100percentfedup.com
FACT-CHECK: Chuck Schumer Authored 1986 Law Authorizing USA To “Blow Narco-Terrorist Boats Out Of The Water”?
A video is going viral this morning featuring a segment from Stinchfield Tonight (they do great work over there) where the host claims Chuck Schumer wrote the bill in 1986 that is currently giving the Trump Administration the legal right to blow the narco-terrorist boats coming from Venezuela out of the water.
Oh the irony!
And that would be an amazing story, but….is it true?
You see, it would be really easy for me to just post that video, take a victory lap, and call it a day.
But that’s not how we operate around here.
I don’t ONLY print news that I know will make you happy.
I print news that is verified and Fact-Checked by me as true, first and foremost.
So let’s watch the clip together first and then I’ll give you the REST of the story (as Paul Harvey would say)….
Watch here:
TRANSCRIPT:
This in front of me, this is the Maritime Drug Law Enforcement Act of 1986, authored by a member of Congress in 1986 from the state of New York. His name? Chuck Schumer.
He wrote the law that passed almost unanimously that makes it legal to blow drug boats out of the water. It happened in the ’80s a lot and the ’90s a lot.
Go ahead. Look it up, folks. Chuck Schumer, the author of this bill that made what we’re doing with Venezuelan drug boats fully 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 did vote for the Bill, he wasn’t the primary author. He was actually one of the sponsors of the larger, umbrella legislation.
But that’s not the main point.
The main point is does this Law give authorization to blow the narco-terrorist boats out of the water?
And the answer, truthfully, is no. It’s more of 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 down below.***
First though, here are more details to backup what I just told you:
1. Did Chuck Schumer author the law?
Partially True. The Maritime Drug Law Enforcement Act (MDLEA) was enacted in 1986 as part of the massive 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 key sponsor of the broader Anti-Drug Abuse Act (H.R. 5484), which included the MDLEA provisions.
Bi-Partisan 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 President Ronald Reagan.
2. Does the law make it legal to “blow drug boats out of the water”?
False. The MDLEA is a criminal prosecution statute, not a “rules of engagement” document for lethal force.
What it actually does: It allows the U.S. to arrest and prosecute people found with drugs on “stateless” vessels or vessels where the “flag nation” (the country where the boat is registered) gives the U.S. permission to board.
Lethal Force: The law does not grant a “license to kill” or authorize “blowing boats out of the water” as a standard procedure. Under both U.S. Coast Guard policy and international law, lethal force is strictly a last resort used for self-defense or to disable a vessel that refuses to stop—but it is intended to stop the vessel for boarding and arrest, not to destroy it and its crew.
3. “We don’t need permission from the rest of the world.”
Misleading. The MDLEA actually relies heavily on international “permission” through Shiprider Agreements and the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) principles.
If a boat belongs to another country (like Venezuela), the U.S. generally must get permission from that country to exercise jurisdiction, unless the vessel is deemed “stateless” (not flying a flag or claiming a nation).
Acting without this permission on the high seas is typically 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 U.S. military strikes against vessels associated with the Tren de Aragua or other cartels.
Legal experts and international bodies (like Chatham House) have noted that these lethal strikes are a departurefrom traditional MDLEA enforcement, which is based on arrest and trial, not summary destruction.
The U.S. 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 legislation.
Summary Table | Claim | Accuracy | Reality | | :— | :— | :— | | Schumer authored it? | True | He was a primary sponsor of the 1986 omnibus drug bill. | | Legal to blow up boats? | False | The law is for prosecution/arrest, not execution/destruction. | | No permission needed? | False | International law requires flag-state consent for most boardings. |
Ok, so is all hope lost?
Is the Trump Administration operating illegally?
Of course not!
Here’s the REAL authority they are operating under, and it is ROCK SOLID:
While the 1986 Maritime Drug Law Enforcement Act (MDLEA) established the framework for U.S. jurisdiction over drug boats on the high seas, it is not the authority being used for the lethal strikes reported in late 2025.
The current administration has largely moved away from the MDLEA’s law-enforcement approach (arrest and trial) toward a military model. Here are the specific legal justifications the U.S. government is reportedly using today:
1. Article II Powers & Self-Defense
The primary justification cited by the White House (in notifications to Congress) is the President’s Article II powers as Commander-in-Chief.
The Argument: The administration views the influx of fentanyl and other drugs as a literal “assault” on the American people that has killed hundreds of thousands.
National Security: Under this logic, the president has the inherent authority to use military force to protect the nation from a “foreign threat,” bypassing the traditional “police” methods outlined in the 1986 law.
2. “Non-International Armed Conflict” (NIAC)
In reports from late 2025, the Department of Justice and the Pentagon have argued that the U.S. is now in a “non-international armed conflict” with specifically designated “narco-terrorist” organizations (such as the Tren de Aragua).
Combatant Status: By framing this as a “war” rather than “law enforcement,” the administration argues that members of these cartels are “enemy combatants.” * Lethal Force: Under the Laws of War, you can target an enemy combatant with lethal force (like a missile strike) without first attempting to arrest them, whereas under the 1986 MDLEA, you are required to use only the force necessary to stop the vessel for boarding.
3. The “Narco-Terrorism” Designation
The administration has utilized the Foreign Terrorist Organization (FTO) designation to treat drug traffickers the same way the U.S. treated Al-Qaeda or ISIS.
Justification: A classified Justice Department memo (leaked/discussed in late 2025) reportedly argues that because these groups use violence to destabilize allies and fund their operations through drugs, they meet the criteria for military engagement.
The “Double-Tap” Controversy: This legal framing is used to justify “kinetic strikes” (bombing) rather than “interdiction” (boarding). It has led to intense debate, particularly regarding “double-tap” strikes on survivors, which the administration defends as “eliminating the threat” but critics label as war crimes.
4. Collective Self-Defense
The administration also argues that these strikes are a form of “collective self-defense” on behalf of regional allies (like Mexico or Colombia) who are being “attacked” by cartel violence funded by these shipments. This allows the U.S. to argue it is acting within international norms for assisting allies against armed non-state actors.
Comparison of Legal Frameworks
Feature
1986 MDLEA (Schumer/Reagan)
2025 “Southern Spear” Policy
Primary Goal
Arrest, seizure, and U.S. court trial.
Destruction of cargo and elimination of crew.
Legal Basis
Statutory criminal law (18 U.S.C.).
Article II / Law of Armed Conflict.
Force Level
Minimum necessary to board/disable.
Maximum force (missile/drone strikes).
Role of Other Nations
Requires “Flag State” consent.
Acts unilaterally or via “Self-Defense.”
New Posts (Home)
ChatBox
Popular Posts 
Game Zone
Top PodCasts
