The Trump administration’s decision to designate six Mexican cartels as foreign terrorist organizations (FTOs) has sparked debate among experts and policymakers.
While the move is positioned as a step toward safeguarding the U.S. and the Western Hemisphere from violent criminal enterprises, critics argue that the classification may do little to disrupt cartel operations and could create unforeseen legal and diplomatic challenges.
A Shift in Strategy or a Misguided Approach?
Proponents of the designation, such as Senator Marco Rubio, emphasize its role in strengthening counterterrorism efforts and applying additional legal tools to combat cartel influence. The designation enables stiffer penalties, expanded surveillance capabilities, and the potential to freeze assets linked to these organizations. However, security analysts warn that the classification oversimplifies the nature of cartel violence and could strain U.S.-Mexico cooperation in fighting organized crime.
Unlike traditional terrorist groups that pursue ideological or political objectives, Mexican cartels operate with financial motivations, using extreme violence to control drug trafficking, extortion, and human smuggling.
Stephanie Brewer, director for Mexico at the Washington Office on Latin America, contends that “the starting point to combat these organizations effectively is to recognize them for what they are—highly sophisticated criminal enterprises driven by profit rather than ideology.”
Diplomatic and Legal Implications
The designation introduces a complex set of legal ramifications, potentially broadening the scope of criminal prosecution under terrorism-related statutes. This could lead to severe consequences for individuals and businesses that unknowingly engage in transactions linked to cartel-affiliated entities.
Cecilia Farfán-Méndez, an expert on organized crime, warns that “this approach fundamentally misunderstands the structure of cartel operations, which rely on extensive networks within the United States.”
She argues that labeling them as external terrorist threats ignores the domestic factors that contribute to their power, including demand for narcotics and illicit financial flows that sustain their activities.
Moreover, the designation risks complicating diplomatic relations between the U.S. and Mexico. Mexican officials have historically opposed the classification of cartels as terrorist organizations, fearing it could justify unilateral U.S. military intervention. Past Mexican administrations have prioritized joint law enforcement efforts over confrontational policies, and this shift may strain future security collaborations.
The Road Ahead: Enforcement and Consequences
With the U.S. Attorney General’s memorandum on “Total Elimination of Cartels and Transnational Criminal Organizations,” federal agencies are now tasked with implementing aggressive counter-cartel strategies. This includes intensified prosecutions, resource reallocation, and enhanced interagency coordination. The broader implications of this shift remain uncertain, as legal challenges and geopolitical tensions could hinder its effectiveness.
While the administration aims for a decisive blow against cartels, experts caution that the move may have unintended effects, from mass arrests to disruptions in legitimate cross-border trade. Whether this strategy will lead to meaningful reductions in cartel power or exacerbate existing challenges remains to be seen.
Keep up with updates from the federal government with us on Que Onda Magazine.
 has sparked debate among experts and policymakers.){kind=link}