Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth attends a Cabinet meeting with US President Donald Trump at the White House yesterday. Photo / Carolyn Van Houten, The Washington Post
For weeks, the Trump Administration has demonstrated its zeal in taking on supposed “narco-terrorists” in the Western hemisphere.
The United States bombed numerous boats in the Caribbean and Pacific that Trump officials claimed were transporting drugs to US shores, while also rattling the sabre at the regime of Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro, whom the White House has cast as both an illegitimate tyrant and a thuggish cartel boss.
Yesterday, President Donald Trump held a Cabinet meeting on potential US plans for Venezuela, during which Secretary of Defence Pete Hegseth hailed Trump for “taking the gloves off” and declared that “we’ve only just begun” sending drug-traffickers to “the bottom of the ocean”.
Developments not far from Washington told a rather different story.
On Tuesday, former Honduran president Juan Orlando Hernandez walked free from US Penitentiary Hazelton in West Virginia after receiving a full and unconditional pardon from Trump.
Hernandez, who was in office between 2014 and 2022, was sentenced by a US judge in New York last year to 45 years in prison for trafficking drugs to the US - including the facilitation of at least 400 tonnes of cocaine into the country.
Trump appears to see Hernandez - not unlike himself - as a victim of the previous administration’s political agendas, an argument Hernandez seemed to make directly in a letter apparently sent to Trump via intermediaries.
In a social media post, Trump suggested that the Honduran leader had been “treated very harshly and unfairly”. Former Honduras first lady Ana Garcia de Hernandez, speaking outside her home in Tegucigalpa, described her husband in Trumpian terms, saying he was the subject of a “witch hunt”, and accused US prosecutors of building a political case against him.
At the same time, Trump also conspicuously put his thumb on the scales of Honduras’ election even threatening to cut off aid to the country if his preferred right-wing candidate, Nasry Asfura, did not win.
The country’s electoral body said on Tuesday that there was a “technical tie” between the Trump-endorsed businessman and his closest challenger, Salvador Nasralla, a centre-right reformer who Trump labelled a “borderline Communist” on social media.
Honduras is no stranger to electoral controversy. Ahead of vote, candidates from all sides, including the ruling left that finished a distant third, warned against possible chicanery.
Hernandez’s victory in 2017 over Nasralla was marred by widespread allegations of voter fraud.
As the vote-counting proceeds this week, Trump has made it clear that he expects a victory for Asfura and Honduras’ right-wing National Party - which is also the party of Hernandez.
The White House has actively worked to boost the political prospects of right-wing governments or candidates across Latin America, and it would tout Asfura’s victory as another domino falling in the region, which has seen recent wins for the right or defeats for the left in Bolivia, Ecuador and Argentina.
“Hernandez’s tenure is remembered for scandals involving state-sponsored drug-trafficking and violence against civilians, as well as expanded privileges for traditional elites,” explained Honduran human rights lawyer Joaquin Mejia to Americas Quarterly.
“An Asfura win would likely result in greater US influence and close alignment of Honduran policy with US geopolitical interests. This would raise questions around sovereignty and respect for international law.”
Set against Trump’s posturing over the threat of supposed drug boats in the Caribbean Sea, Hernandez’s release triggered an immediate backlash.
“Trump says he wants to get drugs off the streets,” wrote Representative Jason Crow (Democrat-Colorado) on social media.
“Then he pardons a convicted cocaine trafficker. The American people aren’t stupid. They can see right through the President’s hypocrisy.”
According to Justice Department documents, Hernandez once allegedly bragged to a drug kingpin that he was going to “stuff the drugs right up the noses of the gringos”.
He caused “untold damage” and “unimaginable suffering” in the US, prosecutors wrote in the Government’s sentencing memo, recommending life in prison plus 30 years.
“The defendant engaged in this egregious conduct while publicly posing as an ally of the US in its efforts to combat the importation of narcotics that destroy countless lives in this country. But behind closed doors, the defendant protected the very traffickers he vowed to pursue.”
“It just shows that the entire counter-drug effort of Donald Trump is a charade - it’s based on lies, it’s based on hypocrisy,” Mike Vigil, the former Drug Enforcement Administration chief of international operations, told the Guardian.
“He is giving a pardon to Juan Orlando Hernandez and then going after Nicolas Maduro … It’s all hypocritical.”
“It’s an abomination,” a former DEA agent, who worked on the Hernandez case and spoke on the condition of anonymity to talk freely about a sensitive case, told the Washington Post. “Ludicrous to even consider, much less actually go through with.”
All the while, scrutiny mounts over the nature of US forces deployed near Venezuela and US strikes on small boats.
The Washington Post reported last weekend that Hegseth gave a spoken order to kill the entire crew of a vessel thought to be ferrying narcotics in the Caribbean, the first of some 20 such strikes directed by the Administration since early September.
The Trump Administration has furnished little evidence to explain the culpability of those in the boats, nor to prove that it’s actually saving Americans from countless tonnes of narcotics infiltrating the country.
Critics have dismissed the Trump Administration’s awkward legal argument justifying the strikes as part of a “non-international armed conflict”.
“We are not at war with drug-traffickers. The ‘war on drugs’ is a metaphor, not a legal term of art that authorises killing the enemy,” noted Georgetown University law professor David Cole.
“The human beings on these boats were civilians, and even if there were an actual war going on, the laws of war prohibit targeting civilians unless they are directly engaged in hostilities.”
Cole added pointedly: “In the absence of any conceivable military justification for these acts, it is difficult to view them as anything but premeditated murder, pure and simple”.
Sign up to Herald Premium Editor’s Picks, delivered straight to your inbox every Friday. Editor-in-Chief Murray Kirkness picks the week’s best features, interviews and investigations. Sign up for Herald Premium here.