Trump Declares Cartels Unlawful Combatants: A Fight for Sovereignty
President Donald Trump has finally named the enemy and changed the rules of engagement. Declaring Mexican drug cartels unlawful combatants and recognizing a “non-international armed conflict” is a seismic shift in national security policy. This move treats cartel operations as war, not just crime.
For decades Washington boxed itself into a law-enforcement mindset and assumed courts and indictments would be enough. That approach ignored how cartels behave like insurgent organizations—territorial, corrupting, and brutally efficient. The result was strategic failure and creeping violence on our border communities.
We refused to define the cartels as belligerents — and fought the wrong fight.
The failed law-enforcement lens and hybrid threats
Labeling cartel activity as ordinary criminality guaranteed we never matched the threat with the tools needed to defeat it. Prosecutors can seize assets and lock up operatives, but cartels use bribery, intimidation, and parallel institutions to reconstitute power faster than courts can dismantle it. That mismatch created pockets of effective governance for these groups inside Mexico and spillover harm for Americans.
Cartels are hybrid belligerents. They control territory, impose taxes, adjudicate disputes, and run shadow protections that mirror local governance. They use drones, tunnels, jammers, encrypted communications, and sophisticated logistics networks across land, sea, air, underground, cyber, and electromagnetic domains.
Those capabilities make them more like insurgent movements than simple gangs; they recruit, gather intelligence, infiltrate institutions, and operate with tactical precision. Their corruption extends into police forces, prosecutors, and political elites, allowing them to blend criminal enterprise with political influence and state capture.
Mass migration is another frontline in their toolkit. Cartels traffic people and exploit migration flows to overwhelm systems, mask operatives, and shift demographics in ways that weaken targeted communities. This is not accidental smuggling; it is strategic destabilization designed to bend borders and institutions to cartel advantage.
Under federal law, terrorism includes violence intended “to intimidate or coerce a civilian population” or “influence government policy.” By that standard, some cartel organizations meet the definition of terrorist groups because their violence is political and coercive. Treating them as unlawful combatants allows military and interagency tools to go after networks, safe havens, and command structures rather than just street-level dealers.
“How you define the environment determines how you operate in it.” That Marine Corps lesson is painful to watch when applied to decades of policy mistakes. Defining the problem changes doctrine, authorities, and resource allocation.
We saw similar mistakes in Afghanistan where aid and force were misapplied, empowering the very actors we meant to defeat. “Mexico today is more accurately described as a state where governance has collapsed in key regions and foreign terrorist organizations dominate political and economic life, much like Afghanistan.” That is the plain warning from experts who have watched cartel power grow unchecked.
Global reach, coordinated response, and the path forward
Cartels are not only a regional threat; they now reach across continents. They exploit global supply chains, money laundering networks, and state actors who benefit from deniable proxies that undermine Western stability. China supplies precursors, Iran and proxy groups exploit smuggling routes, and corrupt networks in multiple countries enable production and distribution.
Designating cartels as unlawful combatants unlocks a full-spectrum response. Treasury actions can choke financial arteries, the IRS can follow illicit flows, defense assets can support interdiction and intelligence, and justice tools can be synchronized for maximum legal effect. This is about matching the enemy’s scale with a coordinated national strategy.
America’s adversaries use cartels as convenient cutouts: deniable, flexible, and brutally effective. The new framework allows us to treat those connections as part of a broader campaign of malign influence and hybrid warfare. If we accept the scope of the problem, interagency tools can finally dismantle networks rather than paper over symptoms.
As Secretary of War Pete Hegseth said, “Our number-one job is to be strong so that we can prevent war in the first place.” Strength deters, and decisive strategy defeats. “Should our enemies choose foolishly to test us, they will be crushed by the violence, precision, and ferocity of the War Department. In other words, to our enemies: FAFO.”
The declaration is only the first step. Congress, state governments, and citizens must support sustained pressure, legal clarity, and resources targeted where they make the most strategic difference. Half measures and bureaucratic paralysis will let cartels regroup and continue to corrode our sovereignty.
This is a moment for clarity and resolve. America is under attack by hybrid forces that exploit weakness and evade traditional remedies. The commander in chief has drawn a line; now the nation must back that line with policy, will, and the instruments of victory.
The choice is simple: treat this as a war and mobilize accordingly, or keep calling it a crime while the threat expands. Republican principles demand we choose strength, national sovereignty, and action. The time to act was yesterday; the time to win is now.
