Trump’s War on Cartels: A Bold Pledge with Complex Realities
In August 2025, President Donald Trump escalated his administration’s campaign against Latin American drug cartels, reportedly signing a secret directive ordering the Pentagon to prepare military options against cartels designated as foreign terrorist organizations.
This move, described as the most aggressive step yet in his administration’s fight against drug trafficking, has sparked intense debate about its implications, feasibility, and historical context.
Trump’s Declaration of War on Cartels
On August 8, 2025, reports surfaced that Trump had directed the Pentagon to develop plans for military action against drug cartels, including Mexico’s Sinaloa Cartel, Venezuela’s Tren de Aragua, and others designated as global terrorist organizations in February 2025. This followed Trump’s campaign promises to crack down on cartels, particularly for their role in flooding the U.S. with fentanyl, a synthetic opioid driving America’s overdose crisis. The designation of cartels as terrorist organizations shifts their status from criminal enterprises to national security threats, enabling the use of military and intelligence resources beyond traditional law enforcement.
Trump’s rhetoric has been uncompromising. In March 2025, he vowed to “wage war” on cartels, accusing them of undermining U.S. security. Secretary of State Marco Rubio reinforced this stance, stating that the terrorist designation allows the U.S. to treat cartels as “armed terrorist organizations” rather than mere drug traffickers, potentially justifying the use of military force, intelligence operations, and other tools of national power. White House spokesperson Anna Kelly emphasized that Trump’s “top priority is protecting the homeland,” framing the directive as a bold step toward that goal.
Potential Operations Under the Trump Administration
The Trump administration’s plans could involve a range of operations, though specifics remain unclear. According to U.S. officials, the directive authorizes military actions both at sea and on foreign soil. Potential operations include:
1. Naval Drug Interdiction: The U.S. Navy could intensify efforts to intercept drug shipments at sea. With over nine million shipping containers arriving in the U.S. annually, drugs like cocaine, heroin, methamphetamine, and fentanyl are often smuggled via maritime routes. Naval operations could target these shipments, disrupting cartel supply chains.
2. Targeted Military Raids: The directive reportedly allows for special forces operations, potentially involving elite units like Delta Force or SEAL Team 6. These raids could target cartel leadership or infrastructure, such as drug labs, in Latin American countries. The U.S. has already increased airborne surveillance, including CIA-run drone programs, to gather intelligence on cartel activities in Mexico.
3. CIA Involvement: The CIA is reviewing its authorities to use lethal force against cartels, signaling a potential escalation of covert operations. This could include drone strikes, cyber warfare, or support for foreign partners to dismantle cartel networks.
4. Support for Foreign Partners: The U.S. could provide intelligence, training, or equipment to allied governments, such as Mexico’s military, to combat cartels. The 7th Special Forces Group has reportedly been training Mexican forces, indicating a collaborative approach.
5. Financial Warfare: Beyond military action, Trump’s strategy may target cartel finances through sanctions, asset seizures, and disrupting money laundering networks. This could weaken their operational capacity without direct confrontation.
Is This Approach Realistic?
While Trump’s directive is bold, its realism is questionable due to legal, diplomatic, and historical complexities. The designation of cartels as terrorist organizations does not automatically authorize military force; such actions require additional legal grounding under domestic or international law. Experts like Brian Finucane, a former State Department attorney, argue that military operations in Mexico would be “hard to square with domestic or international law” and could violate sovereignty, potentially escalating tensions with allies like Mexico.
Mexico’s President Claudia Sheinbaum has firmly rejected U.S. military intervention, stating, “There will be no invasion. That is absolutely ruled out.” She emphasized Mexico’s sovereignty and willingness to cooperate through intelligence-sharing but not through U.S. troops on Mexican soil. This stance reflects long-standing tensions, as Mexico has historically viewed U.S. interventions as infringements on its autonomy. Trump’s previous proposals to send troops to Mexico, including during his first term, were rebuffed, with former Defense Secretary Mark Esper calling such actions illegal and tantamount to war.
Moreover, the U.S.’s historical relationship with cartels complicates Trump’s narrative of a clear-cut war. The U.S. has, at times, been complicit in or benefited from cartel activities, raising questions about the feasibility and sincerity of this campaign.
Historical Context: U.S. Involvement with Cartels and Controversial Operations
The U.S. has a checkered history with drug cartels, marked by covert operations and policies that have sometimes enabled trafficking. Two notable examples are allegations of CIA drug-running and Operation Fast and Furious.
CIA and Drug Running Allegations
The CIA has faced longstanding accusations of involvement in drug trafficking, particularly during the 1980s. Declassified documents and investigative reports, such as the 1996 San Jose Mercury News series by Gary Webb, alleged that the CIA turned a blind eye to drug smuggling by Contra rebels in Nicaragua to fund their fight against the Sandinista government.
While the CIA’s Inspector General report in 1998 denied direct involvement, it acknowledged that the agency worked with individuals and groups linked to drug trafficking, prioritizing anti-communist goals over drug enforcement. These allegations, though controversial, fuel skepticism about the U.S.’s moral authority to wage war on cartels, as critics argue that past complicity undermines current efforts.
Operation Fast and Furious
Operation Fast and Furious, conducted by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) from 2009 to 2011, further complicates the narrative. The operation aimed to track firearms sold to straw purchasers in the U.S., expecting them to reach Mexican cartels to build cases against traffickers. However, the ATF lost track of over 2,000 weapons, many of which were linked to crimes, including the murder of U.S. Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry in 2010. The scandal exposed reckless U.S. tactics that armed cartels rather than dismantled them, drawing bipartisan criticism and fueling Mexico’s distrust of U.S. anti-drug efforts. The operation’s fallout highlights the risks of aggressive strategies that can backfire, potentially strengthening cartels instead of weakening them.
Challenges and Risks
Trump’s war on cartels faces several challenges:
1. Legal and Diplomatic Hurdles: Military action in foreign countries without consent violates international law and risks escalating tensions with allies like Mexico. Even covert operations could strain U.S.-Mexico relations, which are already fraught due to past interventions.
2. Cartel Resilience: Cartels are decentralized and adaptable, often filling power vacuums left by eliminated leaders. Historical U.S. efforts, such as the War on Drugs, have disrupted cartels but failed to eliminate them, sometimes increasing violence as rival factions compete.
3. Domestic Blowback: Arming or empowering foreign partners could lead to unintended consequences, as seen in Fast and Furious. Similarly, military strikes risk civilian casualties, potentially radicalizing communities and bolstering cartel recruitment.
4. Historical Precedent: The U.S.’s mixed record in Latin America, from the 1989 invasion of Panama to remove drug-linked dictator Manuel Noriega to covert support for regimes tied to trafficking, suggests that military solutions often create more instability than they resolve.