Tarlov SHREDS Fox Co-Hosts with a Brutal On-Air FACT-CHECK

💥 Trump’s Fabrications: Justifying War and Murder with Lies

The transcription captures a moment of stark confrontation between presidential rhetoric and constitutional reality, where Donald Trump openly attempted to justify a lethal military strike by misrepresenting drug death statistics and declaring an undeclared “war.” The subsequent political and media fallout highlighted accusations of war crimes, the administration’s shifting and implausible explanations for the strike, and the alleged need for criminal prosecution of the officials involved.

The Fabricated Casus Belli

President Trump addressed a reporter’s question about the lethal September attack on boats, which allegedly involved a “double tap” strike that killed survivors, by stating, “I think you’re going to find that this is war.” He immediately attempted to justify this declaration by citing catastrophic, yet fabricated, U.S. drug death figures:

Trump’s Claim: “last year we lost close to 300,000 people were killed.”

Fact Check (CDC): The actual number of drug-related deaths for the previous year was $\approx 48,000$—a fraction of the number cited.

Trump’s Claim: “millions have been killed the past few years.”

Fact Check (CDC): The total death toll over the past 10 years is $\approx 800,000$.

The speaker argued that Trump was “openly lying” to create a false justification for escalating military action. Furthermore, even as he spoke of the tragedy of addiction, his administration had “cut funding for substance abuse prevention programs,” exposing the hypocrisy behind the stated concern.

The Constitutional Crisis of an Undeclared War

Trump’s statement, “This is war,” immediately triggered a constitutional crisis. The U.S. Constitution is unambiguous: “Only Congress has the authority to declare and approve a war.” Trump had not sought congressional approval, meaning the military strikes were technically law enforcement actions.

Trump’s subsequent threat to escalate the operations—“Very soon, we’re going to start doing it on land, too”—reinforced the fear that the administration was establishing itself as the “judge, the jury, and the executioner,” a hallmark of a “tyrannical fascist state” that disregards due process. Even individuals in boats far from the U.S. “are entitled to due process.”

The Shifting Rationales for Murder

The central point of contention remained the double-tap strike, which Republicans and Democrats alike—including figures like Senator John U and Senator Roger Wicker—have labeled a “war crime” and “murder.” The justification for killing two initial survivors “clinging on to that boat” has continually shifted, undermining the administration’s credibility:

Original Rationale 1: To stop them from calling for help.

Original Rationale 2: To sink the boat to remove debris as a “navigation hazard.”

Spokesperson Rationale: U.S. “self-defense” from a boat 1,500 miles away.

Latest Rationale (Prompting widespread ridicule): The two survivors were “trying to complete the drug delivery” on a “flaming smoking vessel.”

As one commentator noted, this latest explanation is “Totally insane,” and every shifting rationale only makes the double-tap appear more clearly as the targeted killing of incapacitated individuals, which violates the DoD manual and international law. As Jessica Tarla pointed out, the DoD manual requires officials to “take them… you should send a helicopter to get them out of there and then you try them.”

Calls for Accountability and Prosecution

The controversy has generated bipartisan support for an aggressive congressional investigation into Secretary Hegseth’s conduct, managerial abuses, and abandonment of military rules. While the focus has been on Hegseth, the speaker emphasized that even Republicans have declared him a “murderer” who should “face criminal charges.”

The speaker concluded by expressing the desire that Trump himself should “face justice someday,” noting that even if Trump does not care about the alleged war crimes, he may discard Hegseth simply because the Secretary is generating “too much negative attention.”