result in unintended consequences, including increased violence and further entrenchment of cartel power. The historical context of U.S.-Mexico collaborations illustrates that previous military strategies against cartels often backfired, leading to more chaos rather than resolution. Advocates for a more strategic approach argue for intelligence-driven law enforcement over bombings, which risk escalating violence in civilian areas.

The ramifications of the Trump administration’s proposal for drone strikes extend beyond the immediate fight against drug cartels; they signify a broader pattern of authoritarian governance that prioritizes militaristic solutions over diplomatic engagement and effective policy. As the administration manipulates security concerns to justify aggressive foreign interventions, it continues to challenge foundational democratic principles and international legality.

(h/t: https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/national-security/trump-administration-weighs-drone-strikes-mexican-cartels-rcna198930)

Trump’s Disturbing Joke on Deportation Highlights His Dismissive Approach to Immigration Issues

President Donald Trump recently made a troubling joke during a meeting with NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte, suggesting the deportation of drug dealers to the Netherlands. This offhand comment reflects a disturbing trend in Trump’s rhetoric that trivializes serious immigration issues while dodging accountability for his own administration’s policies. Rather than addressing the complexities of immigration reform, Trump’s remarks diminish the gravity of these matters to mere jest.

As Trump articulated his banter about sending “some nice people” to the Netherlands, it attracted laughter from Rutte, who appeared to find the joke in poor taste. The context of Trump’s comments highlights his habit of framing drug-related crime in a way that scapegoats marginalized communities. This approach reinforces harmful stereotypes and mirrors his administration’s larger pattern of xenophobic rhetoric that has long characterized Trump’s political strategy.

In the same incident, Trump doubled down on false claims regarding immigration statistics, indicating a refusal to engage with truthful data. His comments about “phony numbers” and “bad people” poorly veiled the reality of immigration issues in the U.S. His administration has consistently misrepresented these figures to support their hardline policies, which disregard the humanitarian concerns surrounding immigration.

This incident underscores Trump’s neglect of substantive dialogue on NATO relations, opting instead to resort to humor that undermines the serious nature of international diplomacy. By juxtaposing jokes about deportation with discussions about alliance contributions, Trump seeks to shift the narrative away from pressing foreign policy issues, thus failing to take responsibility for his administration’s negative impacts on both domestic and international affairs.

Ultimately, statements like Trump’s are part of a broader, troubling trend among Republican leaders who favor bombastic rhetoric over constructive governance. Such comments not only encourage a culture of fear regarding immigration but also contribute to a damaged discourse around international cooperation, showcasing a leadership style that is more about entertainment than effectiveness.

(h/t: https://www.mediaite.com/tv/trump-jokingly-proposes-deporting-drug-dealers-to-nato-secretary-generals-home-country-during-white-house-meeting/)

Trump Advocates Death Penalty for Drug Dealers in Erratic Rant

Donald Trump, the former president, recently took to the stage at the Detroit Economics Club and delivered a bizarre eight-minute monologue on his parenting style. This rant took a dark turn when he suggested that drug dealers should face the death penalty, demonstrating a shocking lack of clarity in his thoughts. Amid softball questions about his accomplishments and advice for young adults, Trump’s response to inquiries about fatherhood was particularly unsettling.

During the Q&A session, Trump, who is on his third marriage and has five children, began by expressing his luck in having ‘smart children.’ He claimed he instilled values of sobriety by telling them, ‘No drugs, no alcohol, no smoking.’ This is ironic, considering his previous praise for flavored vaping during his presidency, highlighting his contradictory stance on substance use.

Trump’s comments morphed into a rambling discussion about his relationship with China’s President Xi Jinping, who he claimed would eliminate drug issues by imposing the death penalty on those involved in trafficking fentanyl. Trump asserted that countries with such harsh penalties do not experience drug problems, a claim that overlooks the complex realities of drug addiction and law enforcement.

While attempting to present himself as a tough-on-drugs leader, Trump’s arguments lack factual support. Contrary to his assertions, data from China indicates there are nearly 900,000 registered drug users in the country, undermining his narrative that extreme measures effectively solve drug issues.

In summary, Trump’s Detroit speech encapsulated his erratic thought process and dangerous rhetoric on public health issues. His suggestion of capital punishment for drug dealers is not only alarming but also reflects a fundamental misunderstanding of drug addiction and its societal impacts.

(h/t: https://www.rawstory.com/trump-parenting-style-fatherhood/)

Trump complains he can’t execute drug dealers after ‘quick trials’ like they do in China

President Donald Trump on Tuesday complained that he can’t oversee the quick execution of drug dealers — and suggested that the United States should start taking its cues from China.

During a talk at the National Association of Counties Legislative Conference, Trump said that authoritarian dictatorships do a better job of stopping illicit drug use in their countries because defendants don’t have all the constitutional protections that they’re entitled to in the United States.

“You go into China, you say, ‘How’s your drug problem,’ they don’t even know, President Xi doesn’t even know what you’re talking about!” the president said. “They have quick trials, and I won’t even tell you what the punishment is, but let me just say it’s very swift.”

The president then said he didn’t believe American citizens were ready to be “tough” on drug dealers like China was.

“I just don’t know whether or not this country is ready for that, but the only countries that don’t have drug problems are countries where the retribution is unbelievably tough,” the president said.

[Raw Story]

Trump praises China’s execution of drug dealers

President Donald Trump is campaigning on criminal justice reform efforts that reduce sentences for nonviolent offenders, while suggesting he’d like the American justice system to work more like ones in authoritarian countries where drug dealers are executed after “fair but quick” trials.

If those two things sound hard to square with each other, that’s because they are. But the contrast serves as an especially stark illustration of the incoherency at the core of Trumpism.

Just days after his Super Bowl ad and State of the Union speech highlighted his support for legislation that makes a modest effort to reduce prison sentences at the federal level, Trump on Monday said the best way to further reduce the quantity of fentanyl in the US is to follow China’s lead.

“States with a very powerful death penalty on drug dealers don’t have a drug problem,” Trump said during a White House event with governors. “I don’t know that our country is ready for that, but if you look throughout the world, the countries with a powerful death penalty — death penalty — with a fair but quick trial, they have very little if any drug problem. That includes China.”

(Trump made a number of other eyebrow-raising comments during the event, including saying of the coronavirus that “a lot of people think that goes away in April with the heat” and claiming the European Union “was really formed so they could treat us badly.”)

It should be noted that Trump’s claim about China and other authoritarian countries having “very little if any drug problem” is false. Records from the Chinese government indicate that there are more than 2.5 million officially registered drug users in the country, and that the total has increased significantly in recent years. (The real numbers are likely much higher since not all drug users have registered with the state.)

Drugs are prevalent in China in spite of the harsh punishments Trump alluded to. The Guardian reported in late 2017 that China “executes more people every year than the rest of the world combined, although the exact figure is not published and considered a state secret.” And the Chinese government executes people for nonviolent crimes, including, as Trump mentioned, drug dealing — and in some cases carries out executions in public. (Draconian measures taken by President Rodrigo Duterte in the Philippines have similarly failed to stamp out drug use there.)

But for those who watched Trump’s Super Bowl ad, seeing him laud countries that are remarkably harsh with drug offenders might seem off-key. That’s because the Super Bowl ad highlighted Trump’s June 2018 decision to pardon Alice Marie Johnson, who at the time was serving a life sentence in prison after she was convicted of conspiracy to possess cocaine and attempted possession of cocaine. Fast-forward eight days, and now Trump seems to be suggesting people like Johnson should be executed.

But Monday wasn’t the first time Trump has commended the Chinese government for its tough approach to drugs. Speaking to mayors at the White House late last month, the president sounded the same note:

And they’ve put in very strong penalties, and their penalties are really strong. You want to talk about penalties? Those are strict. (Laughter.) And their court cases go slightly quicker than ours. (Laughter.) Like — like one day. One day. They call them “quick trials.” They go quick. (Laughter.) They go so quick, you don’t know what happened. (Laughter.) Ours take 15 years; theirs takes one day. But he was — he’s been terrific on that. And we’re seeing a tremendous — a tremendous difference in the fentanyl.

Notably, in both instances Trump portrayed the suppression of individual rights and due process that’s part of the Chinese system as if not an improvement over the American system, then at least not significantly worse than what we have here. And Trump has also congratulated the Philippines’ Duterte for doing an “unbelievable job on the drug problem,” even though his violent crackdown has resulted in thousands of deaths.

Even Pompeo’s State Department acknowledges that China’s justice system is nothing to emulate

Beyond the specifics of what Trump thinks about how drug dealers should be dealt with, it’s bizarre to see the president of the United States praise the criminal justice system of a country where a million people are locked away in internment camps.

Trump doesn’t have to take it from me. His own State Department’s website notes that “[t]he Chinese legal system can be opaque and the interpretation and enforcement of local laws arbitrary. The judiciary does not enjoy independence from political influence.”

And with regard to drugs in particular, State notes that “[p]olice regularly conduct unannounced drug tests on people suspected of drug use and have been known to enter a bar or nightclub and subject all patrons to immediate drug testing.”

A politicized judiciary selectively enforcing laws and executing people for nonviolent crimes might sound bad to Americans who are mostly unaccustomed to such things. Trump, however, hasn’t tried to hide his affinity for authoritarian rulers or for the death penalty — not just for drug crimes but for other ones as well.

The jarring thing in this instance, however, is that as part of his efforts to win support from more than 6 percent of black voters in 2020, Trump is simultaneously pushing contradictory notions — that leniency for nonviolent offenders is good, and that nonviolent offenders should in some instances be put to death. In that way Trump’s comments about criminal justice echo a dynamic that has also manifested itself with regard to entitlement programs, which Trump is proposing to cut while at the same time telling people he will never cut them.

[Vox]

Trump says he’ll refuse to stop skyrocketing drug prices if Democrats investigate him

President Donald Trump, during a press conference in the White House Rose Garden earlier this week, stressed that he refuses to work with Democrats in Congress on infrastructure projects as long as they continue to investigate him. But infrastructure isn’t the only thing Trump is holding hostage: on Friday, the president declared that he can’t work with Democrats on prescription drug prices either unless all investigations cease.

Trump asserted that “with Congress,” he could reduce drug prices in the U.S. by “40 percent and 50 percent, but I can’t do that when all they do is want to try and do a redo of the Mueller report.”

Bloomberg News’ Steven Dennis addressed Trump’s threat on Twitter, commenting, “So, if you’re Pharma, do you now hope for a year of impeachment proceedings?” And one Republican who, according to Dennis, clearly wants to see Trump and Democrats in Congress working together on reducing prescription drug prices is Maine Sen. Susan Collins—who told Bloomberg she thinks Trump will reconsider because he “wants action” on drug prices and other issues.

Sen. Lindsey Graham, ordinarily a passionate supporter of Trump, is also worried about Trump’s threat to quit working with House and Senate Democrats on key issues—telling Bloomberg that while he understands Trump’s “frustration,” refusing to work with Democrats in Congress altogether is “not a sustainable position.” The South Carolina Republican warned that the party giving the impression that “they don’t want to govern at all is going to be in real trouble.”

According to the Commonwealth Fund, the U.S. has the highest prescription drug prices in the developed world—spending $1011 per capita compared to $351 per capita in Sweden, $401 per capita in Norway,  $553 per capita in France or $686 per capita in Germany.

[Raw Story]

Trump’s Plan to Solve the Opioid Crisis Might Involve Executing Drug Dealers

While signing a bill that aims to combat the opioid crisis last month, President Trump hinted that he’d come up with the solution to the complex problem, but couldn’t talk about it.

“There is an answer. I think I actually know the answer, but I’m not sure the country is ready for it yet,” Trump said. “Does anybody know what I mean? I think so.”

No one knew what he meant. “Yeah, I wondered about that,” said Republican Senator Shelley Moore Capito, who was at the signing. “I didn’t follow up and ask.”

Many dismissed the comment as more of Trump’s regular, incoherent ramblings. However, now it seems the president may actually have a secret plan to fight the opioid epidemic, beyond hiring a 24-year-old ingenue as his deputy drug czar and an ad campaign that was supposed to launch during the Super Bowl but didn’t come together in time. Axios’s Jonathan Swan reports that he’s been telling friends for months that drug dealers should face the death penalty, citing policies in Singapore and the Philippines.

“He says that a lot,” said a source. “He says, ‘When I ask the prime minister of Singapore do they have a drug problem [the prime minister replies,] ‘No. Death penalty’.”

Trump is reportedly convinced that the key to ending America’s drug problems is making dealers fear for their lives and kids fear that even trying drugs will kill them — but he’s also acknowledged that the U.S. probably won’t pass a law mandating that all drug dealers be executed.

Kellyanne Conway, who is leading the administration’s anti-drug efforts, told Swan that Trump’s plan is more nuanced. “The president makes a distinction between those that are languishing in prison for low-level drug offenses and the kingpins hauling thousands of lethal doses of fentanyl into communities, that are responsible for many casualties in a single weekend,” she said.

In lieu of mass executions, the White House may push to toughen drug-sentencing laws. Per Axios:

Trump may back legislation requiring a five-year mandatory minimum sentence for traffickers who deal as little as two grams of fentanyl. Currently, you have to deal forty grams to trigger the mandatory five-year sentence. (The DEA estimates that as little as two milligrams is enough to kill people.)

Singapore has some of the strictest drug laws in the world. Police can perform random drug tests and those who test positive can face years-long sentences. Those caught with more than a few grams of certain drugs are presumed to be trafficking, and in higher quantities offenders are sentenced to death. In the Philippines, President Rodrigo Duterte instituted a brutal crackdown on both drug dealers and drug users in 2016. While the government claims that fewer than 4,000 suspects have been killed, Human Rights Watch puts the number at more than 12,000.

Trump has made it clear that unlike his predecessor, he has a cosy relationship with Duterte. He invited him to visit the White House, ignored questions about human-rights abuses during their first meeting in the Philippines, and congratulated him for doing an “unbelievable job on the drug problem” during a phone call. It was assumed that this was all part of Trump’s general admiration for authoritarian leaders, but perhaps he’s been taking more specific policy inspiration.

[New York Magazine]

Reality

The Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution states that “cruel and unusual punishments [shall not be] inflicted.” The general principles the United States Supreme Court relied on to decide whether or not a particular punishment was cruel and unusual were determined by Justice William Brennan.[4] In Furman v. Georgia, 408 U.S. 238 (1972), Justice Brennan wrote, “There are, then, four principles by which we may determine whether a particular punishment is ‘cruel and unusual’.”

  • The “essential predicate” is “that a punishment must not by its severity be degrading to human dignity,” especially torture.
  • “A severe punishment that is obviously inflicted in wholly arbitrary fashion.” (Furman v. Georgia temporarily suspended capital punishment for this reason.)
  • “A severe punishment that is clearly and totally rejected throughout society.”
  • “A severe punishment that is patently unnecessary.”

And he added: “The function of these principles, after all, is simply to provide means by which a court can determine whether a challenged punishment comports with human dignity. They are, therefore, interrelated, and, in most cases, it will be their convergence that will justify the conclusion that a punishment is “cruel and unusual.” The test, then, will ordinarily be a cumulative one: if a punishment is unusually severe, if there is a strong probability that it is inflicted arbitrarily, if it is substantially rejected by contemporary society, and if there is no reason to believe that it serves any penal purpose more effectively than some less severe punishment, then the continued infliction of that punishment violates the command of the Clause that the State may not inflict inhuman and uncivilized punishments upon those convicted of crimes.”

Continuing, he wrote that he expected that no state would pass a law obviously violating any one of these principles, so court decisions regarding the Eighth Amendment would involve a “cumulative” analysis of the implication of each of the four principles. In this way the United States Supreme Court “set the standard that a punishment would be cruel and unusual [,if] it was too severe for the crime, [if] it was arbitrary, if it offended society’s sense of justice, or if it was not more effective than a less severe penalty.”

1 2