After deeming drug cartels as foreign terrorist organizations, President Donald Trump has spearheaded a series of controversial strikes on suspected drug boats off the coast of Venezuela and is reportedly considering land strikes as well. Now, Trump has used his presidential capacity to declare the synthetic opioid drug fentanyl a Weapon of Mass Destruction (WMD). While many would not dare dispute the dangers associated with these drugs, a critical question looms: is this designation a step too far?

It’s no secret the devastation these drugs have caused. In America, 2023 alone saw 105,007 deaths related to drug overdoses — 69% of which involved fentanyl. Only two years ago, 72,776 Americans died from fentanyl. And while the numbers have reportedly decreased, with 2024 having approximately 48,000 deaths connected to fentanyl, massive numbers of people are still perishing either due to willful use of the substance or forced — maybe even accidental exposure.

President Trump has been spotlighting one of his primary concerns: these drugs are being funneled into the U.S. intentionally by bad actors who, as Trump stated, are “trying to drug out our country.” As his executive order noted, “Illicit fentanyl is closer to a chemical weapon than a narcotic. Two milligrams, an almost undetectable trace amount equivalent to 10 to 15 grains of table salt, constitutes a lethal dose. Hundreds of thousands of Americans have died from fentanyl overdoses.” The EO laid the case out further:

“The manufacture and distribution of fentanyl, primarily performed by organized criminal networks, threatens our national security and fuels lawlessness in our hemisphere and at our borders. The production and sale of fentanyl by Foreign Terrorist Organizations and cartels fund these entities’ operations — which include assassinations, terrorist acts, and insurgencies around the world — and allow these entities to erode our domestic security and the well-being of our Nation. The two cartels that are predominantly responsible for the distribution of fentanyl in the United States engage in armed conflict over territory and to protect their operations, resulting in large-scale violence and death that go beyond the immediate threat of fentanyl itself. Further, the potential for fentanyl to be weaponized for concentrated, large-scale terror attacks by organized adversaries is a serious threat to the United States.”

As part of the order, Trump has tasked the attorney general, the secretary of State, the secretary of the Treasury, the secretary of War, and the secretary of Homeland Security with “appropriate action to implement this order and eliminate the threat of illicit fentanyl and its core precursor chemicals to the United States.” Such actions include criminal enforcement, financial and diplomatic sanctions, enhanced intelligence for counter-smuggling, and potential military-law enforcement and response protocols.

The move isn’t surprising when considering Trump’s comments from recent months. When the suspected drug boat strikes caused headlines, the president often referred to fentanyl as being one of the major substances pitted against Americans — even just by it being brought across U.S. borders. In effect, Trump has argued its very presence in this country is the primary issue, stating during remarks at the White House that “no bomb does what this [drug] is doing.” After all, even the most miniscule amount of the drug can cause death in those who get their hands on it — or even those who cross its path inadvertently. And so, there are those who support the WMD designation, classifying it as a win for protecting American lives, as well as a necessary tool to mobilize greater resources against cartels and traffickers.

And yet, some have argued that to label what is widely referred to as a narcotic a WMD is “unprecedented,” scrutinizing the move as either unnecessary, complicated, or even harmful. In fact, many critics argue that stretching the traditional definition of a WMD risks confusing terminology or expanding executive powers in unexpected ways.

One example of such skepticism came from writer Mike Coté, who posted on X, “We shouldn’t denude terms of their meaning through overbroad definitions. Fentanyl is not a weapon of mass destruction. Things can be bad without being the worst ever.” Politicians affiliated with both sides of the aisle have also noted concerns. Justin Amash, a former Republican representative, argued that the EO is an “example of the state twisting the plain meaning of words to expand its power. Like ‘emergency,’ ‘terrorist,’ and ‘defensive’ — all stretched to near-limitless scope to justify almost any executive overreach.”

Further questions remain. For example, some have noted concern that if Trump can label fentanyl a WMD, even though it does have its indisputable dangers, can he not then make the same designation of any other drug? Already, “many Americans [are] urging President Trump to classify COVID-19 vaccines as weapons of mass destruction after he labeled fentanyl as such.” And even beyond this, some have argued that Trump’s move represents efforts to distract from the boat strikes, which remains a heavily debated topic.

In the end, it’s hard to deny the genuinely devastating opioid crisis plaguing our nation. One look at California and the viral videos of people who look half dead should be enough to dishearten anyone. Regardless of where one stands on this issue, President Trump’s executive order designating illicit fentanyl as a weapon of mass destruction signals a strong escalation in the U.S. approach to the ongoing opioid crisis — one that frames the issue not just as a public health emergency or criminal enterprise, but as a direct threat to national security.

With overdose deaths involving fentanyl remaining tragically high, it is clear that the debate extends beyond this single designation. It touches on broader questions about the most effective strategies for combating drug trafficking: Is a militarized, security-focused response the key to saving lives, or could it complicate diplomacy, enforcement, and public health efforts? And in an era of evolving threats, where should the line be drawn between narcotics, chemical agents, and true weapons of mass destruction?