Narco-Terrorism: The Convergence of Cartel Violence & Global Security Threats

The term narco-terrorism, once an academic and counter-terrorism buzzword, has entered the mainstream of United States criminal justice and political discourse. Its resurgence is not coincidental. On 13 May 2025, the Department of Justice (DoJ) unsealed a sweeping indictment against multiple leaders of the Sinaloa Cartel, charging them with narco-terrorism, material support of terrorism, and drug trafficking. This landmark case marks the first time such charges have been applied to cartel figures, redefining the boundary between transnational crime and terrorism.

The indictment follows the inauguration of Donald Trump for a second, non-consecutive term as President of the United States in January 2025. Having designated the Sinaloa Cartel as a Foreign Terrorist Organization (FTO) in February, his administration is accelerating a policy strategy that treats powerful drug cartels as terrorist threats. While narco-terrorism is not about Trump per se, his presidency provides the political and operational backdrop against which this prosecutorial milestone has occurred.

What Is Narco-Terrorism?

Narco-terrorism refers to the intersection of drug trafficking and terrorism, where criminal organisations use violence to advance narcotics operations or channel drug profits to support terrorist activity. The term was first coined in the 1980s in reference to groups like Peru’s Shining Path and Colombia’s FARC, which leveraged the drug trade to finance insurgency. Over time, the definition has broadened to encompass terrorist groups involved in drug trafficking and cartels using terrorist-style tactics.

Under US federal law, narco-terrorism is codified in Title 21, Section 960a of the United States Code. This statute criminalises drug-related conduct undertaken to support terrorism or carried out by persons involved in terrorist activity. . Though it was introduced in 2006, the law remained largely dormant for nearly two decades, with no successful prosecutions recorded until the 2025 indictment of senior Sinaloa Cartel figures. This landmark case marks the first known application of the statute, signalling a significant shift in how US authorities deploy counter-terrorism laws to combat the convergence of narcotics trafficking and extremist violence.

The Sinaloa Indictment: Setting a Precedent

The charges announced on 13 May 2025 represent a legal and political milestone. Federal prosecutors allege that senior leaders of the Sinaloa Cartel trafficked staggering quantities of fentanyl, cocaine, methamphetamine and heroin into the United States while employing violence indistinguishable from terrorism: mass executions, torture videos, intimidation of government officials, and targeting of civilian populations.

What makes this indictment historic is not merely the scale of the cartel’s drug operations, but the legal framing of their methods. The charges include narco-terrorism and material support of terrorism, placing cartel conduct in the same category as jihadist terrorism. Years of international coordination, surveillance and undercover operations were required to build the case. Prosecutors argue that the cartel did not merely seek profit but used violence to exert political control and instil fear: qualifying conditions under US terrorism statutes.

Trump’s Political Framing: Cartels as Terrorist Entities

Donald Trump has long advocated for treating Mexican drug cartels as terrorist organisations. In his first term, he considered an FTO designation but stopped short of implementing it. Now in office for a second time, he has followed through. In February 2025, the Sinaloa Cartel was formally designated as a Foreign Terrorist Organization. This has paved the way for broader counterterrorism measures against the cartel and provided a legal basis for the DoJ’s charges.

Trump’s framing of narco-terrorism is more than rhetorical. In campaign speeches and policy papers, he has promised to deploy US military forces to dismantle cartel infrastructure, authorise cross-border raids, and treat cartel leaders as enemy combatants. The narco-terrorism charges lend legal legitimacy to these plans, aligning law enforcement action with the national security priorities of his administration.

Legal & Strategic Implications

The use of narco-terrorism charges represents a doctrinal shift. Traditional drug enforcement laws focus on trafficking and distribution, whereas terrorism statutes allow for more aggressive tools: extraterritorial jurisdiction, asset seizures under counter-terrorism legislation, intelligence-based surveillance, and material support charges that broaden the liability net to include financiers, facilitators, and intermediaries.

This legal strategy also permits inter-agency and international cooperation on a new scale. Agencies like the DEA, FBI, and Homeland Security Investigations are increasingly integrating their operations, while diplomatic channels with Mexico and Latin American partners are being tested by the extraterritorial reach of US prosecutions.

Critically, the designation of cartels as FTOs may impact international treaties, diplomatic relations, and civil liberties. Mexico has long opposed the terrorist designation of its criminal groups, arguing it infringes on sovereignty and risks militarising bilateral cooperation. Civil rights advocates within the US also warn that the expansive use of terrorism laws could lead to due process violations or the misuse of intelligence powers in domestic law enforcement.

Where Does Narco-Terrorism Sit Within the AML/CTF Framework?

Although narco-terrorism is not a formal typology within the global anti-money laundering and counter-terrorist financing (AML/CTF) framework, it intersects significantly with both strands. Drug trafficking proceeds fall squarely under money laundering rules, while any use of those proceeds to support terrorist organisations is captured under terrorist financing legislation.

Under FATF Recommendations, jurisdictions are required to assess and mitigate the risks of both money laundering and terrorism financing. Narco-terrorism, as a hybrid threat, presents a convergence of these obligations. Financial institutions and regulators must be prepared to identify red flags that suggest dual-purpose criminal networks; those that not only launder narcotics proceeds but also direct funds to sanctioned terrorist entities.

The lack of typology recognition creates challenges. Law enforcement and compliance teams often treat drug crime and terrorism as separate categories. Moreover, some jurisdictions resist applying terrorism laws to cartels for political reasons, complicating international cooperation. Nonetheless, the risk-based approach promoted by FATF encourages states and institutions to account for such evolving threats. The growing use of terrorism designations against drug cartels suggests that narco-terrorism will require enhanced typology development, integrated screening, and improved cross-sector intelligence sharing going forward.

Expect an Increase in Narco-Terrorism Prosecutions

Now that a precedent has been set, further prosecutions under narco-terrorism statutes are expected. Task forces are reportedly investigating other cartels, including the Jalisco New Generation Cartel (CJNG), and probing financial trails that link traffickers with foreign terror groups in the Middle East and Africa. Narco-terrorism charges may also begin appearing in cases involving trafficking routes through West Africa, which have long been exploited by Islamist insurgents.

Financial intelligence units (FIUs), including the Treasury Department’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC), are expected to escalate sanctions against individuals and networks facilitating narco-terrorism. Sanctions under the Foreign Narcotics Kingpin Designation Act are increasingly being layered with counter-terrorism sanctions, expanding the reach and consequences of compliance failures within the financial sector.

This evolution will place additional pressure on financial institutions, particularly in areas such as correspondent banking, trade-based money laundering, and emerging technologies like cryptocurrencies and digital wallets. Firms will need to enhance screening tools, bolster typology recognition, and revisit their understanding of the convergence between crime and terrorism risk.

Conclusion: Blurring the Lines Between Crime & Conflict

The prosecution of Sinaloa Cartel leaders under narco-terrorism charges marks a watershed moment in US legal and strategic doctrine. It demonstrates a growing willingness to conflate organised crime with terrorism in response to scale, brutality, and global impact. While this strategy carries operational and diplomatic risks, it also reflects the complex threat environment of the twenty-first century, where ideological and financial violence increasingly converge.

This is not merely a change in tactics, it is a change in narrative. Narco-terrorism reframes the conversation from one about drugs to one about war. The implications for law, diplomacy, intelligence and civil liberties will be profound. As more prosecutions follow, the United States and its allies will need to balance the urgent need for security with a careful defence of justice, accountability, and international legal norms.

The battle against narco-terrorism has only just begun. But its consequences are already reshaping how we define and combat the greatest threats to global security.