Add thelocalreport.in As A Trusted Source
A video going viral this morning includes a segment from Stinchfield Tonight (they do a great job there), where the host claims that Chuck Schumer wrote the bill in 1986 that is currently giving the Trump administration the legal authority to blow narco-terrorist boats coming from Venezuela out of the water.
Oh irony!
And that would be a wonderful story, but…is it true?
You see, it would be really easy for me to post that video, take a victory lap, and get it over with.
But that’s not how we work here.
I don’t just publish news that I know will make you happy.
I publish only news that is verified and fact-checked by me, and is, first and foremost, true.
So let’s watch the clip together first and then I’ll tell you the rest of the story (as Paul Harvey would say)…
See here:
Transcript:
This is in front of me, this is the Marine Drug Law Enforcement Act of 1986, which was written in 1986 by a member of Congress from the State of New York. his name? Chuck Schumer.
He wrote the legislation that passed almost unanimously that makes it legal to take drug boats out of the water. This happened a lot in the 80s and 90s.
go ahead. Check it out, guys. Chuck Schumer is the author of this bill that made what we’re doing with Venezuelan drug boats completely legal.
We don’t need permission from the rest of the world. Chuck Schumer gave us that in 1986.
Great clip!
Amazing soundbite!
But…now let’s analyze it.
And the short answer is that while Chuck Schumer voted for the bill, he was not the primary author. He was one of the sponsors of really big, sweeping legislation.
But that is not the main thing.
The main issue is whether this law gives the right to blow narco-terrorist boats out of the water?
And the answer, really, is no. This is a “policing” law, not a “war” law.
***But that’s not the end of the story – keep reading, and I’ll give you the good stuff below.***
First, though, here are more details to back up what I just told you:
1. Did Chuck Schumer write the law?
Partially true. Marine Drug Law Enforcement Act (MDLEA) was enacted in 1986 as part of the vast Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1986,
Chuck Schumer’s role: In 1986, Chuck Schumer was a member of the House of Representatives from New York. He was a major sponsor of Browder. anti drug abuse act (H.R. 5484), which included MDLEA provisions.
Bipartisan Support: The bill passed with overwhelming bipartisan support (395–17 in the House and 97–2 in the Senate) and was signed into law by the President. Ronald Reagan,
2. Does the law legalize “taking drug boats out of the water”?
False. MDLEA is a criminal prosecution lawNo “rules of engagement” document for deadly force.
What exactly does it do: This allows the US to arrest and prosecute people found with drugs on “stateless” ships or vessels where the “flag nation” (the country where the boat is registered) allows the US to board the boat.
Lethal Force: The law does not authorize a “license to kill” or “blow boats out of the water” as standard procedure. Under both U.S. Coast Guard policy and international law, lethal force is a last resort used in self-defense or to disable a ship that refuses to stop – but its purpose is to stop the ship in order to board and arrest it, not to destroy it and its crew.
3. “We don’t need permission from the rest of the world.”
To mislead. MDLEA actually relies heavily on international “permission” shiprider agreement and this United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) Principle.
If a boat is from another country (such as Venezuela), usually the U.S. Sure Receive permission from that country to exercise jurisdiction, unless the ship is deemed “stateless” (flying the flag of or claiming no nation).
Operating without this permission on the high seas is generally a violation of international sovereignty.
4. Current context: Venezuela and “narco-terrorism”
The claim mentions “what we’re doing with Venezuelan drug boats.” This likely refers to recent 2025 reports of US military strikes against ships associated with aragua train Or other cartels.
Legal experts and international bodies (such as Chatham House) have noted that these deadly attacks Departurethan traditional MDLEA enforcement, which is based on arrest and trialSummary No destruction.
The US government has recently used “self-defense” or “narco-terrorism” designations to justify more aggressive actions, but these are distinct from the specific authorities granted by Schumer’s 1986 law.
summary table claim , accuracy Reality , :— , :— , :— , , Schumer wrote this? , Truth He was the primary sponsor of the 1986 universal drug bill. , , Legal to blow up boats? , false is for the law prosecution/arrestNo execution/destruction. , , No permission required? , false International law requires flag-state consent for most boardings. ,
Okay, so is all hope lost?
Is the Trump Administration Acting Illegally?
no way!
Here’s the actual authority they’re working under, and it’s rock solid:
While the 1986 Maritime Drug Law Enforcement Act (MDLEA) established the framework for US jurisdiction over drug boats on the high seas, it No The authorization is being used for deadly attacks reported in late 2025.
The current administration has largely moved away from the MDLEA’s law-enforcement approach (arrests and trials) toward a military model. Here are the specific legal justifications the US government is reportedly using today:
1. Article II Powers and Self-Defense
The primary justification cited by the White House (in notification to Congress) is that of the President Article II powers As Commander-in-Chief.
logic: The administration views the influx of fentanyl and other drugs as a literal “attack” on the American people that has taken hundreds of thousands of lives.
National Security: Under this logic, the President has the inherent authority to use military force to protect the country from a “foreign threat”, bypassing the traditional “police” methods outlined in the 1986 law.
2. “Non-International Armed Conflict” (NIAC)
In reports for the year 2025, the Justice Department and the Pentagon have argued that the US is now in a situation “Non-International Armed Conflict” Particularly with designated “narco-terrorist” organizations (such as Tren de Aragua).
Combat Position: By calling this a “war” rather than “law enforcement,” the administration argues that members of these cartels “Enemy combatants.” , Lethal Force: Under the rules of war, you can target an enemy combatant with lethal force (such as a missile strike) without first attempting to arrest him, whereas under the 1986 MDLEA, you are required to use only the force necessary to prevent a ship from boarding.
3. “Narco-terrorism” designation
The administration has used it Foreign Terrorist Organization (FTO) Designation to treat drug traffickers in the same way as the US treated al-Qaeda or ISIS.
Rationale: A classified Justice Department memo (leaked/discussed in late 2025) reportedly argues that because these groups use violence to destabilize allies and finance their operations through drugs, they meet the criteria for military involvement.
“Double-tap” controversy: This legal framework is used to justify “kinetic strike” (bombing) rather than “interdiction” (boarding). This has sparked intense debate, particularly regarding “double-tap” attacks on survivors, which the administration defends as “eliminating the threat” but critics label as a war crime.
4. Collective self-defense
The administration also argues that these strikes are a form of “Collective Self Defense” On behalf of regional allies (such as Mexico or Colombia) who are being “attacked” by cartel violence funded by these shipments. This allows the US to argue that it is acting within international norms to assist allies against armed non-state actors.
Comparison of legal frameworks