Should the U.S. Militarize the War on Drugs?
Topics: Politics, U.S., World, Economics
Release Date: November 21, 2025
The Trump administration is taking the War on Drugs in a bold new direction—one that could redefine foreign policy, test international alliances, and reshape the very nature of the fight itself. In the past few months, the U.S. has used aircraft carriers, intelligence networks, and direct military strikes across Latin America to dismantle cartels—targeting alleged drug smuggling vessels in the Caribbean and eastern Pacific without formal declarations. Is this a necessary response to transnational crime or a dangerous overreach?
Those in favor of militarization argue that Mexican cartels and Venezuelan-backed traffickers operate with the sophistication of armed insurgencies, and only military force can disrupt their reach. Previous strategies have failed, and only aggressive deterrence will stop the fentanyl crisis and reclaim border control. But other policy officials warn that bypassing congressional approval sets a dangerous precedent, and militarization has historically failed to stop drug flows, often leaving civilian casualties, diplomatic fallout, and little long-term success.
As strikes continue and boundaries between policing and warfare blur, we debate the question: Should the U.S. Militarize the War on Drugs?
This debate was recorded in partnership with the
on November 10, 2025.ARGUING YES:
Sean McFate, Author and Professor of Strategy at the National Defense University and Georgetown University’s School of Foreign Service
Andrés Martínez-Fernández, Senior Policy Analyst for Latin America at The Heritage Foundation’s Allison Center for National Security
ARGUING NO:
Will Freeman, Fellow for Latin America Studies at the Council on Foreign Relations
Aileen Teague, Assistant Professor of International Affairs at Texas A&M University’s Bush School of Government and Public Service
MODERATOR-IN-CHIEF:
John Donvan: Emmy award-winning journalist
IN PARTNERSHIP WITH
A most fascinating debate, I take as a study in managed unreality.
Watch closely, as both sides agree to ignore the truth, that fentanyl is coming from China and Mexico. One side wants to blow up boats in Caribbean as kinetic theater, while the other argues for 'root causes' and 'institutional support' strategies that were already liquidated.
Is this debating a future strategy? Or just two competing brands of unreality, retroactively justifying those hollow institutions?