Sunny Hostin, a co-host on ABC’s “The View,” has stirred controversy yet again with her recent remarks regarding Venezuelan narco-terrorists. During a segment of the show, Hostin suggested that the United States should provide these criminals “refuge” before they face trial. This assertion follows a broader narrative pushed by some Democrats, claiming that Secretary of War Pete Hegseth has committed war crimes by targeting drug traffickers from Venezuela.

In her comments, Hostin seemed to sidestep foundational legal understandings. “I can’t speak to the law of it,” she stated, “I don’t know, you know, I’m not a geopolitical expert.” Yet, she boldly claimed that, according to international law, the country must protect those accused of war crimes. She emphasized, “What you’re supposed to do under international law… you are supposed to give them refuge and you’re supposed to take care of them.” The implications of her statements raise serious concerns about the consequences of such a policy. Hostin’s comments also suggest that taxpayers would bear the financial burden of housing and feeding these criminals for the rest of their lives.

This kind of rhetoric is not new for Hostin. She has a history of making dramatic statements that draw widespread backlash. For instance, shortly before Trump’s inauguration, she compared the events of January 6, 2021, to horrific historical atrocities like slavery and the Holocaust. “January 6th was an atrocity. It was one of the worst moments in American history,” she insisted during her rant, underscoring her tendency to link current events to severe historical traumas.

Furthermore, these latest remarks come as the Trump administration intensifies its military actions against Venezuelan drug boats, highlighting a stark divide in perspectives surrounding national security and the management of foreign threats. While the administration is acting against narco-terrorism, Hostin’s outcry puts her at odds with these efforts, showcasing an alarming level of empathy for criminals who exploit drugs to harm communities.

The ultimate takeaway from Hostin’s statements is her unwavering commitment to a problematic ideological position, which often prioritizes legal protections for potential war criminals over national safety. Whether one agrees with Hostin or not, her remarks prompt a critical analysis of how the public ought to respond to threats both foreign and domestic. Observers are left to consider the practical ramifications of her proposals, especially on American taxpayers, and reflect on what they mean for the nation’s future approach to justice and national security.