President Donald Trump has launched an unprecedented war against cartels and has threatened narco-terrorists, saying he will ‘blow you out of existence’ as his administration seeks to curb the influx of drugs into the U.S. 

The White House sent lawmakers a memo Sept. 30 informing them that the U.S. is now participating in a ‘non-international armed conflict’ with drug smugglers — on top of conducting four fatal strikes against alleged drug boats in the Caribbean since September. 

The Department of War recently announced a new counter-narcotics Joint Task Force in the Southern Command area of responsibility, according to Secretary of War Pete Hegseth. 

The aim of the task force is to ‘crush the cartels, stop the poison, and keep America safe,’ Hegseth wrote on X Friday. ‘The message is clear: if you traffic drugs toward our shores, we will stop you cold.’

These recent developments suggest that Trump is eyeing targets within Venezuela, not just those within international waters, according to Geoff Ramsey, a senior fellow at the Atlantic Council international affairs think tank.

‘This is a sign that President Trump is taking the US war on drugs in Latin America to the next level,’ Ramsey said in a Monday email to Fox News Digital. ‘By involving the military, the president is going after drug cartels in a way that no previous US administration has dared to so far. I think it is likely that we will see the Pentagon evaluate targets inside Venezuela.’

Additional strikes could target more drug shipments or drug flights, which often take off from covert airfields near the Colombian border, Ramsey said. 

‘It’s a bad time to be posted in a guerrilla camp on the Colombian border or operating a Tren de Aragua safe house along the Caribbean trafficking route,’ Ramsey said. 

Even so, Ramsey said it would be challenging to strike within Venezuela’s territory. Doing so would require the U.S. to dismantle Venezuela’s air defense system, which would escalate hostilities by openly engaging with Venezuela’s military, he said. 

That’s a departure from the current approach, in which the U.S. has intentionally avoided targeting Venezuelan military assets, Ramsey said. 

‘When two Venezuelan F-16s flew over a US destroyer last month, the fact that those planes weren’t blown out of the sky suggests that the US is not interested in a shooting war with Venezuela’s military,’ Ramsey said. 

Trump himself has not ruled out conducting strikes within Venezuela though, and signaled such strikes could happen when he told military leaders in Quantico, Virginia, Sept. 30 that his administration would ‘look very seriously at cartels coming by land.’

So far, the Trump administration has utilized maritime forces to address drug threats, and has beefed up naval assets in the Caribbean in recent months. For example, Trump approved sending several U.S. Navy guided missile destroyers to bolster the administration’s counter-narcotics efforts in the region starting in August. 

‘I expect these deployments to continue for months or more than a year, with new ships rotating in to replace those that need to return home for maintenance or crew rest,’ Bryan Clark, director of the Hudson Institute think tank’s Center for Defense Concepts and Technology, told Fox News Digital in September. 

Nathan Jones, a nonresident scholar in drug policy and Mexico studies at Rice University’s Baker Institute for Public Policy, predicted the strikes are unlikely to impact the flow of fentanyl into the U.S. That’s because fentanyl precursors originate in China, and are then produced in labs in Mexico before they head north without a pathway into the Caribbean. 

‘I wouldn’t expect your drug flow to be affected because of these strikes,’ Jones told Fox News Digital Tuesday. ‘This could, though, leave transnational criminal organizations running a little scared in terms of what the administration is going to do.’ 

Still, Jones said that he predicted drug flow routes would adapt and that land or aerial drug routes would take precedence over sea routes in the Caribbean. 

The strikes have prompted members of Congress to question their legality and senators Adam Schiff, D-Calif., and Tim Kaine, D-Va., filed a war powers resolution in September that would block U.S. forces from engaging in ‘hostilities’ against certain non-state organizations. 

‘There has been no authorization to use force by Congress in this way,’ Schiff told reporters Wednesday. ‘I feel it is plainly unconstitutional. The fact that the administration claims to have a list and has put organizations on a list does not somehow empower the administration to usurp Congress’s power of declaring war or refusing to declare war or refusing to authorize the use of force.’ 

However, the measure failed in the Senate by a 51–48 margin Wednesday. Even so, the measure attracted support from Republicans Rand Paul of Kentucky and Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, who voted alongside their Democratic counterparts for the resolution. 

Other Republicans have defended the strikes though, and Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Sen. Jim Risch, R-Idaho, said that Trump’s actions were well within his rights and that the resolution was ‘unreasonable.’ 

‘When he sees an attack like this coming — an attack of drugs or explosives or anything else that’s going to kill Americans — he not only has the authority to do something about it, he has the duty to do something about it,’ Risch said Wednesday before the vote. 

President Donald Trump said Sunday that Hamas may release the 20 hostages it is holding ‘a little bit early.’

Trump spoke with reporters aboard Air Force One en route to the Middle East, where he was asked about the latest on the hostages and when they might be released.

‘So, they have the hostages — I understand all 20 — and we may get them out a little bit early,’ Trump said. ‘Getting them was amazing, actually, because we were involved, and they were in places you don’t want to know about.’

The president’s comments come as Hamas faces a deadline to return all remaining hostages to Israel, following a peace deal that ended the two-year-long Israel-Hamas war.

The peace agreement, brokered by President Trump, sparked celebrations across a region plagued by violence since the Hamas terror attacks on Israel on Oct. 7, 2023.

Earlier on Sunday, Vice President JD Vance warned that some of the hostages who were killed while in captivity by Hamas may never be returned to their families.

‘The reality is that some of the hostages may never get back, but I do think, with some effort, we’ll be able to give them to their families so they at least have some closure,’ Vance said on Fox News’ ‘Sunday Morning Futures.’

He continued, noting that while rescuing living hostages remains the Trump administration’s top priority, returning the remains of those killed is also an important effort to give families closure.

‘We do want to give these people the ability to have a proper burial with their loved ones who were murdered by brutal terrorists, and that matters to us,’ Vance said. ‘It matters to the families, and it will remain a focus, but it’s going to take some time.’

The vice president stopped short of certainly, though, saying he believes most of the victims’ remains – but not all – will eventually be recovered.

Fox News Digital’s Taylor Penley contributed to this report.

President Donald Trump will spend the first part of the week in the Middle East to oversee a historic peace deal between Israel and Hamas, a landmark agreement expected to end the two-year war in Gaza and bring home the remaining hostages.

Before boarding Air Force One, Trump told reporters that the hostages could be released earlier and said Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu did a ‘very good job’ helping secure the deal.

‘The war is over,’ Trump told reporters at Joint Base Andrews before boarding a nearly 12-hour flight to Israel. After landing in Tel Aviv, Trump is expected to meet with families of hostages and then give an address at the Knesset, Israel’s parliament, in Jerusalem.

Trump will then travel to Egypt to attend an international summit in the seaside city of Sharm el-Sheikh on Monday to finalize an agreement aimed at ending the war in Gaza. More than 20 world leaders, including Trump, are expected to attend, an Egyptian presidential spokesperson said, according to Reuters.

After a handful of hours in Israel and Egypt, Trump will board Air Force One and return to the White House in the early morning hours on Tuesday in order to honor the late Charlie Kirk with the Presidential Medal of Freedom, the nation’s highest civilian award.

‘It’s a very quick trip, but I’ll be making two major stops, and then I’ll be on the plane trying to get back in time for Charlie,’ Trump told reporters at the White House on Friday. ‘They’re going to have a great celebration at the White House in the East Room,’ he added. The award ceremony coincides with what would have been Kirk’s 32nd birthday on Oct. 14.

Kirk, the charismatic founder of Turning Point USA (TPUSA), gained recognition for his signature political debates on college campuses. He was assassinated on Sept. 10, during an outdoor event at Utah Valley University. The gathering was the first stop on TPUSA’s planned ‘American Comeback Tour.’

Kirk’s memorial service drew one of the largest public turnouts for a private citizen, with about 90,000 people in attendance at State Farm Stadium in Glendale, Arizona and nearby overflow venues.

Trump previously announced last month that he would award Kirk the award posthumously.

Monday marks the 100th anniversary of Margaret Thatcher’s birth – an occasion that brings together leaders and supporters from across the Atlantic to pay tribute to her life. 

We at the Ronald Reagan Presidential Foundation & Institute are honored to participate in the celebration, an occasion that also invites us to reflect on her legacy and connection with Ronald Reagan in the context of our modern era. Namely, what made her partnership with President Reagan so effective, and what might it teach us today about how civility can shape world affairs?

Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher’s effectiveness – both in dealings with each other and in other world leaders with whom they were less naturally aligned – depended on trust and civility. In today’s divided political world, their example is one we can all learn from.

When we think of the two leaders, we tend to picture strength: two leaders who stood firm against communism, championed free markets and restored confidence in the West. But President Reagan also believed that personal relationships were central to politics. In a 1989 letter in National Review, he crystallized that sentiment as follows: ‘personal relations matter more in international politics than the historians would have us believe.’

That was the core of his approach: even the hardest negotiations work best when leaders see each other as partners, not just opponents. It doesn’t mean that personal relationships supersede national interest – great leaders have to be unwavering at times – but it does mean that a key component of good diplomacy is the ability to remain civil and acknowledge others’ humanity, be they adversaries or allies.

Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan’s leadership in Soviet Union dealings demonstrates this principle in action. For instance, when Mikhail Gorbachev emerged on the world stage, Thatcher chose to approach him as a person worthy of negotiation rather than a caricature of Soviet power. ‘We can do business together,’ she pragmatically asserted. And she was right. Though their visions for their country were vastly different, grounding Soviet negotiations in respect and practical assessment made diplomacy possible.

Importantly, President Reagan and Prime Minister Thatcher never abandoned principle for politeness. They were strong leaders, firm and uncompromising in their convictions. But civility gave them the leverage to achieve what force or rhetoric alone could not. 

The INF Treaty, the fall of the Berlin Wall, and the eventual end of the Cold War all depended on this kind of disciplined, strategic civility. Leaders could disagree sharply and even spar aggressively, but they never allowed that disagreement to destroy trust or get in the way of progress.

Civility is not a moral high road, it’s a tool. It allowed these leaders to be candid with each other, trusting they would be received with understanding – and creating the strong foundation which underpinned the U.S. and U.K. alliance. Then as now, civility creates space for honest conversations. It allows important initiatives to move forward without unnecessary friction.

Today, that lesson is urgent. The United States and our democratic allies face pressure from resurgent authoritarian powers, global instability and domestic polarization. The instinct to respond with anger or mistrust is strong. But history shows that enduring security and progress come from discipline, mutual respect and the ability to maintain civility even under pressure. 

And in times of global tension, reinforcing alliances matters more than ever. We saw this exemplified by President Donald Trump in his recent meeting with U.K. Prime Minister Keir Starmer, where he declared, ‘We have a relationship like no other… we will always be united.’ His statement embodies the Reagan-Thatcher alliance at its best. This disposition is a precursor to any constructive discussions about advancing security and stability, especially when it comes to complex issues such as these.

President Reagan and Prime Minister Thatcher remind us that civility is not deference; rather, it is a practical strategy for getting things done. As we remember Margaret Thatcher on her 100th birthday, we should also remember the example she set. Civility enabled both leaders to be effective and, ultimately, to shape history. In a world full of uncertainty and division, their legacy remains as essential now as it was then.

The government shutdown is poised to enter a third week, and Democrats still appear to be struggling in the search for a cohesive messaging strategy.

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., received a barrage of GOP-led attacks on Thursday after he told Punchbowl News, ‘Every day gets better for us’ in reference to the shutdown dragging on.

Meanwhile, House Democrats’ group selfie taken on Sept. 29, just before the shutdown, received criticism from both sides of the aisle. Former Rep. Adam Kinzinger, R-Ill., who’s become a fierce critic of the GOP since leaving office, wrote on X, ‘These selfie things need to stop guys. Honestly, the democrats were great at social media but social media moved on from them. The kitschy, goofy ‘choose your fighter’ type stuff needs to stop.’

Democrats have been fighting to center the discussion on healthcare, and their argument that any deal to reopen the federal government must at least include an extension of COVID-19 pandemic-era enhanced Obamacare subsidies that are set to expire at the end of this year.

And while polls show that Americans overwhelmingly do support extending the subsidies, surveys taken of the government shutdown have been more mixed, with a significant number of Americans blaming both parties.

A new Reuters/Ipsos poll released on Wednesday showed 67% of Americans believe Republicans deserve ‘a fair amount or a great deal of blame’ for the shutdown, compared to 63% for Democrats.

A New York Times/Siena poll taken on the eve of the shutdown showed that Democrats had a similarly thin edge over the GOP in the shutdown fight, but that 65% of people did not believe Democrats should shut down the government if their demands were not met.

‘Democrats keep choosing the wrong fights, including the shutdown fight. At best, the shutdown will give them a political draw where the public will blame both parties,’ Julian Epstein, a former Democratic staffer for the House Judiciary Committee, told Fox News Digital.

‘But they will not get a game change out of this conflict, and the risk for them is the longer it goes on, the public will see it’s the Democrats who are narcissistically voting to shut down the government after losing the election.’

During an appearance on ‘Real Time With Bill Maher’ earlier this month, CNN political commentator and former Obama administration appointee Van Jones said Democrats ‘do the wrong thing at the wrong time for the right reason.’

Jones said he was in favor of extending the Obamacare subsidies but argued that it may have been folly for his party to pick that fight over the shutdown before people even got notice of their premiums potentially rising.

‘I get it, the base is upset … ’Please do something, do anything,’ but the ‘something’ probably shouldn’t be throwing a bunch of people out of work in the federal government and crushing the American government’s ability to function right before the pain was about to start,’ he said.

And it’s not yet clear if Democrats have an agreed-upon roadmap for how to navigate the shutdown yet.

Late last week, just before Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., announced that the House would be out of session for another week while Republicans’ funding bill stalled in the Senate, House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, D-N.Y., unequivocally told Fox News Digital that ‘yes,’ he would call all House Democrats back to Washington to draw a contrast between the two sides.

He walked that back somewhat on Monday, however. When asked by Fox News Digital if he would still call the full caucus back, Jeffries said, ‘We have a caucus meeting at 6 p.m. today. We’ll have a House Democratic Caucus leadership meeting, that’s the full leadership, tomorrow. And I expect a strong presence of House Democrats throughout here in Washington.’

What he did not specify, however, was that the 6 p.m. caucus meeting was virtual.

At another press conference this week, Jeffries called a one-year Obamacare subsidy extension compromise bill ‘laughable’ despite it getting support from 11 members of his own Democratic caucus.

He walked those comments back again, ‘If anything is presented to us, of course, the caucus will consider it in good faith.’

But Republicans have also garnered their share of public criticism for shutdown messaging as well.

President Donald Trump’s aggressive rhetoric on federal employee layoffs put congressional Republicans in a difficult position earlier this month, though Trump has since softened his language and not yet carried out those firings.

The White House’s depiction of Jeffries in a sombrero on multiple occasions has also been panned as racist by critics.

Mike Nellis, a Democratic strategist and founder of campaign consulting firm Authentic, said Democrats were doing the right thing in focusing on health care while criticizing Republicans’ messaging.

‘I think that focusing on the health care subsidies, which are undeniably popular, has been a really smart thing for Democrats to do,’ Nellis told Fox News Digital.

‘I think that the Republicans have played right into their worst tendencies on this, which is, much of their messaging is aggressively online-focused. The sombrero stuff is mildly funny. But then they went all in on it, and they don’t have a good answer to the health care subsidies.’

Nellis also argued that Republicans’ touting of a ‘landslide’ electoral victory has set them up for a larger share of the blame.

‘When you create the conditions where you talked about the mandate that you have and the government shuts down on your watch, you’re responsible for the government shutdown,’ he said.

Still, he said he would grade Democrats with a ‘B, B minus’ on their messaging, adding that it’s ‘not perfect.’

‘Maybe the answer is … Republicans are losing the shutdown fight, rather than Democrats are winning it,’ Nellis said. ‘But I mean, I just think we’ve got a lot more right than a lot more wrong, which is the first time you can say that in quite a while.’