Morning Brief: Trump Sinks Narcoterrorists Again, Armed Man Detained at Site of Charlie Kirk Memorial Service

· Guy D. McCardle

Venezuelan president Nicolás Maduro, shown here in 2024 is upset with Trump's actions in the Caribbean. Image Credit: Gaby Orra / Bloomberg via Getty Images

Trump’s Third Strike Against Narcoterrorists: A Hard Pivot to Military Power

President Donald Trump is bound and determined to take the war on drugs out of the courtroom and into the battlespace. On September 19, 2025, Trump announced what he called a “lethal kinetic strike” against a suspected narcotics-smuggling vessel operating in international waters within U.S. Southern Command’s area of responsibility. The result: three suspected traffickers dead, no American casualties, and another video clip posted to Trump’s Truth Social feed showing the firepower at work.

According to the president, U.S. intelligence confirmed the craft was carrying illicit narcotics along a well-known trafficking corridor. Trump wasted no words in condemning the men aboard, labeling them “narcoterrorists” bent on poisoning Americans. This latest action follows two earlier strikes in September—one at the beginning of the month and another around mid-month—both reportedly against vessels tied to Venezuela. Each strike signals a clear shift in U.S. counter-narcotics strategy: no longer relying exclusively on interdiction and law enforcement, but now applying military muscle directly against suspected traffickers.

That escalation has brought U.S.-Venezuela tensions to a boil. Washington has long accused Nicolás Maduro’s government of being knee-deep in drug trafficking, a charge Caracas angrily rejects. In recent weeks, U.S. warships have positioned off Venezuela’s coast, and F-35s have deployed to Puerto Rico to expand interdiction coverage. Venezuela has not taken this quietly—its pilots have buzzed U.S. vessels in tense encounters that carry echoes of Cold War-style brinkmanship.

Back home, the legality of these strikes is generating sharp debate. Some Democrats in Congress argue Trump has exceeded his constitutional authority, bypassing congressional approval for military action that amounts to undeclared warfare. The White House counters that the strikes fall squarely within the president’s role as commander in chief and are vital to protecting American lives.

Whether one sees this as decisive leadership or dangerous overreach, the implications are unmistakable. By labeling drug cartels as terrorist organizations and striking them militarily, the administration is rewriting the playbook. The so-called “war on drugs” is no longer just a metaphor—it’s live ordnance on the high seas.

Trump’s third strike underscores his willingness to use hard power in arenas once dominated by the DEA and Coast Guard. It’s a pivot with regional consequences, raising questions about escalation with Venezuela and the limits of presidential war powers. For now, one thing is clear: Washington has dropped the pretense of treating narcotics purely as a criminal issue. In Trump’s view, it’s a war—and wars are fought with weapons, not warrants.

 

Armed Man Detained Ahead of Charlie Kirk Memorial in Arizona

On Friday, September 19, 2025, security officials at State Farm Stadium in Glendale, Arizona, intercepted an armed man attempting to gain entry ahead of the memorial service for conservative activist Charlie Kirk. The United States Secret Service confirmed the incident, which involved the individual presenting himself as law enforcement with what authorities later identified as “inactive credentials.”

The man reportedly carried at least one firearm and a knife. When challenged, he claimed to be working in private security but failed to produce any verifiable documentation. The arrest came two days before Kirk’s high-profile memorial, which is expected to draw President Donald Trump, Vice President JD Vance, and a wide swath of administration officials, conservative leaders, and supporters.

Federal authorities had already elevated the service to a Special Event Assessment Rating Level 1 (SEAR-1)—the highest security classification for domestic gatherings, on par with the Super Bowl. That designation activated full federal coordination, placing the Secret Service in charge of security operations with support from Glendale Police, Arizona DPS, DHS, and other agencies. The response included TSA-style entry checkpoints, surveillance drones, counter-sniper teams, and over 300 cameras saturating the venue. Attendees were required to register in advance and follow stringent rules on parking, access, and even attire. Desert Diamond Arena was designated for overflow seating, anticipating crowds exceeding 63,000.

The context behind the heightened security is grim. Just nine days earlier, Kirk was assassinated while speaking at Utah Valley University, an event that rattled the conservative movement and fueled broader anxieties about escalating political violence. Those concerns have only intensified in the wake of recent attempts on former President Trump’s life and an uptick in credible threats against prominent conservatives. Officials acknowledged they were tracking “several threats of unknown credibility” tied to the memorial, though no organized plot has been confirmed.

The Secret Service emphasized that the detained individual was not connected to any official law enforcement or security detail and that investigations remain ongoing. The rapid intervention has been widely praised by local leaders, security experts, and conservative commentators who view the incident as a stark example of the vigilance required to safeguard political figures and the public in today’s environment.

The armed man’s arrest, coming against the backdrop of Kirk’s assassination and the looming presence of top U.S. officials, highlights how memorials, rallies, and other public events have transformed into high-security operations. In an era where politics and violence are colliding with increasing frequency, ensuring safety has become as much about preparation and deterrence as it is about honoring the fallen.

 

Cruz Blasts FCC Chair for “Mafioso” Threats Against ABC Over Kimmel

Senator Ted Cruz broke sharply with the Trump administration this week, issuing a rare and forceful rebuke of FCC Chair Brendan Carr for leaning on ABC over late-night host Jimmy Kimmel’s controversial remarks about Charlie Kirk’s assassination. While Cruz made it clear he despises Kimmel’s commentary, he condemned Carr’s heavy-handed tactics as “dangerous as hell” and more suited to mob shakedowns than constitutional governance.

Speaking on his Verdict podcast, Cruz even slipped into a mock mobster accent to drive the point home. “That’s right out of Goodfellas,” he said, comparing Carr’s comments to a mafioso leaning on a neighborhood bar owner: ‘Nice bar you have here. It’d be a shame if something happened to it.’ The senator was referring to Carr’s pointed warning that ABC could settle the Kimmel matter “the easy way or the hard way,” with the clear implication that the network’s broadcast license might be at stake.

Cruz didn’t spare Kimmel either. He accused the comedian of “flat-out lying” about Kirk’s killing, mocking the monologue that suggested conservatives were spinning the suspect’s motives to shield their movement. Cruz admitted he was “thrilled” ABC pulled Kimmel off the air. But in his view, the greater danger comes not from offensive speech but from federal officials using regulatory muscle to silence critics. “If the government gets in the business of saying, ‘we’re going to ban you from the airwaves if you don’t say what we like,’ that will end up bad for conservatives,” Cruz warned.

That position put him directly at odds with the administration. President Trump quickly praised Carr as a “courageous person” and dismissed Cruz’s concerns. Meanwhile, Democrats seized on the episode, calling for oversight hearings and openly questioning whether Carr should resign. The unusual fracture among Republicans stood out, especially given Cruz’s role as chair of a Senate committee with jurisdiction over the FCC.

ABC’s decision to indefinitely bench Kimmel’s show following Carr’s threats, with several affiliates following suit, only sharpened the debate. Supporters of Trump hailed the move as accountability; Cruz framed it as a dangerous precedent that could come back to haunt conservatives if Democrats return to power.

Others note the fact that Kimmel’s late-night show has been suffering in the ratings for a long time, and his comments on Kirk were a good excuse to give him the axe.

For Cruz, the principle was clear: free speech, even when offensive, cannot be policed through intimidation from the government. In his view, turning regulatory power into a political bludgeon might feel effective in the short run but risks eroding the very protections conservatives depend on when the political winds shift.