Office Location is Irving, Texas and Albuquerque, New Mexico
Concerned about immigration issues following President Donald Trump's re-election? Click Here
Office Location is Irving, Texas and Albuquerque, New Mexico
On January 20, 2025, President Donald Trump issued a new presidential proclamation formally labeling certain cartels and transnational criminal organizations as Foreign Terrorist Organizations (FTOs) and Specially Designated Global Terrorists (SDGTs).
This executive order represents a major shift in U.S. legal strategy for combating violent drug cartels. By deploying the legal architecture typically reserved for global terrorist groups such as al-Qaeda, ISIS, or Hezbollah, the administration is extending a powerful set of sanctions and enforcement tools to address threats it perceives at the southern border.
While the administration argues that these designations are necessary to disrupt deadly narcotics trafficking, violent criminal networks, and potential cross-border terrorism, critics worry that the expanded authority may lead to unintended consequences for migrants, asylum seekers, and border communities. There are also significant legal questions about the line between organized crime and terrorism, and whether existing legal frameworks are being stretched beyond their original intent.
In this post, we will break down the underlying statutes that empower such designations, explore how they might alter immigration procedures and due process protections, and highlight resources for those who could be swept up in heightened enforcement.
Under U.S. law, designating an entity as an FTO typically involves close collaboration between the Department of State and the Department of the Treasury, guided primarily by Section 219 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA). This statute outlines the criteria for labeling a foreign organization as “terrorist,” focusing on whether its activities threaten U.S. nationals or national security. Once an organization is deemed an FTO, harsh penalties can be imposed, including broad sanctions and criminal liability for individuals who materially support or maintain membership in those groups.
For Specially Designated Global Terrorists (SDGTs), the U.S. Treasury Department’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) takes the lead. OFAC’s authority stems from several pieces of legislation—most notably, the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA). These designations allow the U.S. government to freeze assets under U.S. jurisdiction, prohibit U.S. persons from dealing with designated entities, and impose travel bans.
Designations have historically focused on entities with overt political or ideological aims. Cartels have long been viewed primarily as criminal enterprises motivated by profit.
The lead-up to this designation can be traced to ongoing rhetoric about the relationship between drug cartels in Mexico and broader security concerns in the United States. Over recent years, there has been an increase in fentanyl trafficking, rising overdose rates in many U.S. communities, and high-profile violent incidents near the southern border. In speeches and media statements, the administration has repeatedly asserted that cartels pose not only a criminal threat but also a national security threat.
At the same time, critics point to official data from agencies like U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) suggesting that while drug seizures remain alarmingly high, other indicators of border-related crime have not spiked to crisis levels that might typically justify terrorist designations.
This discrepancy forms the heart of the debate: is this new policy a necessary escalation or an overreach that threatens civil liberties and humanitarian protections?
While the public version of the proclamation may not list every cartel by name, it broadly authorizes the Department of State and the Department of the Treasury to designate various transnational criminal organizations under terrorism-related statutes. The order also instructs the relevant agencies to regularly review emerging groups and apply the same designation process where criteria are met.
By classifying these organizations as FTOs and SDGTs, the government has substantial leeway to impose criminal penalties on individuals who provide any form of “material support.” This might include financial aid, equipment, or even informal assistance. Additionally, under the SDGT framework, the Treasury can block assets, deny access to the U.S. financial system, and penalize foreign banks doing business with designated entities.
The Executive Order directs agencies—namely State, Treasury, Defense, and Homeland Security—to collaborate in intelligence-sharing, resource allocation, and enforcement operations. With input from the Department of Justice (DOJ), the administration is expected to harness the full spectrum of federal criminal statutes and national security tools to dismantle designated groups.
Applying terrorism-related statutes to cartels raises the alarm about possible overreach, particularly if law enforcement begins to treat suspected low-level affiliates the same way they would treat suspected members of known extremist cells. Lawyers at advocacy organizations such as the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) caution that “material support” charges could be broadly interpreted. For example, a family member unwittingly providing shelter to a loved one with tenuous ties to a cartel might face severe criminal consequences if prosecuted under FTO statutes.
Moreover, immigration courts—already backlogged—may see an uptick in cases where individuals are accused of terrorist involvement merely by residing in areas where cartels operate. This potential “guilt by association” risk can make it harder for migrants to receive fair asylum hearings or defend against removal proceedings.
Designating terrorist organizations is an authority granted in part by Congress through laws like the INA, but historically, the legislature has exercised close oversight over which organizations are labeled terrorists. Some lawmakers argue this latest proclamation represents an end-run around Congress, especially if it leads to large-scale funding reallocations or expanded law enforcement powers not explicitly authorized in existing legislation. Legal scholars are also watching for lawsuits challenging whether the administration adhered to the statutory criteria for designating foreign terrorist organizations or whether politics and policy preferences overshadowed a thorough evidentiary process.
While supporters see labeling cartels as terrorists as a logical extension of national security imperatives, some worry about the potential “slippery slope.” Might this open the door to labeling any large-scale criminal enterprise as a terrorist group, expanding the realm of what the executive branch can do unilaterally? Over time, the line between organized crime and terrorism could blur, complicating law enforcement efforts in both realms. Internationally, it also raises questions about the U.S. stance toward other countries with powerful criminal syndicates or paramilitary groups.
Many individuals crossing the southern border are fleeing violence perpetrated by cartels—gang extortion, kidnappings, forced recruitment, and retaliatory violence are unfortunately common in certain regions. With cartels now deemed terrorist entities, asylum-seekers arguing fear of persecution by these groups might see more complex and possibly contradictory processes. On one hand, the recognition of cartels as terrorist groups could theoretically strengthen claims of persecution; on the other, it could also trigger stricter scrutiny to ensure applicants are not themselves providing material support to a terrorist organization. This paradox could bog down the asylum process, complicating an already convoluted system.
Heightened enforcement in border areas risks straining the relationships between local law enforcement and communities. Residents may feel targeted by investigations, checkpoints, or raids. Those living in migrant communities might worry about racial profiling or extended detentions if they are mistaken for cartel members or supporters. If fear of unjust scrutiny grows, vulnerable populations may be less likely to report crimes or cooperate with police, undermining community safety in the long run.
Any intensification of enforcement measures at ports of entry can slow the flow of goods and people across the border. Local businesses—especially those in agriculture or retail relying on cross-border commerce—could experience economic strain. Critics also highlight how such efforts might affect binational communities that regularly cross for school, work, or familial connections.
Organizations like the ACLU, the American Immigration Lawyers Association (AILA), and Human Rights Watch have expressed concern that the new designations may erode due process and exacerbate xenophobic attitudes toward migrants. They emphasize that cartels are indeed criminally violent but argue that the application of terrorism statutes has historically been intended for ideologically motivated groups seeking to overthrow governments or attack civilian populations for political ends.
Should you or someone you know find yourself under investigation or facing immigration proceedings related to these new FTO or SDGT designations, seek qualified legal assistance from a reputable Irving immigration attorney.
The decision to label certain cartels and other criminal organizations as Foreign Terrorist Organizations and Specially Designated Global Terrorists illustrates a profound shift in how the United States addresses transnational crime. While proponents argue it fortifies national security and disrupts illicit networks, questions remain about its real-world effects on due process, civil liberties, and the already burdened immigration system. For border communities, asylum-seekers, and anyone potentially misidentified as a cartel affiliate, these designations can create further uncertainty and risk.
As an immigration attorney deeply committed to protecting the rights of non-citizens and citizens alike, I urge readers to stay informed, proactively seek legal guidance, and engage in the public discourse around this policy. Transnational organized crime is a grave concern, but the methods we use to combat it must align with constitutional principles, humanitarian obligations, and fair due process.
If you or a loved one is grappling with immigration challenges—especially under the new FTO or SDGT designations—it’s critical to secure skilled legal help. John W. Lawit, a dedicated immigration attorney with extensive experience in complex immigration issues, stands ready to guide you. Whether you’re dealing with asylum claims, removal defense, or questions about how these new designations may affect your case, our office provides the strong legal advocacy you deserve.
Call us at 214-609-2242 to schedule a confidential consultation. Learn about your rights, understand the complexities of these new proclamations, and explore all available pathways to resolution. With so much at stake, you need trusted counsel who will fight for the best possible outcome and ensure you aren’t ensnared by overly broad enforcement policies.
Contact John W. Lawit today for clarity and confidence in a fast-changing immigration landscape. We’re here to help you protect your future and your family.
