The designation of criminal organizations, including the Tren de Aragua (TdA), Mara Salvatrucha (MS-13), Cártel de Sinaloa, Cártel de Jalisco Nueva Generación (CJNG), Cártel del Noreste (CDN), La Nueva Familia Michoacana (LNFM), Cártel del Golfo (CDG), and Cárteles Unidos (CU) as Foreign Terrorist Organizations (FTOs) and Specially Designated Global Terrorists (SDGTs) by U.S. President Donald Trump represents a significant escalation in the U.S. government’s approach to combating transnational organized crime.
We examine how these designations impact law enforcement, financial interdictions, and international cooperation. It also presents counterarguments regarding potential drawbacks, legal challenges, and diplomatic consequences. Finally, it provides recommendations for policymakers on the strategic application of these designations in the broader fight against illicit drugs.
The United States has waged a decades-long battle against the illicit drug trade, which has fueled violent crime, public health crises, and political instability. Historically, cartels and transnational criminal organizations (TCOs) were treated as organized crime syndicates, subject to law enforcement efforts rather than military or counterterrorism measures. However, their increasing use of extreme violence, corruption of governments, and control of territories prompted calls to redefine them as terrorist organizations.
President Donald Trump’s designation of several cartels and gangs as Foreign Terrorist Organizations (FTOs) and Specially Designated Global Terrorists (SDGTs) marked a shift toward treating these groups as existential security threats. This designation allows the U.S. government to leverage counterterrorism tools, such as military force, intelligence operations, and financial sanctions, to disrupt their activities.
We the implications of these designations, considering both their potential effectiveness and unintended consequences.
Understanding the Designations: FTO vs. SDGT
A. Foreign Terrorist Organization (FTO)
An FTO designation is made by the U.S. State Department under the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA). It requires that:
- The organization be foreign-based.
- It engages in terrorist activities.
- The terrorist activities threaten the security of U.S. nationals or U.S. national interests.
B. Specially Designated Global Terrorist (SDGT)
The SDGT designation, administered by the U.S. Department of the Treasury under Executive Order 13224, allows the government to freeze assets, impose financial restrictions, and penalize individuals or entities that provide support to the group.
C. Why the Designations Matter
- Legal authority for military operations: The FTO designation allows broader counterterrorism actions, including potential military intervention.
- Increased law enforcement tools: It provides greater prosecutorial power against individuals providing material support.
- Stronger financial sanctions: SDGT status allows Treasury officials to block assets and prevent financial transactions.
Analysis: How These Designations Strengthen the U.S. War on Illicit Drugs
A. Disrupting Cartel Financing and Operations
- Freezing assets and blocking financial transactions limits operational capabilities.
- Banks and financial institutions face stricter compliance measures.
- It criminalizes any form of material support, making money laundering and arms trafficking riskier.
B. Expanding Law Enforcement and Intelligence Cooperation
- Designation allows for broader intelligence-sharing between agencies such as the DEA, FBI, and CIA.
- Joint operations with foreign governments become more feasible.
- Task forces can apply counterterrorism methodologies to dismantle cartel networks.
C. Justification for U.S. Military Involvement
- The U.S. military could engage in direct action under counterterrorism authorities.
- Drone strikes, special operations raids, and cyber warfare tactics become options.
- Increased training and military aid for allies in Mexico, Central, and South America.
D. Strengthening International Extradition and Cooperation
- Countries with counterterrorism treaties can be compelled to take stronger actions.
- Enhanced diplomatic leverage over Mexico and Latin American partners.
- Greater justification for imposing sanctions on states that harbor or tolerate cartel activity.
Counterarguments and Concerns
A. Legal and Human Rights Challenges
- Applying counterterrorism laws to cartels raises due process concerns.
- Potential civil liberties violations in prosecuting individuals under terrorism laws.
- Risk of indefinite detention or military tribunals.
B. Diplomatic and Geopolitical Risks
- Mexico strongly opposes U.S. military intervention, citing sovereignty concerns.
- Latin American governments may be reluctant to cooperate for fear of political instability.
- Potential retaliation by cartels through increased violence or targeting U.S. assets.
C. Risk of Escalation and Unintended Consequences
- Designation may push cartels to align with actual terrorist organizations (e.g., Hezbollah, FARC remnants).
- Increased violence as cartels adopt insurgency tactics in response.
- Risk of U.S. overreach, leading to prolonged conflicts similar to the War on Terror.
Policy Recommendations
A. Strengthening Law Enforcement Collaboration Over Military Action
- Prioritize intelligence-driven operations rather than military intervention.
- Enhance coordination with local law enforcement agencies in Latin America.
B. Implementing Targeted Sanctions Without Broad-Based Escalation
- Focus on financial networks rather than direct military engagement.
- Increase penalties on U.S. entities that facilitate money laundering.
C. Addressing Root Causes: Demand Reduction and Economic Development
- Expand drug rehabilitation programs in the U.S. to decrease demand.
- Increase economic aid to Latin American nations to reduce cartel recruitment.
D. Diplomatic Engagement With Mexico and Allies
- Work with Mexico to create a joint security framework rather than unilateral action.
- Strengthen regional intelligence-sharing efforts.
Conclusion
The designation of major cartels and criminal organizations as Foreign Terrorist Organizations (FTOs) and Specially Designated Global Terrorists (SDGTs) presents an aggressive strategy to counter illicit drug trafficking. While these designations offer powerful tools for financial interdiction, intelligence operations, and international cooperation, they also come with risks, including legal challenges, diplomatic fallout, and the potential for escalating violence.
A balanced approach—one that leverages law enforcement, financial sanctions, and regional partnerships rather than over-militarization—would likely yield the most effective results in dismantling these organizations while minimizing unintended consequences.
