America Is Stronger When It Leads With Law, Not Missiles
America’s greatness is measured not by how swiftly we strike, but by how faithfully we uphold the rule of law. The bombing of suspected drug boats undermines the constitutional principles that define us.
True conservatism defends the constitution, not expediency. As someone capable of praising this administration for confronting threats to America, clear lines must be drawn where principle and prudence demand it. The recent bombings of so-called “narco-terrorist” boats, including the strike that killed two people this week, cross that line. While every American agrees we must stop illegal drugs from entering our country, employing military strikes against suspected traffickers raises grave concerns about due process, constitutional authority, and America’s moral standing in the world.
To date, U.S. forces have conducted at least nine such strikes since September, killing 34 people. The administration claims these operations fall under a “non-international armed conflict” with drug cartels, a term that has legitimate use in warfare against armed groups, but when applied to criminal traffickers stretches its legal meaning beyond what most experts can accept. If U.S. intelligence has the precision to identify these boats, their crews, and what’s on board, then we also have the capability to interdict, seize, and prosecute them. Justice, not summary execution, is what defines the rule of law.
The constitutional basis for these actions is tenuous. Drug cartels are not nation-states, nor are they ideological armies seeking to destroy the United States. As legal scholar John Yoo, a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute wrote, conflating criminal enterprise with acts of war “crosses the line between law enforcement and war,” and risks “misusing the tools of war to fight the eternal social problem of crime.”
The administration’s emerging narrative that drug trafficking constitutes an act of “narco-terrorism” tantamount to foreign aggression is untested in law and unsupported by Congress. It allows the executive to unilaterally wield lethal force against drug traffickers under the banner of national security, a precedent that future presidents could easily exploit for political purposes. If Congress is not authorizing this campaign, then the President’s actions risk breaching his constitutional authority.
Some analysts suggest these strikes may have an underlying geopolitical purpose, signaling to China or exerting pressure on Venezuela’s Maduro regime. If there were credible evidence that such actions were part of a broader, justified national security strategy, that might alter the calculus, but there is no indication that these operations serve any mission beyond what has been publicly stated. If strategic objectives truly extend into foreign-state deterrence, both Congress and the American people deserve to be informed and to have a voice in authorizing such actions. Without that transparency, the strikes appear less like a coherent policy and more like the unilateral exercise of presidential power carried out in isolation.
America’s strength has always rested on the balance between power and principle. We do not need to mimic the lawless tactics of the regimes we condemn. America should instead lead with law and transparency, leveraging the US Coast Guard and US Navy to intercept traffickers, while potentially expanding joint regional task forces that uphold both justice and international law.
Our enemies may fear our might, but our friends and citizens must always trust our integrity. Real leadership means using America’s unmatched resources to win the harder battle, one fought with law, legitimacy, and the enduring moral authority that once made this nation the model of justice in the world.