admin
The Biden-era soft-on-crime foreign policy met a necessary correction when U.S. forces struck a cartel-linked Venezuelan speedboat in the Caribbean this month, a move the administration says stopped deadly narcotics headed for our streets. The operation, one of several in recent weeks, was presented by officials as a precision effort aimed at narco-terrorists tied to the Maduro regime and violent transnational gangs. This is the kind of decisive action Americans vote for when they want their leaders to defend citizens, not coddle criminals.
Former DHS Acting Secretary Chad Wolf, appearing on American Agenda, put it plainly: the status quo of appeasement and paperwork is over and the nation will not tolerate the poisoning of our communities with fentanyl and other drugs. Wolf echoed what many frontline agents have been saying for years — stop the flow at its source, and that sometimes requires kinetic measures to dismantle violent networks funding mass migration and street crime. For those who equate toughness with recklessness, remember that weakness is what allowed cartels to metastasize into narco-states in our hemisphere.
The administration has gone so far as to notify Congress that it regards the campaign against designated cartels as a non-international armed conflict, a recognition that these criminal enterprises are not mere smuggling rings but organized threats to American life. That legal framing gives the executive branch latitude to protect the homeland and act against networks that traffic death across borders, and Congress should stop posturing and start supporting policies that actually save American lives. If members of Congress care more about headlines than children, then history will remember who stood in the way of protecting the next generation.
Predictably, the usual suspects — legal pundits and cable commentators — are wringing their hands about maritime law and the optics of strikes in international waters. The criticism is worth noting, but it cannot be allowed to trump the moral obligation to blunt the cartels’ lethal export of fentanyl, which is killing Americans by the tens of thousands. The right question is not whether we have authority to defend our citizens, but why it took so long for any administration to use the instruments of national power to do so.
This is not adventurism; it is deterrence. Since the first strike, officials report fewer suspect vessels in transit and a hardened posture around key narcotrafficking routes, backed by a significant naval deployment in the region. The message being sent is simple and patriotic: the United States will not be a dumping ground for cartels and corrupt regimes, and American lives matter more than international applause. Those who oppose robust interdiction should explain to grieving parents why bureaucratic niceties are more important than saving children from a lethal dose of fentanyl.
True victory, as Wolf and other former enforcement officials have long argued, requires shoring up our southern border so cartels lose their cash cow and recruitment pipeline. Arresting kingpins or blowing up boats is a necessary piece, but unless we stop the billions that flow to traffickers through illegal crossings, the problem will return in new forms. That means funding Border Patrol, enforcing immigration laws, and cutting off the financial arteries that let these criminal enterprises thrive.
Americans of every party should demand courage from their leaders, not excuses. If Washington finally chooses to fight the cartels with the full weight of our military and law-enforcement capabilities, patriots should stand behind those actions and hold Congress accountable to provide clear authorities and resources. We owe it to the victims and to the men and women on the line to back bold, lawful measures that protect our families and restore order to our hemisphere.
