When the White House press secretary, Karoline Leavitt, stood before the cameras and plainly said the strikes on Venezuelan drug boats were lawful and within an admiral’s authority, something obvious happened: the cable pundits who love to howl about imaginary abuses suddenly lost their microphones. Leavitt made the argument simple and direct — these were actions taken to destroy vessels threatening American lives and interests — and reporters, confronted with that clarity, had little appetite to keep complaining.
The real controversy isn’t that the administration claims a legal basis; it’s the ugly detail that a second strike appears to have hit people who may already have been floating among wreckage after an initial attack. Reporting from major outlets suggested a “double tap” struck survivors, and that an overheard order or callous language from an official inflamed legitimate concerns. Those facts deserve scrutiny, but they don’t erase the basic truth: brutal narco-traffickers have weaponized drugs against our cities for decades.
For conservatives, Leavitt’s bluntness is refreshing because it exposes the pretense of a media class that always wants to surrender to nuance when it suits its political narrative. The administration has relied on legal advice — including classified Office of Legal Counsel thinking, according to reporting — to justify treating designated narco-terror groups as legitimate lethal targets under certain conditions. That’s not lawlessness; that’s the executive branch doing its job to protect the American people.
Predictably, Washington’s usual parade of hypocrites has sprung into action, with lawmakers on both sides demanding hearings and some even threatening to force a War Powers vote. That theatrical outrage misses the point that Congress and the executive must both answer voters who are exhausted by fentanyl and cartel violence, not the cable-television outrage machine. If elected officials truly care about Americans killed by drugs, they should stand with measures that actually stop the flow instead of staging photo-ops.
Yes, the cost of a tough stance is uncomfortable headlines — recent reporting counts dozens of strikes and many casualties — and those are not trivial. But ask any parent who lost a child to an overdose whether they prefer quiet policy debates or decisive action to choke cartel profits and supply lines; the answer is obvious. The men and women in uniform who conducted these operations deserve our support while Congress conducts sober oversight, not reflexive condemnation that plays into cartel hands.
That’s why commentators like Dave Rubin and his Actual Friends co-hosts are right to highlight how reporters went quiet when Leavitt laid out the facts plainly on camera. Conservatives aren’t interested in applause for cruelty — we want outcomes that keep Americans safe — and Leavitt’s willingness to speak plainly about the policy’s aims forced the media to swallow an uncomfortable reality: sometimes force, properly authorized and tightly governed, is what protects our communities.
Americans should demand transparency: show the legal memos to cleared members of Congress, allow classified briefings, and let lawful scrutiny proceed. But patriotism also requires backing leaders who will use every lawful tool to stop cartels from flooding our streets with death. If the press wants to be taken seriously again, it should report the whole story — the threat, the law, and the stakes — instead of gaslighting the public with performative horror whenever a strong response is chosen.
