Sovereignty Under Siege: The Geostrategic Imperative of U.S. Action on Cartels
In the aftermath of World War II, the United States emerged as the chief architect and enforcer of a rules-based international order, promoting stability, law, and democratic governance worldwide. While discussions of the stability of the United States-led global order often focus on state actors and geopolitical rivalries, the unchecked power of transnational criminal organizations poses an equally severe challenge. Cartel-related violence claims approximately 30,000 lives in Mexico annually, while fentanyl and other narcotics trafficked by cartels caused 70,000 overdose deaths in the United States in 2024 alone. With a combined toll of 100,000 deaths per year, this level of devastation is comparable to the average annual death toll of the Vietnam War.
If Washington fails to eradicate the violent transnational cartels operating with impunity in both Mexico and within U.S. borders, it will convey a clear message to the international community: the United States cannot uphold the rule of law, even in its vicinity. This failure would not only embolden adversaries but also weaken the United States’ standing as the global enforcer of law and order.
Addressing this challenge decisively is imperative. Dismantling the cartels is not only a matter of domestic security but also a necessary step in restoring the legitimacy of the United States as the leader in the fight for a peaceful, law-abiding world.
A Direct Challenge to Sovereignty and the Rule of Law
Mexican cartels pose the most immediate and destabilizing security threat in the Western Hemisphere. Their geographic proximity allows them to flood the United States with fentanyl, weapons, and trafficked humans, while their unchecked violence has turned vast swaths of Mexico into lawless zones. The Sinaloa and Jalisco New Generation Cartels (CJNG)—each boasting an estimated 45,000 members across over 100 countries—are insurgent-like forces controlling territory, corrupting governments, and challenging state authority on both sides of the border.
These cartels generate up to $29 billion annually through drug trafficking, extortion, human smuggling, and illicit resource extraction. Cartel-related violence in Mexico is staggering, with over 30,000 crime-related deaths annually, including targeted assassinations of politicians, journalists, and law enforcement officers. As of 2024, cartels effectively control between 30% to 40% of Mexican territory, with Sinaloa and CJNG exerting dominance over entire municipalities. Their influence extends beyond direct violence—cartels have infiltrated municipal governments in at least 20 of Mexico’s 32 states, leveraging bribery and coercion to manipulate law enforcement and judicial institutions. The consequences of this unchecked power are severe: cartel-driven conflict has displaced at least 380,000 Mexicans since 2006, forcing many to flee their homes to escape violence.
The presence of powerful Mexican cartels in the United States poses a significant threat to the rule of law. Their activities encompass drug and weapon smuggling, human trafficking, and other illicit operations that challenge U.S. legal frameworks. The opioid crisis, heavily influenced by fentanyl produced by these cartels, has led to a staggering number of overdose deaths. Projections indicate that from 2016 to 2025, approximately 700,400 individuals in the United States are expected to die from opioid overdoses, with 80% of these deaths attributed to illicit opioids. Despite the United States allocating substantial resources to combat drug smuggling—totaling over $1 trillion since 1989—cartels continue to exploit extensive trafficking networks, corrupt institutions, and overwhelm law enforcement capabilities. Their ability to smuggle narcotics into the United States on an industrial scale undermines federal and state efforts to address the opioid crisis, challenging the effectiveness of American sovereignty and the enforcement of the rule of law.
Failure to confront this challenge sends a message that sovereignty and the rule of law are negotiable, even within U.S. borders. For American leadership to be taken seriously on the international stage, the first step is addressing the threats directly within its own hemisphere. This means dismantling the cartels that pose such a profound risk to both U.S. and Mexican sovereignty.
Exploitation By Beijing
The People’s Republic of China has astutely recognized that the United States’ ongoing struggle with drug cartels presents a strategic opportunity to undermine U.S. credibility in promoting a rules-based international order.
A primary method of this interference involves the supply of precursor chemicals essential for fentanyl production. Manufacturers based in the PRC export these substances to Mexico, where cartels synthesize them into fentanyl, which is then trafficked into the United States. This influx has precipitated a severe opioid crisis, straining public health systems and law enforcement resources. Despite U.S. efforts to curb this supply chain, the PRC’s regulatory measures remain insufficient, allowing the continuous flow of these critical chemicals.
Beyond chemical exports, Chinese financial networks play a crucial role in laundering the substantial profits generated by cartel activities. The Department of Justice has uncovered pervasive collaborations between cartels and money-laundering syndicates originating from the PRC, which facilitate the repatriation of illicit funds back to Mexico. This financial support not only empowers the cartels but also signifies a deliberate strategy by the PRC to exploit and deepen systemic weaknesses within the U.S.
As the United States allows cartels to thrive, its moral authority to advocate for international law and order is compromised. This erosion of credibility enables the PRC to expand its influence, proposing alternative governance models that challenge Western ideals. By covertly bolstering entities that destabilize U.S. domestic stability, the PRC effectively undermines Washington’s global standing and its ability to champion the very principles it seeks to promote worldwide.
Implications and Policy Options
The Trump administration’s January 20, 2025 executive order designating cartels and other transnational criminal organizations as Foreign Terrorist Organizations (FTOs) is a significant step in recognizing the threat these groups pose. By framing their activities as more than mere organized crime, this policy acknowledges their role in destabilizing the Western Hemisphere and undermining international norms.
While critics of Trump’s FTO order argue that terrorist designations are reserved for groups with explicitly political motives, Mexican cartels have increasingly blurred the line between organized crime and insurgency. The Sinaloa and CJNG control territory, assassinate officials, and coerce governments—hallmarks of insurgency. Designating them as FTOs is not just symbolic; it expands U.S. legal tools to prosecute enablers, seize assets, and enhance intelligence operations, treating cartels as the national security threat they are. Limiting counter-cartel efforts to traditional law enforcement has failed—this designation enables a broader, more decisive strategy to dismantle their influence.
If the United States successfully dismantles the cartels, it will send a resounding message to allies and adversaries alike: Washington retains the will and capability to uphold international law and stability. A decisive campaign against these organizations would restore confidence in U.S. leadership within the hemisphere, reinforcing its credibility in diplomatic negotiations and security partnerships. Countries facing similar transnational threats—such as Colombia, Ecuador, and the Philippines—would look to the United States as a model. Colombia continues to battle cartel-like narcotrafficking groups, Ecuador struggles with escalating cartel-driven violence and political assassinations, and the Philippines confronts entrenched drug syndicates that weaken state authority. A U.S. victory over the cartels would strengthen partnerships with these nations, demonstrating that sovereignty and law enforcement norms—not just rhetoric.
Conversely, failure to neutralize the cartels would erode the standing of the United States in the international system. If these organizations continue operating with impunity, the credibility of U.S. commitments to the rule of law and sovereignty will be severely weakened. Allies may question Washington’s reliability, while adversaries would see an opportunity to expand their influence. The PRC, in particular, could leverage the United States’ inability to contain criminal enterprises within its own hemisphere as evidence of the failures of the U.S.-championed rules-based order. This would embolden Beijing’s alternative governance models, accelerating the decline of U.S. influence in regions where strategic competition is most intense.
A strong U.S. stance against cartels would enhance, not strain, Latin American relations by reinforcing shared security goals. FTO designation unlocks intelligence-sharing, law enforcement cooperation, and financial tools to disrupt cartel networks, strengthening regional stability. Rather than alienating allies, this approach empowers them—bolstering sovereignty, countering crime, and solidifying U.S. leadership as a reliable security partner.
The geopolitical stakes of this decision are clear: either the U.S. reinforces its role as the world’s enforcer of law and order, or it risks ceding that position to those who would reshape global norms to its detriment.
Credibility at a Crossroads
The unchecked power of transnational cartels is not just a regional crisis but a defining test of American leadership. The ability to confront and dismantle these organizations will shape the credibility of the United States as a guarantor of global stability. If left unchallenged, their influence will continue to erode the very principles of sovereignty and security that underpin the international order. However, decisive action would demonstrate that the United States still possesses the resolve to confront evolving threats and defend its strategic interests. The choice is clear: either Washington reasserts control and redefines its leadership in an era of asymmetric challenges, or it concedes ground to those who thrive in lawlessness. The stakes are nothing less than the future of the global order the United States once built—and whether it still has the will to uphold it.
Views expressed are the author’s own and do not represent the views of GSSR, Georgetown University, or any other entity. Image Credit: Reuters. Editorial Note: Pursuant to a request by the author, some language in this column has been altered to be more appropriate. The text had initially referred to “backyard” instead of “vicinity,” which has been changed to avoid insinuations of dependency, possession, or an otherwise inherently unequal relationship between the United States and Latin American states, which is not the case.