Among most important shifts in Trump 2.0 is multipronged effort by President Donald Trump’s administration to equate war on drugs with war on terror. Cartels labeled as terror organizations. Alleged drug boats in Caribbean and Pacific vaporized by US military that honed craft taking out suspected terrorists in Middle East and Africa. Now, illegal fentanyl being labeled by Trump administration as weapon of mass destruction—phrase that simultaneously describes how any American touched by overdose may feel about opioids, is technical term in US and international law, and is guaranteed to trigger bad memories for those who recall run-up to Iraq war.
Trump isn’t bothering to try to build international coalition for military strikes, but is borrowing fears of weapons of mass destruction, applying it to drugs Americans buy illegally rather than devices or chemicals intentionally used against soldiers or civilians. “No bomb does what this is doing—200,000 to 300,000 people die every year that we know of,” Trump said December 15 at White House, fantastically overstating recent overdose figures. He was surrounded by members of military who received awards for deployments to US southern border, another reminder of posture that US is country at war.
Iraq War WMD Precedent
Then-President George W. Bush’s administration used flawed allegations about weapons of mass destruction and threat of terrorism from Iraq to justify toppling regime of Saddam Hussein in period after 9/11 terror attacks and before 2002 midterm elections. Bush promised at United Nations that Iraq had become “arsenal of terror,” but weapons of mass destruction were never found.
When Bush made arguments for invading in fall 2002, half of Americans supported idea. Bush’s Republicans also bucked historical trend and picked up House seats in midterms that year. Less than quarter of Americans today say administration has adequately explained potential military action in Venezuela, according to CBS News/YouGov poll conducted in November. More than half, on other hand, supported using military force to stop drug boats.
Executive Order and Legal Framework
Executive order Trump signed December 15 describes fentanyl as “closer to chemical weapon than narcotic.” Notably, boats struck in Caribbean, including one where two people who survived initial strike were controversially killed in follow-up attack, were alleged to have been carrying cocaine, although no evidence has been publicly provided.
Trump’s order cites criminal law and national security law that would seem to allow Department of Justice to work in tandem with Pentagon when law enforcement is overwhelmed. This raises questions whether weapons of mass destruction declaration could be used to justify deployment of military inside US to fight drug war.
“Type of threat law contemplates is too immediate and specific to be addressed through presidential declaration,” Elizabeth Goitein, senior director of Brennan Center’s Liberty and National Security Program, stated. Prohibitions on domestic use of military should still apply. Order also suggests using resources intended to combat weapons of mass destruction to gather intelligence on fentanyl.
US Legal Definition and Criminal Penalties
Use of weapons of mass destruction is punishable by death under 1994 crime bill, coincidentally authored by then-Sen. Joe Biden. But key feature of Trump’s efforts against alleged drug boats is that they are being conducted extrajudicially, or outside of US and international law.
US law defines weapons of mass destruction as: (A) any destructive device (bombs, grenades or missiles); (B) poison gas; (C) any weapon involving disease organism; or (D) any weapon designed to release radiation or radioactivity at level dangerous to human life.
While December 15 “weapon of mass destruction” designation may have been jarring to some, it’s idea that has history. As fentanyl crisis was building during Trump’s first term, Department of Homeland Security memo suggested classification. During Biden’s presidency, there was pressure from Republican lawmakers across country to declare fentanyl as weapon of mass destruction.
Pentagon-DOJ Coordination and Hegseth Role
On Capitol Hill December 16, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, whom Trump administration has rebranded as “secretary of war,” translated for reporters why it is important to use military to go after alleged drug boats hundreds of miles away in Caribbean. “We’ve had on highly successful mission to counter designated terrorist organizations—cartels, bringing weapons, weapons meaning drugs to American people and poisoning American people for far too long,” Hegseth said.
Hegseth was criticized by Democrats for refusing to bring to Tuesday briefing video of controversial second strike on alleged drug boat in September. Legal experts have suggested that strike could be in violation of US criminal law, in part because Congress never authorized strikes.
Venezuela Regime Change Speculation
While Bush relied on allegation of weapons of mass destruction to topple Hussein, Trump administration wants to see toppling of Venezuela’s strongman leader Nicolás Maduro. Venezuela is not thought to be major source of drugs in US. Fentanyl is frequently manufactured inside US borders or seized at southwestern border with Mexico.
In addition to striking at alleged drug boats, Trump administration has amassed arsenal of US military power in Caribbean. War hawks like Sen. Lindsey Graham argue that anything short of Venezuela regime change will make US look weak. Graham said December 16 he does not think US has plan for what happens after Maduro ouster. “You got 15% of Navy pointed at this guy,” Graham told reporters. “If he is still standing when this is over, this is fatal major mistake to our standing in world.”
Also critical was Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. While Graham wants administration to come clean about intentions for Venezuela if this is all part of effort to topple Maduro, Ocasio-Cortez wants administration to seek approval for actions in Congress.
Departure from Iraq War Precedent
Bush, unlike Trump, did seek congressional approval to invade Iraq. While Trump has not said US troops will be used against Venezuela, he has suggested US could soon start striking on land. For all echoes of Iraq war run-up, including new use of term “weapons of mass destruction,” Trump is doing things much differently than Bush. There is no international coalition. There is no congressional approval. There is less public backing.
Original analysis by Zachary B. Wolf from CNN Politics. Republished with additional research and verification by ThinkTanksMonitor.
