When a Regime Weaponizes Death, America Must Defend ItselfLuis Gonzalez for The Last WireEvery year, tens of thousands of Americans die from drugs trafficked across our borders. Much of that poison is not moving by accident. It flows through corridors that are state-directed, militarily protected, and strategically exported by the Venezuelan government under Nicolás Maduro. This is not abstract politics. It is a direct assault on the American people and it demands a defensive response.
To be clear, this is not a call for war for ideology or regime change. This is not about spreading democracy or toppling governments to punish them for their policies. This is about a state that has weaponized narcotics to kill Americans. For decades, the U.S. has tolerated illicit influence, facilitated trafficking, and even intelligence threats from nations across the hemisphere, most notably Cuba. Cuba has been a transit hub for cocaine, a shelter for fugitives, and a backer of criminal networks that undermine American security. It has harmed our interests repeatedly.
But there is a crucial distinction. Cuba’s malfeasance, while serious, is largely permissive or facilitative. It does not produce and protect narcotics on a scale that turns the state itself into a killing machine. Venezuela under Maduro, by contrast, operates a narco-state. The regime not only orchestrates the production of cocaine and synthetic opioids, but it protects the supply chains with its military and security apparatus. It funnels these lethal substances directly into U.S. cities. That is a level of state-enabled harm that crosses any reasonable threshold for defensive action.
Historically, America has faced threats that did not fit neatly into traditional war paradigms. We have struck terrorists overseas who threatened our citizens, sometimes without a declared war. The 2011 drone strike that killed Anwar al-Awlaki, a U.S. citizen and senior al-Qaeda operative in Yemen, is the most cited example. That action, controversial though it was, was defended as self-defense against an active, lethal threat. Maduro’s Venezuela operates in a parallel logic, albeit with the tools of state power rather than a non-state terrorist network. The principle is the same: when a state weaponizes lethal agents to harm Americans, defensive action is justified.
Critics will argue that Congress must authorize any military action. They are right. The Constitution vests the power to declare war in Congress. But Congress also funds and tolerates U.S. operations abroad that skirt explicit declarations in Iraq, Syria, Libya, and elsewhere. This is not precedent for ignoring Congress, but a recognition that national self-defense sometimes operates in spaces the Framers could not have fully anticipated. A targeted, limited strike to neutralize a regime actively killing Americans via narcotics is fundamentally different from open-ended war. It is defensive, limited, and urgent.
Some will ask, if Maduro warrants this action, why not Cuba, or other countries with U.S. interests at risk? The distinction lies in direct state-enabled lethal impact. Cuba’s actions harm American interests, no question. Its facilitation of trafficking, cyber aggression, and political interference are real threats. But it does not directly export death on the scale of Maduro’s narco-state. Geography or proximity is not the legal or moral test. The test is scale, intent, and capability: which state is actively harming Americans, and can the action to neutralize it be limited and defensive?
This is not a slippery slope argument. It is a framework for necessary restraint. Action must be limited to neutralizing the threat. Occupation, governance, or open-ended regime change is not the goal. Neutralization, removing the head of a regime that weaponizes narcotics, is the precise measure of restraint. The U.S. does not govern Venezuela’s people. It does not dictate policy. It simply ends a campaign that kills its citizens by design and undermines our constitutional order at home.
To those who fear precedent or legal overreach, history offers guidance. Presidents have repeatedly taken defensive action overseas against threats that fall into gray areas between law enforcement and war. The War Powers Resolution, while well-intentioned, was designed to check abuse, not to paralyze self-defense. When confronted with a state deliberately exporting lethal harm into American communities, waiting for formal debate or congressional wrangling may itself be a dereliction of duty.
The choice is stark. The United States can continue treating the narcotics crisis as a domestic law enforcement issue, watching tens of thousands of Americans die annually. Maduro has turned it into an active battlefield, battling the United States from afar while causing serious constitutional damage internally. America cannot and should not wait any longer.
Maduro has crossed a line that any sovereign state must respect. Cuba’s involvement, while serious, does not rise to the same lethal, state-directed level. This is about proportionality and threat, not favoritism or ideology. The Constitution envisions a nation capable of defending itself. Defensive action against Maduro is not imperial ambition. It is the minimal force required to stop a state-enabled mass casualty campaign against Americans.
We can debate policy, diplomacy, and sanctions all day. But there comes a point when defense demands action. For too long, tens of thousands of Americans have died because our leaders treated the narcotics crisis as a domestic law enforcement matter. Maduro has made it an active battlefield. America cannot and should not wait any longer.
— Gonzo
