America’s New War on Terror: When Drug Cartels Become National Security Threats

The Biden administration’s reclassification of Latin American criminal organizations as terrorist networks signals a dramatic shift in hemispheric security policy that could reshape everything from immigration enforcement to military intervention.

The Evolution of the Threat

For decades, U.S. policymakers have drawn a sharp distinction between organized crime and terrorism, treating drug cartels as law enforcement challenges rather than national security threats. This framework, rooted in the post-9/11 era’s focus on ideologically motivated violence, is now being fundamentally reconsidered. Groups like Tren de Aragua, a Venezuelan prison gang that has expanded across Latin America, represent a new hybrid threat that defies traditional categorizations.

The scale and sophistication of these organizations have evolved dramatically since the days of Pablo Escobar. Today’s cartels control territory, levy taxes, maintain standing armies, and increasingly coordinate with state actors hostile to U.S. interests. Tren de Aragua alone is believed to operate in at least six countries, with cells identified in major U.S. cities including Chicago, Miami, and New York. Their activities extend far beyond drug trafficking to include human smuggling, extortion, kidnapping, and arms trafficking—creating what security analysts describe as a “parallel state” structure that undermines legitimate governance across the hemisphere.

Following the Money

The emphasis on “cutting financial flows” reflects a sophisticated understanding of how modern criminal-terrorist networks operate. Unlike traditional terrorist organizations that relied primarily on state sponsors or charitable front groups, these hybrid organizations generate billions through diversified criminal enterprises. Recent Treasury Department estimates suggest that Latin American cartels move between $19-29 billion annually through the U.S. financial system alone.

This financial dimension has profound implications for U.S. policy tools. Designating cartels as terrorist organizations would unlock powerful sanctions authorities, including the ability to freeze assets, prosecute financial facilitators, and pressure foreign banks to cease all dealings with designated groups. It would also criminalize any form of material support—potentially affecting everything from money transfer services used by immigrant communities to legitimate businesses that pay extortion fees to operate in cartel-controlled territories.

The Policy Debate Intensifies

Critics argue that the terrorism label risks militarizing what should remain primarily a law enforcement and development challenge. They point to the mixed results of the War on Terror and warn that expanding its framework could justify interventions that violate sovereignty and human rights. Mexico, in particular, has strongly opposed such designations, fearing they could provide legal cover for unilateral U.S. military action on Mexican soil.

Proponents counter that the current approach has manifestly failed. Despite billions in security assistance and decades of drug war efforts, cartels have only grown stronger and more interconnected. The terrorism framework, they argue, simply acknowledges reality: these organizations pose an existential threat to democratic governance in the Americas and increasingly operate as de facto terrorist groups, using spectacular violence to intimidate populations and control territory.

Implications for Immigration and Border Policy

Perhaps nowhere would the impact of terrorism designations be felt more acutely than in immigration policy. Under current law, providing material support to a terrorist organization—even under duress—can render an individual inadmissible to the United States and ineligible for asylum. This could affect millions of people living in cartel-controlled areas who pay “taxes” or protection money simply to survive.

The designation would also transform border security from a primarily humanitarian and law enforcement challenge into a counterterrorism operation. This could justify everything from expanded surveillance authorities to the deployment of military assets along the southern border—moves that would fundamentally alter the character of American border communities and potentially strain relations with Mexico beyond the breaking point.

As the United States grapples with this policy shift, a troubling question emerges: In our zeal to combat genuine security threats, are we creating a framework that could permanently militarize our relationship with Latin America and criminalize the very populations fleeing cartel violence?