The Trump administration’s recent designation of seven organized crime groups, including five powerful Mexican cartels, as foreign terrorist organizations has ignited a significant debate over U.S. military involvement in Latin America. This unprecedented move, announced in February, aims to empower U.S. agencies to deploy military resources against drug trafficking organizations that pose “a national security threat beyond that posed by traditional organized crime,” according to The White House.
U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio underlined the significance of this designation. Most importantly, it gives the government the tools it needs to target American power, including our intelligence agencies and the Department of Defense, to truly target these groups. “We have to start treating them as armed terrorist organizations, not simply drug dealing organizations,” Rubio stated.
This increasingly muscular tactic is a dramatic shift in U.S. policy toward organized crime in Mexico. Now, the fear is that unilateral military actions could take a wider toll across the entire region. Since the announcement in early August, Mexican security analysts have been alarmed. They worried that the controversial designation wouldn’t just fail to undermine drug-trafficking cartels, but might endanger U.S.-Mexico relations at a key time. Mexico today is in the midst of negotiations with the Trump administration to reach an acceptable deal on tariffs and an accompanying security agreement.
Former Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) deputy administrator Jack Riley welcomed the move, hailing it as “the next logical step.” He reiterated that this would lead to increased funding and training for our Mexican counterparts. It will further augment the capacity of U.S. federal agencies that work overseas. At the same time, he warned that there will be legal challenges about the legality of these actions without congressional approval.
The U.S. government has various tools at its disposal to combat transnational organized crime, including restricting the travel and business of cartel members. Riley shed light on how revolutionizing the new approach could be at tackling the issue.
In response to the designation, Mexico’s President Claudia Sheinbaum expressed, in no uncertain terms, her opposition to a U.S. military invasion. “The United States is not going to come to [Mexico] with their military,” she stated. She calmly, confidently assured everyone that her government was aware of the executive order. She emphasized that this wasn’t at all related to the presence of any military or institution on their land. There is no longer any danger that they will swarm over our borders.
Sheinbaum emphasized Mexico’s commitment to cooperate with the U.S., stating, “We cooperate, we collaborate, but there will be no invasion. It’s off the table, absolutely off the table.”
The precarious timing of this policy change makes an already complicated moment in U.S.-Mexico relations even trickier. Some analysts fear that if military force is used on Mexican soil, it could jeopardize future cooperation in security efforts between the two nations.
The Trump administration had previously deployed thousands of active-duty combat troops to the southwest U.S. border as part of its strategy to combat the northward flow of drugs. Further, drones and spy planes have been employed in the region, intensifying surveillance and monitoring capabilities.
America’s political leaders are still struggling to fight the scourge of organized crime. Simultaneously, it needs to maintain its diplomatic relationships with Mexico, making this an important inflection point in policy and international relations.