Headline:\nHow did Duterte's anti-drug campaign succeed despite its controversial methods? New research shows local political outsiders amplified the movement through anti-Muslim rhetoric, dramatically altering drug policy discourse.\n\nThe Puzzle: While Duterte’s tough stance on drugs was initially met with resistance, his administration achieved significant legislative and enforcement victories against illicit substances in the Philippines. This apparent contradiction—populist appeal versus institutional success—is puzzling given the campaign's harsh measures raised ethical concerns internationally.\n\nThe New Angle: \"Deadly Populism\" reveals that rather than stemming from Duterte himself, this momentum was largely fueled by local politicians outside established institutions. These outsiders strategically employed potent anti-drug narratives targeting Muslim communities to drive public support and legislative change.\n\nHow They Did It? Using a mixed-methods approach combining qualitative interviews with political elites alongside quantitative survey data collected across multiple regions in the Philippines, we tracked how populist rhetoric shifted from broad social welfare appeals toward religiously charged anti-drug discourses involving Muslims. Our findings show that this shift occurred systematically through legislative and enforcement reforms between 2016-2020—more than a year after Duterte launched his signature campaign slogan.\n\nKey Findings: \n• Local political outsiders proved more effective messengers for anti-drug rhetoric than established politicians\n• Anti-Muslim messaging significantly amplified the otherwise divisive drug war message into a cross-community issue\n• This populist strategy helped override institutional resistance to Duterte’s initial crackdown proposals\n• The effect was particularly pronounced in areas with high Muslim populations and strongman political traditions\n\nWhy It Matters: These findings suggest that understanding contemporary Filipino populism requires attention not just to charismatic leaders but also to the enabling role of local actors who strategically amplify populist appeals. This network-level perspective adds crucial nuance to studies about how democratic institutions interact with illiberal governance in Southeast Asia.