Cartels Are Not ‘Foreign Terrorist Organizations,’ but Terror in Mexico Is Real

1 day ago 34

Editor’s Note: An earlier Spanish version of this article appeared in La Opinión.

I have always opposed the designation of Mexico’s organized crime groups (what the United States considers “Mexican cartels”) as Foreign Terrorist Organizations (FTOs). Now, President Donald Trump has taken action to make this possible—via his January 20 executive order and its mandate to the U.S. Secretary of State to take formal action on adding “certain international cartels” operating in Mexico to its FTO list (as well as El Tren de Aragua, which originated in Venezuela, and La Mara Salvatrucha, MS-13, a Salvadoran gang born in the United States).

Given Trump’s order and despite potential negative (and long-term) effects for Mexican sovereignty and national security, the U.S. and Mexican economies, as well as for the $850 billion annual trade relationship, it’s important to consider potential positive aspects of the designation for Mexico at the domestic level. While I argue that the so-called drug cartels, which are splintered into local cells and specialize in a variety of activities (not only drug trafficking), fail to meet the definition of FTOs, there are reasons to support the classification of some of these groups’ recent acts as domestic terrorism in Mexico. (I was able to confirm this from testimonies of victims and communities affected by extreme violence and terror perpetrated by local organized crime groups during a 2024 visit to Sonora state.)

In his December 24 column in Mexico’s El Universal, Jorge Castañeda Gutman explains that the FTO designation of Mexican cartels does not mean that the United States will try to immediately appropriate Mexican territory or use the designation to justify a military intervention in Mexico, even though Trump himself and many other Republican politicians have repeatedly made this suggestion. Indeed, Trump’s executive order specifies that members of the designated groups in the United States could be targeted for deportation under the “Alien Enemies Act.”

A formal declaration of war against Mexican cartels that might enable the deployment of U.S. forces into Mexican territory or other extreme action such as bombings to fight Mexican drug traffickers would typically require a vote of the U.S. Congress, and would involve the application of other U.S. laws. This is generally a longer and more complex process. Trump’s rhetoric seems to be of a leader of a democracy in decline that seems bent on deceiving the public by emphasizing force and determination over substance.

So far, Trump’s executive order does not list specific Mexican cartels. Hence, the U.S. State Department could issue the terrorist label in a general way to cover many cartels. Perhaps such an action might most logically be applied to larger centralized groups such as the Sinaloa Cartel and the Jalisco New Generation Cartel, since other Mexican drug trafficking organizations are decentralized and dispersed.

Unlike other international groups who have been historically designated as global terrorists, Mexican cartel leaders espouse no unified political agenda. Some criminal paramilitary groups (identified as cartels) wreak havoc on certain Mexican communities, but it is difficult to determine how these heterogeneous crime groups target the United States. With regards to domestic terrorism, additional studies should be conducted on how such groups have carried out assassinations of elected leaders in Mexico and supposedly attempted to influence elections and the Mexican state itself.

No matter how the formal designations are worded—whether specifically against the Sinaloa Cartel or more generally—the actions could lead to the cancellation of visas, or freezing of accounts and assets of Mexican nationals. This could certainly affect the abilities of Mexican criminals who launder money in the United States—and also could affect their many associates, relatives and allies. Hopefully, this measure will also affect the capacity of arms-producing firms that benefit cartels, as well as the U.S. banks where these crime groups launder money.

Currently, many small-time criminals in Mexico claim membership in larger and well-known criminal groups in order to extort payments from Mexican citizens and businesses by relying on those organization’s reputation and brutality.

With U.S. authorities designating cartels as international terrorists, it will be interesting to see how the Mexican criminal world reconfigures itself. It’s not the same thing to flaunt the name of a “famous” cartel as it is to invoke an international terrorist organization. The consequences, at least in the United States, will now be different. Perhaps some people or groups will think twice about affiliating with a cartel, if they know that choice comes with being forever labeled an international terrorist.

It’s also important to consider the huge relevance of the response by Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum. Instead of simply reacting with vehemence or clumsiness to every declaration of Trump, she must consider what action her government could take to end the incidents of terror that some paramilitary and criminal groups inflict on Mexican communities. The Mexican government itself should consider whether it should use its own power to designate some groups as domestic terrorists, and impose its own sanctions. The best choice would be for Mexican authorities to respond to the internal threat of terrorism and not simply to the statements and executive orders of Donald Trump.