Escalating the War on Drugs: The U.S. Government’s Shift in Designation

In 2025, the United States government made headlines by designating 19 groups as terrorists, a significant increase compared to the previous decade. This surge predominantly involves criminal organizations alleged to be engaged in drug trafficking. Among these designated groups, eight are drug cartels, such as Cártel de Sinaloa and Cártel Jalisco Nueva Generación, emphasizing a strategic pivot in U.S. policy toward drug-related criminal organizations.

The Designations: A Closer Look

The designation of foreign terrorist organizations (FTOs) by the U.S. State Department has included notorious cartels: Cártel del Noreste, La Nueva Familia Michoacana, Cartel del Golfo, Carteles Unidos, Tren de Aragua, and Mara Salvatrucha (MS-13). Each of these groups is implicated in activities that extend beyond specific drug trafficking operations, often involving systemic violence and societal disruption.

On November 24, 2025, Secretary of State Marco Rubio announced the intention to designate yet another cartel, Cártel de los Soles. This cartel, reportedly under the influence of Venezuelan leader Nicolás Maduro, has been accused of attempting to flood the U.S. with illegal narcotics, painting a picture of escalating tensions and posing a challenge to national security.

Administration’s Rationale

The Trump administration’s strategy has framed these drug cartels not merely as criminal entities but as threats akin to terrorist organizations. White House spokesperson Anna Kelly asserted that these designations would bolster U.S. national security, facilitating coordinated efforts with law enforcement and disrupting the financial networks that support these groups.

In comparison, only 18 groups received foreign terrorist designations in the decade leading up to Trump’s second term, with a peak of six groups added in 2018. The stark contrast underlines a strategic reorientation that may hinge on viewing narcotics traffickers through a military lens.

A Military Solution?

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth has bolstered this perspective, arguing that drug cartels pose a comparable threat to the U.S. as organizations like al-Qaida. Hegseth’s assertion that narcotics trafficking groups deserve military scrutiny reflects a growing inclination to adopt military solutions to counter narcotic-related violence.

However, experts caution that while designating groups as foreign terrorist organizations opens avenues for visa restrictions and criminal penalties against their members, it does not automatically authorize military action. Discussions surrounding the legal justifications for such strikes reveal a gray area that raises concerns amongst legal advisers and military personnel alike.

The Debate: Are Cartels Terrorists?

The U.S. military campaign against drug cartels isn’t unprecedented; similar efforts have been made in the past. Yet, the classification of these criminal organizations as terrorist groups is relatively novel. Many experts argue that most drug cartels function primarily as criminal enterprises rather than engaging in coordinated warfare similar to terrorist organizations.

Historically, many of the groups designated as terrorists, such as the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC), had political ambitions tied to ideological movements. In contrast, today’s cartels predominantly focus on criminal operations and exerting influence over local governance through means like extortion and bribery.

A retired senior military commander highlighted that this new wave of designations blurs the lines between criminal organizations and those engaging in armed conflict. The analogy of treating cartels like terrorists may lead to misguided consequences, complicating the already intricate landscape of U.S.-Latin America relations.

Public Health vs. Military Action

The escalating number of designations calls into question whether a military approach is the optimal solution to the U.S. drug crisis. Legal analysts have voiced that the ongoing drug problem in America is predominantly a public health issue. As former State Department lawyer Brian Finucane pointed out, employing military force to tackle narcotics-related challenges could prove as effective as “bombing our way to victory” over other societal health issues.

High levels of commitment from partner nations are paramount to truly combat systemic narcotics issues without sowing further instability or unintended consequences. History suggests that a military-centric approach can often exacerbate tensions, complicating efforts to foster genuine collaboration against drug trafficking.

Conclusion: The Future of U.S. Policy

The increased emphasis on designating drug cartels as terrorist organizations may usher in a new chapter in U.S. counter-narcotics strategy. This shift points to a more militarized approach predicated on viewing the drug trade as a national security threat. However, as historical contexts and current realities suggest, the efficacy and legality of such measures will require careful consideration and robust international cooperation to ensure meaningful progress without alienating potential allies in the fight against drugs.

Instead of treating drug cartels as enemy combatants, it might be more productive to develop comprehensive strategies that tackle both the supply and the demand sides of the drug crisis—a complex web requiring nuanced solutions rather than one-dimensional military responses.