Organized crime as 'terrorism': Trump's new tools ... and risks

Earlier in January, during his first month back in the White House, US President Donald Trump signed Executive Order 14157, formally designating cartels and several Latin American organized crime groups including the Sinaloa Cartel, Mara Salvatrucha (MS-13), and Tren de Aragua as Foreign Terrorist Organizations (FTOs) and Specially Designated Global Terrorists (SDGT). This move was justified on the grounds that these groups "threaten the safety of the American people, the security of the United States, and the stability of the international order in the Western Hemisphere."

The Department of State placed eight Latin American cartels under the list of Designated Foreign Terrorists, pursuant to section 219 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) including Venezuelan cartel Tren de Aragua, Salvadoran cartel Mara Salvatrucha, and Mexican cartels Cartel de Sinaloa, Cartel de Jalisco Nueva Generación, Carteles Unidos, Cartel del Noreste, Cartel del Golfo, and La Nueva Familia Michoacana. The Secretary of State is responsible for designating groups as FTOs if an organization engages in, or has the capacity and intent to engage in terrorist activity or terrorism that threatens the security of the United States or its nationals at home or abroad. The laws that direct the Secretary of State to make such a designation is pretty exhaustive: titles 8 and 22 of the US Code draw up a broad list of activities that count as 'terrorist activity', but it is not clear that they could include drug cartels.

Secretary of State framework Rubio justified the decision by stating: "The intent of designating these cartels and transnational organizations as terrorists is to protect our nation, the American people, and our hemisphere. That means stopping the campaigns of violence and terror by these vicious groups both in the United States and internationally. These designations provide law enforcement additional tools to stop these groups."

While the current administration defends that this designation is necessary to protect national security, regional stability, and public safety, the decision appears to be influenced by broader political and ideological factors. The use of terrorism designations against drug cartels reflects not just a legal categorization, but a strategic repositioning of criminal threats within the framework of counterterrorism. It is not just a reaction to simple violence, but a calculated part of the Trump Administration's 'America First' diary and a continuation of the global 'War on Terror' that has defined US foreign policy for over twenty years. The aftermath of 9/11 brought international terrorism to the top of the political diary in many Western countries, especially the United States.[1] The Trump Administration is not just a reaction to simple violence, but a calculated part of the Trump Administration's 'America First' diary.

This designation is not just about ensuring national security. It is about border control, immigration, and "pushing the boundaries of executive power in nearly every area of policy."

Context

It should be remarked that the current international legal framework does not offer a universally accepted definition of terrorism. This lack of consensus means that countries often define terrorism in ways that serve their own national interests, and this is exactly what the US has done. By labeling drug trafficking organizations as 'terrorist', the United States has effectively broadened the scope of counterterrorism policy beyond its traditional bounds. What has been done suggests that definitions regarding terrorism seem to be subjective and entirely conditioned by a state's domestic politics.

This administration's designation of Latin American gangs and drug cartels as terrorists may finally put an end to the 'War on Drugs' as harsher measures can now be taken to provide federal law enforcement with additional power to fight back against the drug cartels; there will be more resources and ability to stop or slow some of the drug trade into the US.

From a political standpoint, the FTO label gives the administration a legal and moral justification for scaling up border security, military involvement, and unilateral action often without Congressional approval.

Distinction between TOCs and terrorists

Transnational Organized Crime (TOC) refers to criminal activity that crosses national borders whether it is committed in multiple countries, planned in one and carried out in another, or has spillover effects into neighboring jurisdictions. These crimes are typically carried out by rational, profit-driven offenders who operate on an international scale. They actively seek out the most lucrative markets for illegal goods and services such as cocaine, fentanyl, smuggled vehicles, prostitution, and other forms of illicit trade. It is important to note that most of the Latin American cartels listed previously inflict damage on individuals and communities through the profit-motivated crimes they commit.[2] The key here is that they are primarily driven by profit and not by religion or ideology as is the case with terrorists.

Terrorism on the other hand, includes "premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents, usually intended to influence an audience". Over the past two decades, a dangerous form of terrorism has emerged, one that departs significantly from its traditional secular predecessors like ETA or IRA. Unlike earlier forms, which were often politically motivated and targeted state representatives or institutions, this new wave of terrorism is marked by religious ideology, indiscriminate violence, and decentralized organization.[3] Rather than pursuing specific political concessions, these groups seek goals rooted in extremist interpretations of religion. Their tactics involve mass casualty attacks on civilians, with little regard for discrimination, and they increasingly threaten the use of weapons of mass destruction (WMD), including chemical and biological agents.

What these two groups may have in common is known as the criminal-terrorist nexus "that assumes that criminals and terrorists share an interest in both money making and destabilizing the state."[4] However, according to the US State Department, criminals and terrorists share methods but not motives which may limit their cooperation.

At the same time however, it is undeniable that these cartels engage in behavior that seems even to the naked eye terrorist 'per se'. Cartels have used mass executions, beheadings, bombings, and intimidation tactics to control territory and populations all around Latin America. Some groups, like the Mara Salvatrucha, operate across borders with a level of coordination and brutality that mimics insurgent movements and terrorist nodes. In that sense, the terrorist designation can be seen as a reflection of the evolving nature of transnational threats in the 21st century.

However, there is widespread discussion regarding the root cause of cartel presence in the United States such as the US demand for drugs, especially fentanyl. Moreover, migration also plays a key role considering the detrimental conditions in some Central American countries as well as Venezuela where most of them have become narcocracies and cartels have sort of become the state within the larger, formal state. Without addressing these underlying drivers, the terrorist designation may do little to dismantle cartel power in the long term.

Moreover, most laws and measures against terrorism have been designed to combat threats that seek political or religious transformation through violence. By designating the eight Latin American cartels which are traditionally viewed as transnational organized criminal groups under the same category as blatant fundamentalist terrorists such as ISIS and Al-Qaeda the US risks diluting the meaning of terrorism and undermining the credibility of its designations. Although the cartels have engaged in activities that are typically associated with terrorism, they look like chicken thieves when compared to other traditional groups in the Designated Foreign Terrorist Organizations list.

In this context, the term 'terrorism' appears to be increasingly general, expanding to include groups that, while undoubtedly violent and destabilizing, have historically been addressed through criminal justice mechanisms rather than national security frameworks.

However this designation has already been made and allows for U.S. law enforcement and intelligence agencies such as the FBI to apply the same aggressive counterterrorism measures used against the jihadist networks. In practice, this creates a legal loophole, allowing the US to treat cartel violence not as a matter of criminal justice, but as a matter of national security.

This designation is also very politically charged. It strengthens Trump's long-standing narrative that the southern border is a magnet for chaos, drugs, and violence. It also appeals to a domestic audience frustrated by the fentanyl epidemic, immigration issues, and gang-related violence being perpetrated on US soil. Many Americans are now agreeing with the current administration's efforts toward this takedown on the newly designated terrorists.

US-Mexico relations

This political stunt has sparked considerable diplomatic pushback, particularly from Mexico, whose President, Claudia Sheinbaum rejected President Trump's offer to send US troops to the country to fight drug trafficking. Adding on, US military intervention in Mexico could jeopardize the economic and cultural relations that have strengthened over the past three decades, while also undermining vital collaboration between the US and Mexican armed forces, including intelligence sharing, joint operations, and coordinated efforts on border security to combat illegal migration and drug trafficking.

Trump's idea of deploying US troops into Mexico unilaterally and without consent wasn't merely tactless; it was a bold act disguised as counter-narcotics policy. It disregarded decades of diplomatic progress, trampled on Mexican sovereignty, and risked reigniting anti-American sentiment across Latin America which has recently sparked due to other political stances such as the 'Gulf of America' proclamation.

Too much cost

Labeling cartels as terrorist organizations might give law enforcement a few more tools, but at the cost of transforming a complex criminal justice issue into a manufactured national security crisis. It trades nuance for noise, diplomacy for confrontation, and policy for performance. Militarizing the fight against drug cartels is not a solution, it's a dangerous distraction from the real problems: unchecked drug demand, broken immigration systems, and decades of failed regional strategy.