President Trump signed an order designating major Latin American drug cartels as terrorist organizations, allowing the U.S. to expand legal, financial, and security measures against them, though claims of “secret orders” and widespread military action are exaggerated.

A Historic Shift in U.S. Policy on Drug Cartels

In early 2025, the United States government took an unprecedented step by designating several major Latin American drug trafficking organizations as Foreign Terrorist Organizations (FTOs) and Specially Designated Global Terrorists (SDGTs) under U.S. law. This marked the first time that entities traditionally labeled as criminal networks or transnational criminal organizations were formally classified with the same legal status usually reserved for extremist groups like al‑Qaeda or ISIS. Under this framework, the cartels are accused not only of drug trafficking but also of violence, kidnapping, extortion, and activities that threaten U.S. national security due to their deadly impact on communities and the flood of illicit drugs—particularly fentanyl—crossing the southern border.

Scope of the Terrorist Designations

The State Department’s designation published in February 2025 included eight separate criminal organizations from Latin America, such as the Sinaloa Cartel, CJNG (Cártel de Jalisco Nueva Generación), Gulf Cartel, and MS‑13, among others. These designations mean financial assets linked to these groups can be frozen in U.S. banks, and individuals associated with them face immigration consequences and legal penalties for material support. The rationale for such sweeping designations is that the groups’ operations extend far beyond drug smuggling into violent criminal enterprises that destabilize regions and fuel widespread addiction and death in the United States.

Practical and Strategic Implications

Labeling criminal organizations as terrorist entities changes how the United States can legally respond. It expands the legal toolkit for financial sanctions, immigration enforcement, intelligence sharing, and interagency cooperation. For example, U.S. intelligence and law enforcement efforts have scaled up to identify, track, and vet cartel members using terrorism databases, leading to arrests and denials of entry for thousands of suspected affiliates. This shift reflects a broader strategy aimed at treating cartel violence as a national security threat alongside traditional terrorism concerns.

Preparations for Military or Security Actions

Alongside the bureaucratic designations, credible reporting has indicated that the Trump administration directed the Pentagon to develop options for potential military or security actions against designated cartel groups. This does not necessarily mean a full‑scale invasion but includes planning for how U.S. forces might support interdiction efforts, such as targeting cartel logistics, supporting partner nations’ law enforcement, or defending U.S. interests abroad. Officials have characterized this expanded approach as part of an “armed conflict” with cartels, highlighting the intensity of violence and the danger they pose to American communities.

Ongoing Expansion of Cartel Designations

Beyond the initial group of cartels, U.S. policy has continued to evolve. Recent news reports confirm that the United States has also designated Colombia’s Clan del Golfo as a terrorist organization, further broadening the range of groups facing the enhanced legal classification. This reflects growing concern about global drug trafficking networks that fund violence and criminal activity through the sale of narcotics, arms trafficking, and other illicit enterprises. Wider designations mean expanded sanctions and diplomatic pressure, but they also raise questions about how far such policies should extend and how they intersect with international law and partner governments’ sovereignty.

Reactions and Regional Implications

The U.S. move has prompted mixed reactions across the Western Hemisphere. Some nations have issued similar designations in alignment with U.S. priorities, while others have criticized the approach or rejected the terror label. For example, questions have been raised about whether certain entities, such as Venezuela’s so‑called Cartel de los Soles, exist as organized cartels or whether the label is politically motivated, illustrating the complexity of applying terrorism law to criminal syndicates. Latin American governments have also raised concerns about national sovereignty, warning that aggressive strategies could strain diplomatic relations and potentially risk violence spilling beyond borders, even as they commit to joint efforts against drug trafficking.