Trump’s Designation of Fentanyl As a ‘Weapon of Mass Destruction’ Is a Drug-Fueled Delusion

Although President Donald Trump frequently decries the threat that fentanyl poses to Americans, his comments about the drug reveal several misconceptions about it. He thinks Canada is an important source of illicit fentanyl, which it isn’t. He thinks the boats targeted by his deadly military campaign against suspected cocaine couriers in the Caribbean and the eastern Pacific are carrying fentanyl, which they aren’t. Even if they were, his oft-repeated claim that he saves “25,000 American lives” each time he blows up one of those boats—which implies that he has already prevented nine times more drug-related deaths than were recorded in the United States last year—would be patently preposterous.

Trump’s fentanyl fantasies reached a new level of absurdity this week, when he issued an executive order “designating fentanyl as a weapon of mass destruction.” As relevant here, federal law defines a “weapon of mass destruction” (WMD) to include “any weapon that is designed or intended to cause death or serious bodily injury through the release, dissemination, or impact of toxic or poisonous chemicals.”

The fentanyl implicated in U.S. drug deaths is not a “weapon.” It is a psychoactive substance that Americans voluntarily consume, either knowingly or because they thought they were buying a different drug. Nor is that fentanyl “designed or intended” to “cause death or serious bodily injury.” It is designed or intended to get people high, and to make drug traffickers rich in the process.

Trump nevertheless claims “illicit fentanyl is closer to a chemical weapon than a narcotic.” How so? “Two milligrams, an almost undetectable trace amount equivalent to 10 to 15 grains of table salt, constitutes a lethal dose,” he says. But that observation also applies to licit fentanyl, which medical practitioners routinely and safely use as an analgesic or sedative.

Dentists, for example, frequently use fentanyl combined with a benzodiazepine such as diazepam (Valium) or midazolam (Versed) for “conscious sedation.” On a couple of occasions, I have received that combo during dental surgery. I was not at all worried that I would die of a drug overdose, and I certainly did not think my dental surgeon was attacking me with a weapon, let alone a weapon of mass destruction.

Contrary to what Trump implies, the danger posed by fentanyl in illicit drug markets is only partly a function of its potency. The core problem is that the introduction of fentanyl—initially as a heroin booster or replacement, later as an adulterant in stimulants or as pills passed off as legally produced pharmaceuticals—made potency, which was already highly variable, even harder to predict. It therefore compounded a perennial problem with black-market drugs: Consumers generally don’t know exactly what they are getting.

That is not true in legal drug markets, whether you are buying booze at a liquor store or taking narcotic pain relievers prescribed by your doctor. The difference was dramatically illustrated by what happened after the government responded to rising opioid-related deaths by discouraging and restricting opioid prescriptions. Although those prescriptions fell dramatically, the upward trend in opioid-related deaths not only continued but accelerated. That result was not surprising, since the crackdown predictably pushed nonmedical users toward black-market substitutes that were much more dangerous because their composition was uncertain and unpredictable.

The concomitant rise of illicit fentanyl compounded that hazard, and that development likewise was driven by the prohibition policy that Trump is so keen to enforce. Prohibition favors especially potent drugs, which are easier to conceal and smuggle. Stepped-up enforcement of prohibition tends to magnify that effect. From the perspective of traffickers, fentanyl had additional advantages: As a synthetic drug, it did not require growing and processing of crops, making its production less conspicuous and much cheaper.

Keep reading

A War No American Needs: Confrontation with Venezuela Brings Neither Security nor Benefit

The United States finds itself at a moment when the gap between power and prudence has rarely been more visible. As American society grapples with structural inflationdeep social fragmentation, a crisis of institutional credibility, and the steady erosion of public trust, renewed talk of military confrontation with Venezuela is once again circulating within Washington’s political and security circles. In recent months, this rhetoric has intensified, driven in part by President Donald Trump and influential figures around him – most notably Senator Marco Rubio – who have pushed an increasingly confrontational line toward Caracas, bringing the country closer to the threshold of conflict. These developments are not the product of a genuine threat, but rather reflect a dangerous habit in U.S. foreign policy: transforming domestic deadlock into external military adventure. The central question is both simple and decisive: who exactly is this war for, and what purpose is it meant to serve?

The first reality that must be acknowledged is that Venezuela, despite its profound economic, political, and governance crises, does not constitute an imminent or existential threat to U.S. national security. Neither its military capabilities nor its regional position – and not even its relations with America’s strategic rivals – place it in the same category as real systemic challenges such as China, or even complex transnational threats like cyber warfare and the collapse of global supply chains. Venezuela is neither capable of striking the U.S. homeland nor of disrupting the global balance of power. The inflation of the Venezuelan threat rests less on sober security analysis than on Washington’s recurring political need to manufacture a “manageable enemy.”

Within this framework, a war with Venezuela offers no direct benefit to American citizens. It does not enhance job security for workers, reduce healthcare costs, rebuild decaying infrastructure, or provide lasting stabilization to domestic energy prices. The experiences of Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, and Syria demonstrate that early promises of “economic gain” or “market stability” tend to be short-lived illusions, quickly replaced by prolonged instability, rising public debt, and the erosion of social capital. At best, the American public becomes a spectator to a war that yields no dividends; at worst, it becomes the entity that pays for it.

The costs of such a war, by contrast, would be immediate and tangible. Direct military expenditures – at a time when the U.S. defense budget already exceeds the combined military spending of several major powers – would mean funneling tens of billions of additional dollars into an industry that thrives on conflict, not peace. Beyond this, potential shocks to global energy markets, particularly in oil and gas, would translate directly into higher fuel and consumer prices at home. Despite reduced production capacity, Venezuela remains a consequential actor in energy geopolitics, and any significant instability there would reverberate across global markets. The result would be renewed economic pressure on American households still struggling to recover from previous crises.

Migration represents another cost routinely underestimated in early calculations. Any escalation of violence or security collapse in Venezuela would generate new waves of displacement across Latin America and eventually toward the U.S. southern border. This would not only produce humanitarian and ethical challenges, but also inflame domestic political tensions and deepen partisan divides. A war launched under the banner of “threat control” could, in practice, import instability directly into the United States.

If this war is neither about security nor public welfare, where do its real motivations lie? The answer must be found in the intersection of politics, power projection, and the satisfaction of security elites. In a system where foreign policy is heavily shaped by the military–industrial complex and entrenched security networks, war is not an anomaly but a tool for sustaining the existing power cycle. Confrontation with Venezuela – precisely because of the country’s relative weakness – offers the opportunity for a low-risk display of force, one that may benefit politicians, generals, and defense contractors even as it imposes costs on society at large. The recent advocacy by Trump-aligned hawks, including Rubio, fits squarely within this pattern.

This logic is fundamentally diversionary. When governments fail to resolve structural domestic problems, the temptation grows to mobilize public opinion around an external threat, redirecting attention away from internal crises. In this narrative, Venezuela is not treated as a country with real people and complex realities, but as a simplified symbol of “the enemy” – one that appears easy to defeat and whose human costs are often erased from political calculations.

Keep reading

Senate Armed Services chair sees ‘no evidence of war crimes’ after inquiry into boat strikes

Senate Armed Services Committee Chair Roger Wicker (R-Miss.) said on Thursday that he has seen “no evidence of war crimes” committed during the U.S. military’s Sept. 2 strikes against an alleged drug-trafficking boat in the Caribbean, and he indicated that his panel does not plan to further probe the controversial operation. 

“I have seen no evidence of war crimes. The fact is that our military is asked to make incredibly difficult decisions. Service members must do so based on the best available information and often under very tight timelines,” Wicker said in a lengthy statement

Wicker said he is “satisfied” with all of the information the committee has received regarding the Sept. 2 attack, where two survivors were killed in a strike authorized by Navy Adm. Frank Bradley. Wicker said the strikes against “narco-terrorists” in the U.S. Southern Command area are based on “sound legal advice.” 

“When reports first surfaced about a secondary strike, my office immediately directed inquiries to the department to ascertain the veracity of these reports. I promised that SASC would take this matter seriously and conduct thorough oversight. We have done so,” the Mississippi senator said. “Both military and civilian Pentagon leaders have worked in good faith to provide answers to us without any delays.” 

Wicker’s panel said it would investigate the Sept. 2 operation, during which the U.S. military conducted four strikes against the purported drug-trafficking vessel in the Caribbean, shortly after The Washington Post revealed a second strike, ordered by Bradley, took place during the mission.

Keep reading

President Trump Signs Executive Order Reclassifying Marijuana

President Trump on Thursday signed an executive order reclassifying marijuana from a Schedule I to a Schedule III drug.

“Marijuana can be legitimate in terms of medical applications when carefully administered,” President Trump said in the Oval Office.

“Prescription pain killers have legitimate uses, but also can do damage,” Trump said. “I promised to be the president of common sense. That’s exactly what I am doing.”

President Trump emphasized that he is not legalizing marijuana for recreational use.

“I want to emphasize that the order I am about to sign is not the legalization or does it legalize marijuana in any way, shape, or form — and in no way sanctions its use as a recreational drug – it has nothing to do with that,” Trump said.

Keep reading

Trump’s Marijuana Executive Order Details Leaked Ahead Of Announcement, Including CBD And Hemp Provisions

President Donald Trump will be signing an executive order on Thursday that will direct the attorney to “expedite” and “complete” the marijuana rescheduling process, throw a lifeline to the hemp industry, allow doctors to prescribe CBD products that would be eligible for Medicare coverage and more, a White House official told reporters at a readout ahead of the signing event.

Marijuana Moment wasn’t invited to attend the background briefing, but obtained the transcript of the conversation.

Many details are consistent with reporting about the plan to move marijuana from Schedule I to Schedule III of the Controlled Substances Act (CSA), but the discussion revealed additional information about the order and how the administration is framing the reform.

The official started by emphasizing that the “common sense” administrative action is “focused on increasing medical research for medical marijuana and CBD” to “better inform patients and doctors.”

That means expediting the finalization of a rule to reschedule marijuana, they said. The move wouldn’t legalize cannabis, but it would help promote research while also letting marijuana businesses take federal tax deductions they’ve been barred from under an Internal Revenue Service (IRS) code known as 280E.

Here are new details about Trump’s executive order on cannabis:

  • Direct the attorney general to expedite the completion of the process of rescheduling marijuana to Schedule III of the CSA.
  • Direct top White House staff to work with Congress to give patients access to full-spectrum CBD products, “while still restricting the sale and access to products that cause serious and potentially life threatening health risks.”
  • Urge Congress to examine updating the definition of hemp to ensure that full-spectrum CBD is accessible to patients—a policy change that could mitigate some concerns in the sector about a recent spending bill Trump signed with provisions that would broadly ban consumable hemp products.
  • Direct the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) to “develop research methods and models, to utilize real world evidence [and] to improve access to hemp-derived CBD products in accordance with federal law” while informing “standards of care.”

Separate from Trump’s order, Mehmet Oz, administrator for the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), will also be announcing “a model that will allow a number of CMS beneficiaries to benefit from receiving CBD under doctor recommendation at no cost,” the White House official said.

Keep reading

United States Designates the Gulf Clan as a Terrorist Organization: A Forceful Shift in the War on Drugs

The United States Government announced the decision to officially designate the Clan del Golfo as a foreign terrorist organization, a measure that raises the level of confrontation against drug trafficking in Hispanic America.

The announcement, made by Secretary of State Marco Rubio, marks a profound shift in U.S. strategy by equating this criminal group with international terrorist organizations.

The Gulf Clan, considered the most powerful illegal armed group in Colombia, has for years been identified as responsible for large-scale drug trafficking to North America, as well as for systematic acts of violence that have affected entire communities.

This designation opens the door to far more severe legal, financial, and operational actions by Washington.

Keep reading

Bill To Block Trump From Launching War With Venezuela Fails in the House

The House on Wednesday voted down a War Powers Resolution meant to block President Trump from launching a war with Venezuela without congressional authorization, as required by the Constitution.

The bill failed in a vote of 211-213, with nine representatives not voting. Just three Republicans joined Democrats in supporting the bill: Reps. Thomas Massie (R-KY), Marjorie Taylor Greene (GA), and Don Bacon (NE). One Democrat, Henry Cuellar (TX), voted against the legislation.

The legislation would have directed the president to remove “United States Armed Forces from hostilities within or against Venezuela that have not been authorized by Congress.”

Before the Venezuela bill, another War Powers Resolution aimed at stopping President Trump’s bombing campaign against alleged drug boats in the Caribbean and the Eastern Pacific Ocean also failed. That bill failed in a vote of 210-216, with two Republicans (Massie and Bacon) voting in favor and two Democrats (Ceullar and Vicente Gonzalez (TX) voting against.

The votes came a day after President Trump declared a “complete and total blockade” on “sanctioned” tankers going into and leaving Venezuela, an action that’s widely considered an act of war under international law. President Trump and his top officials have also been clear that their goal is regime change.

“Do we want a miniature Afghanistan in the Western Hemisphere?” Massie, a co-sponsor of the bill, asked on the House floor before the vote.

“If that cost is acceptable to this Congress, then we should vote on it as a voice of the people and in accordance with our Constitution,” Massie continued. “And yet today, here we aren’t even voting on whether to declare war or authorize the use of military force. All we’re voting on is a War Powers Resolution that strengthens the fabric of our Republic by reasserting the plain and simple language in the Constitution that Congress must decide questions of war.”

Keep reading

Source: Trump To Announce War With Venezuela Tonight

President Trump is expected to announce plans to launch a war with Venezuela this evening when he addresses the nation at 9:00 pm EST, a high-placed source on Capitol Hill has told Antiwar.com.

Also, earlier in the day, Tucker Carlson told Judge Andrew Napolitano that he has heard from a member of Congress that Trump is planning war.

“Members of Congress were briefed yesterday that a war is coming and it will be announced in the address to the nation tonight,” Carlson said on the Judging Freedom podcast.

On Tuesday night, President Trump announced a “total and complete” blockade on “sanctioned tankers” going into and out of Venezuela, which came after US forces boarded and seized a tanker carrying Venezuelan oil.

The Trump administration has made clear that its goal is to oust Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro. It’s unclear what kind of military action the president is preparing to take, but according to earlier media reports, he has been briefed on several options, including strikes on government targets, sending in a special operations force to kill or capture Maduro, or deploying a larger force to capture airbases and oil fields.

Any attack on Venezuela without congressional authorization would be illegal under the Constitution. The House is expected to vote on a bipartisan War Powers Resolution today aimed at blocking Trump from launching the war.

Keep reading

New Congressional Bill Would Let People Use Marijuana In Public Housing Without Being Evicted

Sen. Cory Booker (D-NJ) and Rep. Eleanor Holmes Norton (D-DC) have filed a bill in Congress to allow people living in federally assisted housing to use marijuana in compliance with state laws without having to fear losing their homes.

Under current policy, people who live in public housing are prohibited from using controlled substances in those facilities regardless of state law, and landlords are able to evict them. The new bicameral legislation—titled the “Marijuana in Federally Assisted Housing Parity Act”—would change that.

The bill would provide protections for people living in public housing or Section 8 housing from being displaced simply for using cannabis in states that have legalized it for medical or recreational purposes.

Norton has filed similar versions of the proposal over recent sessions, but the reform has yet to be enacted. Booker joined Norton in sponsoring the legislation last Congress as well.

“Tenants should not be discriminated against, evicted, or denied federally assisted housing for legally using marijuana or treating a medical condition in states where it is permitted,” Booker said in a press release on Wednesday. “The Marijuana in Federally Assisted Housing Parity Act would end these discriminatory practices and ensure tenants are not punished for personal choices made in accordance with state law.”

The bill would further require the head of the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) to enact regulations that restrict smoking marijuana at these properties in the same way that tobacco is handled.

“Individuals living in federally funded housing should not fear eviction simply for treating their medical conditions or for seeking a substance legal in their state,” Norton said. “Increasingly, Americans are changing their views on marijuana, and it is time that Congress caught up with its own constituents. With so many states improving their laws, this issue should have broad bipartisan appeal because it protects states’ rights.”

Keep reading

White House Chief of Staff Suggests Regime Change in Venezuela Is Real Goal of Boat Strikes

White House Chief of Staff Susie Wiles has suggested that the goal of the US bombing campaign against alleged drug boats in the waters of Latin America is the ouster of Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro, according to a two-part report published by Vanity Fair on Tuesday.

Wiles discussed President Trump’s Venezuela strategy in an interview with Vanity Fair reporter Chris Whipple on November 2, 2025. “He wants to keep on blowing boats up until Maduro cries uncle. And people way smarter than me on that say that he will,” she told him.

While Trump and his top officials have been clear about their desire for regime change in Venezuela, they have framed the bombing campaign against boats as an effort to stop drug shipments to the US. Wiles’s comments suggest that the campaign’s real purpose, at least at the start, is to pressure Maduro.

Keep reading