In Focus delivers deeper coverage of the political, cultural, and ideological issues shaping America. Published daily by senior writers and experts, these in-depth pieces go beyond the headlines to give readers the full picture. You can find our full list of In Focus pieces here.
“There is no such thing as a narco-terrorist!” — Rep. Jim Himes (D-CT) declared to MS NOW‘s Katy Tur this week.
“One of the factors that drives use in the United States is demand. Most narco traffickers are not in those boats. They pay people to do that. Usually, people are not significantly involved with narco traders. It’s the way they make money.” — Sen. Jack Reed (D-RI).
Well, it’s happening again: In an effort to oppose President Donald Trump on everything he does, Democrats are now defending narco-terrorists pouring deadly drugs like fentanyl into the country. And you have to love Reed’s explanation in attempting to explain the hierarchy of your average drug cartel. Nope, those aren’t the top levels of narco-terrorists on those boats … It’s more like Uber Eats drivers making a delivery for a restaurant, except with drugs.
Hey, we all gotta earn, right? So if you or I carried drugs from Point A to Point B in our car, we’re actually innocent of any crime?
This is madness. A poll released by the Reagan National Defense Survey, an annual poll conducted of 2,500 Americans on issues tied to national security, the military, and geopolitical events, shows that 62% support U.S. military action against suspected drug traffickers.
Another poll conducted by Harvard/Harris shows that 71% of Americans back Trump’s use of military force against cartels in Latin America and operating at sea. This includes 56% of Democrats and 67% of independents.
So why are Democrats on Capitol Hill against action the public obviously supports? It’s due to that anti-Trump reflex that has also backed party members into the 20% side of every 80-20 issue.
In this case, the sudden concern for the rights of narco-terrorists is piggybacked on what may have been the most ill-advised decision of the year, after six Democrats put out a video imploring members of the military to defy orders if he or she deemed them to be illegal. Of course, not one Democrat could specifically provide an example of any illegal order Trump or Secretary of War Pete Hegseth has issued, which has made for some cringeworthy interviews lately.
“It wasn’t about this specific thing,” Sen. Mark Kelly (D-AZ) responded when asked what illegal orders had been issued under Trump. “We were looking forward to trying to head something off at the pass that could’ve been really, really bad.”
So… he’s urging the military to defy orders that have yet to occur but might in a hypothetical situation in the future? And this guy is considered a contender for his party’s nomination?
Over on ABC’s This Week with Martha Raddatz, Sen. Elissa Slotkin (D-MI) even went so far as to broach the actions of Nazi soldiers, pointing to 1992’s A Few Good Men, a fictional film starring Tom Cruise and Jack Nicholson.
Raddatz: “It is very clear that no one should follow an illegal order, but it’s very murky when you look at what is an illegal order. And if you go into morally, ethically, that’s a pretty tough thing to look at and say, how do I navigate this?”
Slotkin: “I don’t — I mean, going back to Nuremberg, right, that, ‘Well, they told me to do it, that’s why I murdered people,’ is not an excuse. If you look at popular culture, like, you watch, you know, A Few Good Men, like we have plenty of examples since World War II, in Vietnam, where people were told to follow illegal orders, and they did it, and they were prosecuted for it.
What’s next? Hauling Hegseth into a courtroom and asking him if he ordered the Code Red?
On cue, the Washington Post attempted to jump in to save the day with a thinly-sourced “exclusive” (thinly as in two unnamed sources) that alleged that Hegseth ordered a second strike to kill all survivors of an initial strike on a suspected drug boat in the Caribbean.
Such an order, many experts say, would be in violation of the Geneva Convention. Most other news outlets treated the story as gospel from there as top Democrats called for Hegseth’s firing or resignation.
But enter the New York Times to set the record straight (emphasis mine): “According to five U.S. officials, who spoke separately and on the condition of anonymity to discuss a sensitive matter that is under investigation, Mr. Hegseth, ahead of the Sept. 2 attack, ordered a strike that would kill the people on the boat and destroy the vessel and its purported cargo of drugs,” it reads. “But, each official said, Mr. Hegseth’s directive did not specifically address what should happen if a first missile turned out not to fully accomplish all of those things. And, the officials said, his order was not a response to surveillance footage showing that at least two people on the boat survived the first blast.”
ABC News has since backed the New York Times report.
“And tonight, new information: According to a source familiar with the incident, the two survivors climbed back onto the boat after the initial strike. They were believed to be potentially in communication with others, and salvaging some of the drugs. Because of that, it was determined they were still in the fight and valid targets.
Whoops. But the old saying is that a lie can go around the world before the truth gets its pants on, and at least for a few days, Democrats thought they found their illegal order and possibly a scalp from Trump’s Cabinet in Hegseth.
So whether it’s siding with the 20 side of an 80-20 side in supporting biological men playing against biological women in sports, or supporting an alleged MS-13 member, the wife-beating accused human trafficker Kilmar Abrego Garcia, or refusing to clap at Trump’s speech to the Joint Session of Congress for a young boy who survived Stage 4 brain cancer, or are against ICE while they deport violent criminals here illegally in the country, Democrats, in an effort to show they’ll “stand up to Trump” are digging themselves into a bigger hole.
For Republicans to hold onto the House and Senate in the midterm elections, the party’s candidates in swing districts absolutely need to hammer these 80-20 issues home. They also have to sell, and it isn’t a difficult sale, Trump and the GOP’s successes in the president’s second term, including:
Gas prices are under three dollars for the first time on average nationwide in four years.
Inflation compared to the Biden years is relatively tame.
The stock market is at all-time highs.
Unemployment is low, sitting on an average at 2.7% in Trump’s second term (it averaged 5% under Biden).
GDP is up to 3.8%.
The Trump tax cuts are now permanent.
No tax on tips is coming in 2026.
The border is secure without one piece of legislation.
There’s a peace deal in Gaza.
And Iran’s nuclear capabilities have been decimated.
TRUMP GIVEN WEEK OF WINS AND FAKE SCANDAL
It appears those are great stories to tell, but the betting markets, such as Polymarket, are currently giving Democrats a 78% chance of taking back the House.
Lots can change between now and then, of course. Eleven months in this political environment can feel like 11 years. In the meantime, Trump and the GOP should continue doing what they’re doing: Keep piling up wins and results. Because eventually, the Democrats’ rhetoric and policy positions may well result in the party losing what should be a relatively easy road back to power.
