Press Sec. ERUPTS as Reporters REFUSE to Believe Her BS!
WASHINGTON — Former President Donald J. Trump has embraced a new phrase in his familiar law-and-order lexicon: “narco-terrorism.” Cast as a justification for a more aggressive posture against drug trafficking in the Western Hemisphere, the term has accompanied a series of statements and actions that have alarmed legal scholars, foreign policy experts and some members of Congress, who warn that the rhetoric risks blurring the line between law enforcement and armed conflict — and between accountability and political expediency.
At the center of the controversy are U.S. military strikes in the Caribbean and Trump’s decision to pardon Juan Orlando Hernández, the former president of Honduras, who was convicted in a United States federal court of drug trafficking and sentenced to 45 years in prison. The juxtaposition has fueled accusations of inconsistency and politicization in the former president’s approach to drugs and Latin America.
In recent remarks, Trump suggested that Hernández — extradited to the United States and convicted of conspiring to traffic vast quantities of cocaine — had been “set up,” a claim he attributed to pressure from Honduran officials and to what he called a Biden administration scheme. Trump offered no new evidence publicly to support the assertion, arguing instead that criminal activity within a country should not automatically implicate its head of state.
The pardon came at a sensitive moment: Hondurans were preparing to vote in a national election. Trump went further, urging voters to back a conservative, pro-U.S. candidate and warning that American assistance could be withheld if the result did not align with his preferences. Critics described the move as a stark example of U.S. interference in the internal politics of a sovereign nation.
At the same time, the Trump administration has defended a series of military actions targeting what it designated as “narco-terrorist” organizations. According to administration officials, U.S. forces struck a vessel in international waters in September after identifying it as linked to a criminal network accused of transporting drugs toward the United States. The Pentagon later acknowledged that a second strike was carried out after the initial attack.
That second strike has become a focal point of legal scrutiny. The Navy’s own Law of War Manual states that firing on survivors of a wrecked vessel is prohibited. When asked whether the operation violated the laws of armed conflict, administration officials maintained that the strikes were lawful, authorized at the highest levels and conducted to eliminate a continuing threat. They emphasized that Congress had been briefed extensively, including through classified legal opinions and bipartisan reviews.
Yet some lawmakers and former military officers have expressed unease. Public reporting by CNN and The Washington Post has raised questions about whether survivors were present at the time of the follow-up strike — a scenario that, if confirmed, could constitute a war crime. A retired Navy captain speaking publicly said that, if ordered to carry out such an action, he would have refused.
The debate has exposed a broader tension in U.S. drug policy. Despite Trump’s emphasis on interdiction and military force, public health experts note that most illicit drugs enter the United States through air routes or overland crossings, not by small boats intercepted at sea. They argue that without changes to domestic drug policy — including regulation, treatment and demand reduction — aggressive foreign operations are unlikely to significantly curb drug use at home.
Critics also point to Venezuela, which has some of the world’s largest oil reserves, as a source of skepticism about the administration’s motives. Trump has previously suggested that the United States should have “taken the oil” from Iraq and has spoken openly about Venezuela’s resources. In that context, opponents question whether the “narco-terrorism” label is being used to justify broader geopolitical aims.
Supporters of the former president counter that drug trafficking networks are increasingly intertwined with violent criminal organizations and that decisive action is necessary to protect American lives. They argue that designating such groups as legitimate military targets reflects the evolving nature of the threat.
Still, the pardon of Hernández has complicated that argument. For many observers, releasing a convicted trafficker while expanding lethal operations abroad undermines the moral clarity Trump claims to bring to the issue. “You cannot credibly claim to be waging a war on drugs while excusing corruption at the highest levels when it suits your politics,” said one former State Department official.
As congressional hearings loom and legal reviews continue, the controversy underscores a familiar question in American foreign policy: how far the United States should go in the name of security — and at what cost to the rule of law. Whether Trump’s “narco-terrorism” campaign represents a genuine strategy or a volatile mix of rhetoric, force and political calculation remains an open, and increasingly urgent, debate.
