The prospect of Donald Trump’s return to power in January 2025 has ignited heated discussions, especially in relation to his previous stance on Mexico and drug cartels.
In the months following his earlier tenure, Trump made headlines by suggesting that the United States should designate Mexican drug cartels as terrorist organisations.
Trump’s tough rhetoric on immigration, border security, and drug trafficking has made headlines since his first term, and with his re-election, the prospect of his pursuing more aggressive measures against cartels seems increasingly likely. In the aftermath of horrific events, such as the ambush in 2019 that saw nine dual U.S.-Mexican citizens killed by suspected cartel members, Trump issued bold statements calling for a full-scale war on drug cartels and even suggested designating them as foreign terrorist organizations (FTOs).
This rhetoric has resurfaced, intensifying concerns not only about the future of US-Mexico relations but also about the broader implications of such a policy for the region. However, labelling these cartels as terrorist entities could be a dangerous misstep, one that threatens to exacerbate violence in Mexico and undermine the very security measures that need reform.
In recent years, Mexico has been at the mercy of some of the world’s most violent criminal organisations. The cartels, which dominate the drug trade, control vast portions of territory, exploiting both the poverty-stricken regions and urban centres across the country. Their ruthless tactics – kidnappings, murders, and extortion – have devastated local communities and overwhelmed law enforcement. Yet, these criminal organisations, however brutal, are not terrorists.
Trump’s proposal to designate these groups as FTOs stems from a misplaced analogy. In theory, this move would allow the US to freeze cartel assets, impose travel restrictions, and prosecute cartel members under terrorism laws. But such a designation is more likely to complicate than resolve the situation, with unintended consequences that may destabilise the region further.
Before delving into the potential consequences of designating Mexican cartels as terrorists, it’s important to understand what this designation entails. Under USA law, an organisation must meet specific criteria to be labelled a FTO. This includes engaging in premeditated, politically motivated violence intended to influence a government or a population. The violence must also target noncombatant civilians, and the group must have the capacity to engage in these activities on a large scale.
A terrorist organisation, by definition, is one that seeks to use violence and intimidation to influence a government or political system. While cartels certainly engage in violence, their objective is not to overthrow the Mexican government or replace its political system. Their only aim is profit, specifically from the illegal drug trade. Unlike political insurgencies or terror groups, drug cartels do not seek to change the political landscape but rather to exploit the existing structure for economic gain.
Herein lies the first problem with Trump’s proposal. While cartels like the Sinaloa and Jalisco New Generation cartels certainly use extreme violence—often targeting civilians, law enforcement, and rival groups—their motivations are not political. Cartels are primarily business entities. Their goal is not to overthrow governments or pursue ideological aims; instead, they are in the business of trafficking illegal drugs, extorting money, and protecting their vast criminal enterprises.
This distinction is crucial. Terrorist organisations like al-Qaeda or ISIS employ violence with the goal of imposing ideological or political change. Cartels, on the other hand, wield violence as a tool to secure profits and control over the drug market. They do not pose an existential threat to the Mexican government or seek to overthrow it. Rather, their violence undermines the state’s ability to function effectively, which in turn benefits the cartels’ operations. Terrorist organisations, by definition, seek to influence political structures, often using violence to make a statement or cause disruption. Cartels, while undeniably violent, do not pursue any grand political vision. Instead, they leverage violence to maintain control over their criminal activities and eliminate rivals. Treating them as terrorists would not only mischaracterise their objectives but could also lead to inappropriate responses, including military intervention, that would do little to address the core issue of drug trafficking.
The Trump administration has consistently called for more aggressive action against Mexican cartels, including the use of US military forces to assist in the fight. This rhetoric harkens back to the disastrous “War on Drugs” policies of the past, which focused on militarising drug enforcement efforts without addressing the systemic issues that drive the cartels’ power. Mexico has already experienced the fallout of militarised anti-cartel operations, particularly during the presidency of Felipe Calderón (2006-2012). While many cartel leaders were arrested or killed, the violence in Mexico escalated dramatically, with cartels splintering and warring over territory, resulting in a surge of civilian deaths.
The suggestion that cartels should be labelled terrorists is not just a political overreach but also a misdiagnosis of the problem. The US’s approach to countering the drug trade has long been focused on militarised tactics, such as border control measures, intelligence operations, and military intervention. However, this has proven ineffective in curbing the cartel’s influence. Drug-related violence continues to escalate, and the cartels continue to operate with impunity. This is not a problem that can be solved by simply designating cartels as terrorists.
While a designation as an FTO would provide the US with some additional legal tools to fight cartels, these tools are not the solution. They would likely lead to a further militarisation of the situation, which has not worked in the past. A key issue in the war on drugs is the way in which the US’s approach directly contributes to the power of the cartels. One of the most glaring examples of this is the flow of firearms into Mexico.
If the US were to directly intervene in Mexico, either militarily or through the further militarisation of the war on drugs, it risks exacerbating the very problem it seeks to solve. A militarised approach often leads to more deaths, more instability, and a deeper entrenchment of cartel power. Cartels are already incredibly well-armed and resourceful, and a US military intervention would likely only result in more violence and greater destruction, particularly for Mexican civilians caught in the crossfire.
Moreover, a focus on military solutions may neglect the broader socio-economic issues that fuel cartel violence. The lack of opportunity, entrenched corruption, and weak rule of law in many parts of Mexico and Central America create fertile ground for cartels to flourish. A military response alone cannot address these underlying causes.
Militarisation is not an effective solution to combat organised crime and drug trafficking because it often exacerbates violence and destabilises the affected regions. The military is not designed to address the complexities of criminal networks, as it lacks the specialised training, investigative expertise, and legal frameworks required to dismantle organised crime. Soldiers are trained for combat, not for nuanced policing tasks such as gathering evidence, handling witnesses, or conducting undercover operations.
Deploying military forces risks escalating conflicts with heavily armed criminal organisations, leading to prolonged violence and increased civilian casualties. Furthermore, militarised approaches tend to focus on short-term objectives, such as capturing or eliminating cartel leaders, which frequently results in the fragmentation of criminal organisations and the emergence of smaller, more violent factions. Mexico already went through this process under Calderón’s War on Drugs. This cyclical violence undermines local governance, erodes public trust in institutions, and displaces communities, further perpetuating the conditions that allow organised crime to thrive. A more effective strategy would prioritise intelligence-led policing, strengthening judicial systems, addressing socio-economic inequalities, and implementing measures to reduce the demand for illicit drugs.
This military-oriented dynamic would create an environment where collaboration between the two countries on counter-drug measures becomes fraught with tension. If the US were to designate Mexican cartels as FTOs, it would risk undermining decades of diplomatic efforts and erode trust between the two countries. As a result, it is not just Mexico that would suffer; the entire region would be destabilised.
One of the most striking aspects of the cartel crisis is the role the US plays in enabling the cartels. The US is not only the largest consumer of illicit drugs but is also the main source of the firearms used by cartels. According to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF), a significant percentage of weapons used by Mexican cartels originate from US gun shops. These firearms often flow into Mexico through illegal channels, fuelling the violence that makes the cartels so powerful.
These guns are then used by cartels to maintain control over territories, intimidate civilians, and challenge Mexican law enforcement. In fact, the violence that has plagued Mexico in recent decades is largely a result of the illegal trafficking of weapons from the US into the hands of these criminal groups.
While Trump’s policies may be intended to combat the cartels, they fail to address this crucial aspect of the problem: the US’s role in arming the very organisations it aims to combat. Without addressing the illegal flow of firearms, any military or legal action taken against the cartels is destined to fail. The US’s complicity in the supply chain that enables cartel violence cannot be ignored in the conversation about combating the cartels.
Furthermore, labelling cartels as terrorists would not just have domestic consequences for the US but would also have a damaging effect on US-Mexico relations. Mexico has long been a key partner in the US’s efforts to combat drug trafficking, despite its many challenges. A terrorist designation would alienate Mexico, making cooperation on drug-related matters more difficult. Mexico is already struggling with the entrenched power of the cartels, and an external push for military intervention from the US would likely be met with resistance from both the Mexican government and the people.
The path forward requires a rethinking of the US’s approach to the cartels. Rather than resorting to military-style tactics, the US should focus on intelligence-driven law enforcement and diplomatic cooperation with Mexico. The fight against drug cartels must be a collaborative effort, with an emphasis on addressing the root causes of cartel power: poverty, corruption, and the demand for illicit drugs. By supporting economic development and anti-corruption initiatives, the US can help strengthen Mexico’s ability to combat the cartels more effectively.
The US must also take a hard look at its own policies and their impact on Mexico. The flow of firearms into Mexico must be stopped, and the US should support stricter gun control measures to prevent these weapons from ending up in the hands of criminal groups. Only by addressing both the demand for drugs and the supply of weapons can the US and Mexico hope to make real progress in reducing cartel violence.
A focus on diplomacy, intelligence-led policing, and regional cooperation will be far more effective than labelling cartels as terrorists. Such a designation would only serve to inflame tensions, undermine Mexico’s sovereignty, and encourage further militarisation of the issue. Instead, the US must work collaboratively with Mexico to develop sustainable, long-term solutions that address the systemic issues enabling cartels to thrive.
In conclusion, while the violence and brutality of the Mexican cartels cannot be understated, labelling them as terrorist organisations is not the answer. Instead, the US must take a more nuanced approach, one that recognises the cartels for what they are: criminal enterprises. The US should prioritise cooperation with Mexico, address the flow of weapons, and support long-term solutions that focus on economic development and reducing the demand for illegal drugs.
