Historic U.S. designations of cartels as terrorist organizations

In February 2025, the U.S. Department of State formally designated eight major transnational criminal organizations — including Mexican drug cartels and violent gangs — as Foreign Terrorist Organizations (FTOs) and Specially Designated Global Terrorists (SDGTs) under U.S. law. This marked the first time entities typically considered criminal networks were placed on terror lists normally reserved for extremist groups.

The groups named included:

• Cártel de Sinaloa

• Cártel de Jalisco Nueva Generación (CJNG)

• Carteles Unidos

• Cártel del Noreste

• Cártel del Golfo

• La Nueva Familia Michoacana

• Tren de Aragua

• Mara Salvatrucha (MS‑13)
  These designations took effect when published in the Federal Register on February 20, 2025.

Why the U.S. used terrorism law for criminal networks

The U.S. government argues that these organizations meet the legal criteria for terrorist designations because they engage in systemic violence, intimidation, kidnapping, extortion, and the mass trafficking of deadly drugs like fentanyl into the United States — activities that threaten public safety and U.S. national security.

Under U.S. law, an FTO label means:

• U.S. persons and institutions cannot provide material support to the group.

• Assets and financial holdings can be frozen under counterterrorism sanctions.

• Non‑U.S. members and affiliates can face immigration consequences or prosecution for association.

This framework largely stems from an executive order (EO 14157) issued on January 20, 2025, which specifically created a process to include transnational criminal organizations on terrorism lists.

 Expansion beyond the initial list

The policy continued expanding throughout late 2025. For example, the U.S. State Department designated Colombia’s Clan del Golfo — a major cocaine‑trafficking group — as an FTO and SDGT in December 2025. That designation frames the group as a violent actor financing terror through drug trafficking and attacks on civilians and officials, extending the U.S. counterterrorism approach to organized crime beyond Mexico.

Legal and operational consequences

Designating cartels as FTOs and SDGTs has several practical effects:

• Sanctions and asset freezes: U.S. authorities can more aggressively target cartel finances, including bank accounts, affiliated businesses, and international transactions. Penalties apply to anyone — including foreign companies or individuals — who knowingly deal with these groups.

• Criminal prosecution: Members and affiliates can be charged under terrorism‑related statutes such as providing material support to terrorist organizations, narcoterrorism, and related offenses. High‑ranking cartel members have been indicted under these frameworks.

• Coordinated enforcement: Domestic task forces, like a Homeland Security Task Force in Pennsylvania, highlight U.S. efforts to dismantle cartels and transnational criminal networks under this expanded legal toolset.

U.S. counterterrorism agencies, including the National Counterterrorism Center (NCTC), have integrated cartel tracking and arrests into broader terrorism monitoring efforts.

International and regional reactions

The move has generated mixed reactions across the Western Hemisphere:

• Some allied countries have pursued similar terrorist designations, aligning with U.S. policy goals.

• Other governments, including Mexico, have expressed concerns that using terrorism law to target criminal groups could conflict with national sovereignty or risk escalation of cross‑border enforcement and potential military involvement. Some Mexican leaders have even proposed constitutional reforms in response.

Critics also note that traditional counterterrorism law — designed for ideological insurgents — may not neatly fit broad criminal enterprises whose motives are primarily economic.

Broader implications and controversy

The designation raises important questions about the scope and boundaries of counterterrorism policy:

• Whether terrorism statutes should be used to prosecute organizations driven by profit rather than political ideology.

• How far the U.S. can or should go in applying such classifications without formal military action or international cooperation frameworks. Analysts warn that expanding FTO lists could have implications for companies doing business in affected regions and for diplomatic relations.

Supporters argue the policy provides law enforcement and financial tools previously unavailable, while opponents caution it could blur legal standards and complicate regional diplomacy.