NEW YORK, NY – A recent New York Times opinion piece challenges President Donald Trump’s claim that the fentanyl crisis stems from weakened borders and foreign traffickers. The author, a professor of history and director of drug studies, argues the crisis is rooted in the history of domestic drug markets and U.S. policy failures rather than actions by Democrats or foreign governments.
Trump has publicly claimed that “the Democrats weakened the borders, allowing Mexican drug cartels to smuggle fentanyl into the United States.” His administration has cited that rationale to justify tariffs on China, consider military strikes in Latin America and increase U.S. military presence in the Caribbean. Since September, the military has carried out 20 strikes on boats believed to be smuggling drugs, resulting in at least 80 deaths.
The historian argues the fentanyl narrative relies on a mythologized past. The belief that stopping drugs will restore a “wholesome, traditional American culture” ignores history, he writes, noting that Americans have never lived in a drug-free society. The nation’s first significant drug crisis unfolded in the late 19th century, when morphine, cocaine and heroin were sold with little regulation.
Drug use escalated again between the 1950s and 1970s. Booming global trade, racial segregation and expanding pharmaceutical markets contributed to waves of heroin addiction in major cities and widespread use of barbiturates, tranquilizers and amphetamines. By 1967, nearly one-third of women and 15 percent of men reported using a sedative in the previous year, a trend concentrated among white, middle-class Americans.
The piece points to what it calls “white markets” — legal drug sales directed at patients deemed respectable — as a major driver of addiction. According to the author, pharmaceutical companies weaponized racial stereotypes, persuading prescribers that white patients were unlikely to become addicted. He argues the determining factor in addiction risk is trauma, not race.
As prescription drug monitoring systems tightened access, people dependent on opioids increasingly turned to illicit markets, particularly fentanyl. The historian contends traffickers did not create the crisis but responded to a consumer base the legal system helped produce.
He also notes that overdose patterns have shifted. Once centered among white Americans, the highest fatality rates now appear in Native American and poor Black communities.
Attempts to shut down foreign supply chains, he argues, will not solve the crisis because demand will simply create new, and likely more dangerous, synthetic alternatives. He writes that Trump’s framing resonates politically because it fits a broader narrative that foreign threats and cultural decline stem from political betrayal.
The historian points to past examples suggesting the most effective responses rely on consumer protection strategies rather than militarization or criminalization. Measures such as accurate labeling, education and regulated purchasing processes could reduce harm and make drug consumption “boring again,” he writes.
The piece stops short of calling for full legalization but urges policymakers to consider solutions between prohibition and free-market access.
He concludes that solving the overdose crisis requires abandoning narratives that serve geopolitical goals rather than public health outcomes. The human toll is staggering, he writes, and “it’s time to stop chasing foreign villains and start addressing the real causes.”
Follow the Vanguard on Social Media – X, Instagram and Facebook. Subscribe the Vanguard News letters. To make a tax-deductible donation, please visit davisvanguard.org/donate or give directly through ActBlue. Your support will ensure that the vital work of the Vanguard continues.
