‘Retaliatory strikes’: Warning as Donald Trump designates cartels terrorist organisations
One of Donald Trump’s major executive orders could spark devastating unintended consequences from a threat lurking right now deep inside America.
At around midday on Wednesday, an American hiker was shot by suspected cartel members while exploring a wilderness area near the US-Mexico border in California.
“Cartels think they can bring their war here. Think again!” the US Border Patrol wrote on X, after confirming the hikers had been rescued.
The terrifying incident, coming exactly two days after President Donald Trump’s inauguration, is likely an ominous foreshadowing of America’s coming war with the cartels — on both sides of the border.
American hiker strafed with gunfire & shot twice by suspected #cartel#terrorists in Jacumba, CA
— USBP Chief Patrol Agent Gregory K. Bovino (@USBPChiefELC) January 23, 2025
Cartels think they can bring their war here. Think again!
Americans won’t be intimidated. Our agents & BORTAC will confront these threats HEAD ON!@CBPAMOpic.twitter.com/8QpQ86RRpQ
On Monday, Mr Trump signed an executive order to begin the process of designating drug cartels and other Latin American gangs as foreign terrorist organisations, setting up the potential for broader sanctions against individuals and companies that do business with them, expanded law enforcement and surveillance powers, and even potential US military intervention.
Asked by a reporter in the Oval Office whether it would mean US Special Forces could be sent into Mexico to fight the cartels, Mr Trump left open the possibility.
“Could happen,” he said. “Stranger things have happened.”
Mr Trump, as he signed the executive order, noted “people have wanted to do this for years”.
“So they are now designated as terrorist organisations and Mexico probably doesn’t want that but we have to do what’s right,” he said. “They’re killing our people, they’re killing 250,000 to 300,000 Americans a year.”
Asked “how are you going to deal with this” if Mexico’s President “doesn’t want that”, Mr Trump replied, “I don’t know. You’ll have to ask them.”
‘Violence and terror’
Mr Trump’s order refers to Mexican drug cartels as well as Tren de Aragua, a Venezuelan gang that has rapidly gained a foothold inside the US with the recent migrant influx, and MS-13, a Satanic street gang founded in Los Angeles by Salvadoran migrants.
“The cartels have engaged in a campaign of violence and terror throughout the Western Hemisphere that has not only destabilised countries with significant importance for our national interests but also flooded the United States with deadly drugs, violent criminals, and vicious gangs,” the order states.
“The cartels functionally control, through a campaign of assassination, terror, rape, and brute force nearly all illegal traffic across the southern border of the United States. In certain portions of Mexico, they function as quasi-governmental entities, controlling nearly all aspects of society.
“The cartels’ activities threaten the safety of the American people, the security of the United States, and the stability of the international order in the Western Hemisphere. Their activities, proximity to, and incursions into the physical territory of the United States pose an unacceptable national security risk to the United States.
“Other transnational organisations, such as Tren de Aragua (TdA) and La Mara Salvatrucha (MS-13) pose similar threats to the United States.”
The order requires the Secretary of State, in consultation with other Cabinet members, to make recommendations within 14 days on groups to designate as foreign terrorist organisations.
Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum on Tuesday called for “cool heads” in the face of Mr Trump’s flurry of day one executive orders aimed at cracking down on illegal immigration and drugs flowing across the southern border.
“We all want to fight the drug cartels — [the US] in their territory, us in our territory,” she said.
“They can act in their territory within their framework of action and their constitution. What we are going to look for is co-ordination with respect to our sovereignty.”
‘They have no choice’
Ms Sheinbaum has sharply rejected the prospect of US military intervention in Mexico.
But former Attorney-General Bill Barr, who served in Mr Trump’s first term and later became a vocal critic of the President, said Mexico may be left with “no choice”.
Praising the order as an “important step”, Mr Barr noted it would allow the US to “to impose sanctions on individuals … beyond those we’ve already imposed”.
“But at the end of the day the real question is not so much designating them but how we’re going to treat them, and I think we have to start treating them and responding to them the way we would a group like ISIS,” he told Fox News on Tuesday.
“I think that’s in the cards eventually.”
Mr Barr said it was clear the Mexicans “have no ability to control the cartels, they’re essentially co-opted”.
“They’re either intimidated or they’re bought and paid for,” he said.
“So we have to push the Mexicans to allow us to work with them to deal with the cartels. They can’t by themselves get out from the death grip of the cartels. They need our help and we’re going to have to make it clear to them that the current situation is intolerable and they’re either going to be with us or against us.”
Mr Barr said Mr Trump’s proposed tariffs of 25 per cent on Mexico and an additional 10 per cent on China would “be extremely important in breaking the back of the drug trade”.
The two countries are responsible for about 90 per cent of the deadly drugs flowing into the US, with China producing most of the fentanyl and precursors sold to Mexico.
“Eventually the Mexicans are going to have to agree to work with us,” Mr Barr said.
“Their government and their agencies are so corrupt and corruptible by the cartels, both because of intimidation, terrorism tactics, but also because they have vast amounts of money to bribe people, that it’s very hard to maintain operational security down there. So they’re going to have to give us some running room and start working with us and allow us to train and vet units down there. They can’t do it by themselves. Once they understand the US is not going to continue to stand by and permit this catastrophic harm to our country to continue, they will understand they have no choice.”
Mr Trump’s Attorney-General nominee Pam Bondi told her Senate confirmation hearing that she supported the move.
“I personally went to Mexico,” she said. “I personally dealt with these cartels when I was a state prosecutor. And they are a grave and violent threat to our country.”
Speaking to podcast host Tucker Carlson last month, Mr Trump’s border czar Tom Homan likened the Mexican cartels to Fortune 500 companies.
He noted the Jalisco New Generation Cartel (CJNG), considered the most powerful of Mexico’s cartels, was “in over 45 countries” and “currently in every major city in the US”.
“Not only are they smuggling the drugs into the US, they’re taking over the distribution within the US,” he said.
“These criminal cartels have killed more Americans than every terrorist organisation in the world combined. That’s why they need to be designated terrorist organisations and wiped off the face of the earth.”
‘Political theatre’
Mike Vigil, former head of foreign operations with the US Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), told the Associated Press the order was “all political theatre” that would have little impact on day-to-day operations because many of the same anti-terror powers were used in counter-narcotics efforts.
“It’s not going to allow the US to send troops into Mexico like so many people think simply because people forget that Mexico is a sovereign country and it would be an act of war,” he said.
Republican Congressman Dan Crenshaw, who led an unofficial House of Representatives task force on combating the cartels, has previously argued the foreign terrorist designation makes “little sense”.
“We found that there is little legal benefit, if any, to labelling them as an FTO,” he said in a letter to Speaker Mike Johnson last month.
“There are no new authorities for any of our government agencies just because they become FTOs. To the extent that there are, we can easily write legislation to open up those authorities without actually designating them FTOs. Why would we do that? Because there are also downsides to the FTO designation.”
Mr Crenshaw argued that for one thing, it would a “a major diplomatic blow to Mexico’s ego, and could lead to less co-operation, not more”.
“Second, it will surely complicate our current problem with asylum seekers at our southern border,” he said.
“How can we say Mexico is a safe third country while also suggesting it is filled with terrorists? Asylum seekers and their lawyers will surely take advantage of this and potentially make our immigration problem worse.”
Mr Crenshaw said his group’s “final assessment is that the FTO designation makes little sense, except perhaps sending a ‘message’ to the cartels”.
“The most accurate way to describe cartels is this — they are an insurgency willing to engage in terrorist activities when necessary,” he said.
Unintended consequences
Terrorist designation of the cartels has long been floated as a possibility, including by Mr Trump in his first term.
But analysts say prior administrations shied away, fearing the unintended consequences given the cartels are now deeply embedded into Mexico’s economy, including in a number of legitimate industries from avocado farming to tourism.
“This has come up in previous administrations across the political spectrum and from members of Congress who have wanted to do it,” former sanctions policy adviser Samantha Sultoon told The New York Times.
“But no one has done it because they have looked at what the implications would be on trade, economic and financial relationships between Mexico and the United States. They have all come away thinking that such a designation would actually be super short- sighted and ill-considered, though prior administrations viewed the US-Mexico relationship far differently than the incoming Trump administration appears to.”
US firms now face serious compliance risks operating with any Mexican company, as they may unwittingly expose themselves to severe penalties for providing “material support” to the cartels.
“These designations will mean that any payments made by a company to cartel-affiliated organisations or individuals, and any logistical assistance provided to them, could be construed as material support of terror organisations,” FTI Consulting said in a report on Monday.
“The universe of potential parties to be avoided will be very large — and unclear.”
Others have raised humanitarian concerns.
Vanda Felbab-Brown, an organised crime expert at the Brookings Institution, told the Associated Press the order could simply be used as another way for the Trump administration to block asylum seekers.
She noted that because the cartels now control the lucrative migrant smuggling trade, it was virtually impossible for those seeking asylum to pass through Mexico or other Latin American countries without paying some sort of fee to the groups — which could disqualify them.
“Trump can essentially prevent the vast majority of undocumented migrants trying to cross the US border from getting asylum,” she said.
Threat of US attacks
Of far greater concern, however, is the potential reaction of the cartels themselves.
Mexico’s cartels have “significant capability to retaliate” to unilateral military action, warned Doug Livermore, a member of the Atlantic Council think tank’s counter-terrorism group.
“Mexican cartels are not merely criminal organisations — they operate as paramilitary entities with deep financial resources, global supply chains, and sophisticated logistical networks that extend into the US,” Mr Livermore wrote last week.
“It is unlikely that such groups would passively absorb US attacks. Instead, as history shows, cartels are highly likely to retaliate both pre-emptively and reactively. They possess a substantial capacity for terrorism that, when coupled with their established presence within the US, could escalate conflict far beyond what proponents of a purely military solution may anticipate.”
He highlighted the October 2019 arrest by Mexican forces of Ovidio Guzmán López, the son of drug lord and former cartel leader Joaquín ‘El Chapo’ Guzmán.
“The Sinaloa Cartel swiftly unleashed widespread violence,” he said.
“Using armoured vehicles, machine guns, rockets, and other heavy weapons, approximately seven hundred cartel “sicarios” conducted widespread attacks against civilian, government, and military targets across Culiacán. The cartel’s campaign of terror overwhelmed Mexican authorities in what has become known as the ‘Battle of Culiacán’ and ‘Black Thursday’. This incident underscored the cartels’ operational sophistication, which ranges from co-ordinating large-scale attacks to leveraging public fear. And amid all the violence, the government released Guzmán.”
The US homeland would not be immune to similar operations, and military action “would not see the cartels simply ceding the initiative and sitting on their side of the border waiting to be attacked”.
“The very networks that facilitate drug trafficking, spanning from cities (such as Los Angeles and Chicago) to rural communities, provide cartels with the infrastructure for potential retaliatory strikes,” Mr Livermore said.
“Cartels have a history of assassinating government officials in Mexico, and they would likely adopt terrorist tactics in the US against political figures, law-enforcement leaders, and even military personnel.”
He warned US agencies must prepare accordingly.
“The opioid crisis is a danger to US national security that demands urgent action, but that action must be measured, informed, and strategic,” he said.
“Anything less risks compounding the very threats Washington seeks to eliminate and bringing a bloody war directly to US streets.”
Originally published as ‘Retaliatory strikes’: Warning as Donald Trump designates cartels terrorist organisations
Kiwi fury as Trump steals ‘one thing we did’
Moments after being sworn in, President Donald Trump sparked a diplomatic incident 14,000 kilometres away and ruffled feathers in New Zealand with a hefty lie.
‘Going rogue’: Expert’s AI warning
The rapid development of artificial intelligence in everything from healthcare to warfare comes with a growing risk of the tech going rogue.