Defending America's Shield: The Urgent Case Against Second-Guessing Fentanyl Interdictions

The Fentanyl Onslaught and Our National Imperative

In the shadow of a border strained by chaos, the Trump administration stand is strong against one of the deadliest threats to American lives: fentanyl. This synthetic opioid, smuggled in staggering quantities by ruthless cartels, claims over 70,000 lives annually in the United States. It is not merely a drug crisis; it is a war on our communities, where every gram that crosses our shores fuels addiction, despair, and death.

The administration's aggressive stance reflects a profound commitment to national security, adapting swiftly to the evolving tactics of these narco-terrorists. As President Trump exercises his Article II powers as Commander in Chief, intercepting low-slung boats that dart through our coastal waters like shadows in the night.

These vessels, often no larger than fishing skiffs and crewed by just four individuals, represent the cartels' ingenuity in evasion. They hug the waves, evading radar and patrols. The administration's response has been decisive: neutralize the threat at sea. When these boats are engaged and destroyed, the crews aboard become casualties of necessity. Under the rules of engagement in this action, these smugglers are not innocent fishermen caught in a storm. They are active participants in a criminal enterprise that endangers millions, designated as accomplices whose actions forfeit any expectation of mercy. This is not cruelty; it is clarity in the face of existential peril.

Cartel Tactics and the Evolution of Defense

The cartels, operate with the precision of a paramilitary force. They bribe officials, tunnel under borders, and deploy submarines and semi-submersible vessels to ferry their cargo. Fentanyl, produced in labs often supplied by Chinese precursors, is their crown jewel: compact, potent, and profitable. A single kilo, worth millions on American streets, can be concealed in a backpack or dissolved into legitimate shipments. But the sea routes have surged in popularity, with U.S. Customs and Border Protection reporting a tripling of maritime drug seizures since 2020.

The Trump administration has met this escalation with its own innovation and resolve. Drones scour the Pacific, naval assets patrol choke points, and joint task forces with allies like the Mexican navy disrupt supply lines. Yet, the human element persists. These small boats, powered by outboard motors and guided by GPS, slip through gaps in our defenses. When intercepted, the orders are clear: sink the vessel to prevent it from reaching shore. The crews understand the risks. They are not refugees seeking asylum; they are foot soldiers in a lucrative insurgency against American sovereignty.

These operations echo historical precedents, from the Reagan-era interdictions in the Caribbean war on cocaine to Clinton's maritime patrols against Colombian cartels. In each case, presidents invoked executive authority to authorize "police actions" at sea, where the immediacy of threat overrides peacetime niceties. The rules of war, codified in international law and U.S. military doctrine, apply here: combatants who facilitate attacks on civilian populations forfeit protections. Fentanyl is no less a weapon than a bullet; its toll rivals that of active battlefields.

The Senate's Outcry: A Misplaced Moral Calculus

Enter the Senate, where a chorus of indignation has arisen over recent interdictions. Lawmakers, poring over classified briefings, question the proportionality of force. Their scrutiny, while born of constitutional oversight, veers into the realm of the absurd when it fixates on the mechanics of engagement rather than the moral imperative to act. At the heart of the controversy lies a single, harrowing incident: two survivors from a downed boat, pulled from the surf only to face a secondary strike that ensured no loose ends. This follow-up action, executed under standing rules of engagement, eliminated any risk of the operatives regrouping or signaling allies.

To second-guess this is to indulge in a grotesque form of Monday morning quarterbacking. Senators, ensconced in the marble halls of Capitol Hill, far removed from the salt spray and the stakes of midnight patrols, demand autopsies on split-second decisions. They invoke human rights treaties and ponder the "optics" of drowned smugglers washing ashore. Yet, where is the outrage for the American families shattered by overdose? Where is the indignation for the border agents gunned down in ambushes funded by cartel profits? The fentanyl crisis is not abstract; it manifests in emergency rooms clogged with blue-lipped victims, in schools haunted by grieving parents, in economies buckling under the weight of rehabilitation costs exceeding $1 trillion yearly.

This outcry ignores the legal bedrock of the actions. President Trump's orders flow directly from Article II of the Constitution, empowering the executive to repel invasions and enforce federal law. Congress has long acquiesced to such authority, funding the very assets deployed in these operations through appropriations bills. To now feign shock is disingenuous, a partisan theater that undermines the chain of command and emboldens the enemy. The cartels watch our deliberations with glee, recalibrating their routes while we debate the ethics of self-defense.

The Broader Stakes: Unity Over Division

The fentanyl war transcends politics; it is a bipartisan catastrophe that demands unified resolve. Past administrations, from Obama to Biden, grappled with its precursors, yet none matched the Trump team's audacity in confronting it head-on. Recall the 2019 designation of cartels as foreign terrorist organizations, a move that unlocked military tools long dormant. Today, that legacy endures, with interdictions yielding record hauls: over 27,000 pounds of fentanyl seized in fiscal year 2024 alone, per Homeland Security data.

Yet, division festers. Progressive voices frame these actions as militarized excess, ignoring how cartels exploit humanitarian corridors for smuggling. Conservative hawks, meanwhile, call for even bolder measures, like preemptive strikes on production labs. Both sides miss the point: hesitation kills. Every boat that slips through is a vector for 50 million lethal doses, enough to overdose the nation's population twice over.

We must reject this hand-wringing. The survivors in that secondary strike were not victims of overreach; they were vectors of venom, their survival a potential foothold for further incursions. Rules of engagement evolve with threats, and in this theater, mercy to the perpetrator is malice to the innocent. The Senate's review should affirm, not undermine, these imperatives.

A Call to Steadfast Resolve

As 2026 unfolds, with midterm elections looming and the border's scars deepening, America stands at a crossroads. The Trump administration's interdictions are not optional; they are the thin blue line between order and anarchy. To those in Washington tempted by the siren song of caution, remember the faces behind the statistics: the child who lost a mother to a laced pill, the veteran whose battle with addiction ends in a shallow grave.

Let’s honor the fallen agents and the grieving families by amplifying their voices over the din of dissent. Bolster the Coast Guard with more cutters, empower the DEA with intelligence fusion, and press allies to stem precursor flows. Above all, cease the armchair critiques that sap our will. The cartels thrive on our discord; let us starve them of it. In defending our shores from fentanyl's tide, we defend the soul of the nation. The cost of inaction is measured in coffins, not controversies. It is time to stand firm, unapologetic, and united.

Michael J Badagliacco, “MJB”

Michael is a father of five, grandfather of three, United States Air Force veteran, international recording artist, and Editor-in-Chief of the Colorado DOGE Report. He is passionate about the United States of America and the founders’ genius in crafting the Constitution.