Dr. Rebecca Grant’s blunt defense of the recent U.S. maritime strikes should silence a lot of the hand-wringing from the usual suspects who prioritize legalism over American lives. Grant praised the administration’s “exquisite maritime surveillance,” underscoring that precision intelligence matters when confronting narco-terrorists at sea. Conservatives who believe in a strong America see this as common-sense defense, not reckless adventurism.
Since early September, the administration has publicly acknowledged strikes on vessels in the Caribbean and eastern Pacific, actions framed as direct attacks on drug-trafficking networks that funnel fentanyl and other deadly substances toward U.S. shores. The military deployment — including carrier groups and surveillance assets — represents a decisive shift from passive interdiction to aggressive disruption of maritime smuggling. While critics scream about precedent and legality, the simple fact remains that these are the kinds of bold measures required when criminal cartels operate like quasi-military forces.
President Trump and his team have repeatedly said the boats were carrying massive quantities of fentanyl and tied to designated narcoterrorist groups, arguing that each interdiction prevents lethal drugs from reaching the American supply chain. Fact-checkers and foreign outlets predictably dispute the math and demand proof, but the root problem is obvious: opioids are killing tens of thousands and the prior administration’s soft approach produced chaos. Tough action on the high seas is an extension of sensible border and drug policy — a refusal to let cartels wage chemical warfare against the country.
Legal scholars waving international law at these strikes conveniently ignore that sovereignty doesn’t protect narco-terrorists while they traffic death toward innocent people. Yes, there are complex legal debates, and some academics say the strikes risk extrajudicial actions, but there is also a compelling case that the executive must defend the homeland when Congress and international bodies fail to clamp down. Those who demand restraint while refusing to propose credible alternatives are choosing abstract principle over the safety of citizens.
The deployment of the USS Gerald R. Ford and other assets to the Caribbean is not saber-rattling — it is the only language some cartels understand, and it buys invaluable time to dismantle smuggling networks. Reports of carrier presence and discussions of expanded operations reflect a White House that understands deterrence and the value of projecting power to protect supply lines and coastal approaches. Critics who call for diplomacy while ignoring the violent economics of the drug trade are living in a fantasy; deterrence backed by capability is what keeps chaos at bay.
If conservatives want to turn this moment into lasting success, the policy response must be comprehensive: back the military when it targets clear cartel infrastructure, empower law enforcement with intelligence and resources, push for designations that allow wider action against narcoterrorist networks, and fix porous borders that enable the problem to metastasize. Congressional oversight is appropriate, but so is political courage — leadership that acts to stop the flow of poison deserves support, not reflexive condemnation from coastal elites. No administration can do this alone; it requires clarity of purpose and the political will to finish the job.
The humanitarian consequences are real and complicated — survivors have been taken aboard U.S. ships and moved to nearby countries while investigations continue — but turning a blind eye to maritime narcotrafficking is an abdication of duty. Those who denounce these strikes as unlawful without offering a viable alternative are effectively siding with the cartels by default. America cannot be a soft target; standing firm against narco-terrorism at sea is a necessary chapter in defending the Republic and ensuring future generations inherit a safer nation.
