When Drug Trafficking Becomes Terrorism: The New Doctrine Unsettling Latin American Politics
For decades, the relationship between drug trafficking and politics in several regions of Latin America was described as a gray zone. There were not always visible criminal structures embedded within the state, but there were ambiguous relationships: campaign donations, funding for community activities, or the presence of underworld figures at political events.
In low‑income neighborhoods, a drug trafficker could be both a criminal and a benefactor — even becoming an adviser to a president, as in the case of the Lebanese national Fabio Jorge Puras, who paid for medical operations, financed sports teams, or contributed to churches and neighborhood associations. In the Dominican Republic, this phenomenon even had a name in popular culture: “el coro”, an informal network where political power, social influence, and illicit money could coexist.
But that model may be facing a structural shift.
A doctrine is beginning to take shape in Washington that seeks to equate major drug cartels with terrorist organizations, opening a new legal and operational framework to pursue anyone who interacts with them.
From Organized Crime to National Security Threat
The debate intensified after statements from figures close to former U.S. President Donald Trump, who argued that cartels should be confronted with tools similar to those used against extremist groups like ISIS or Al‑Qaeda.
According to reporting by The Guardian, U.S. officials have suggested that decades of judicial efforts against drug trafficking have failed to structurally weaken the cartels, and that the phenomenon requires a broader security strategy — potentially including military involvement.
Source: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2026/mar/05/hegseth-latin-america-drug-cartels
The implication is significant: drug trafficking would no longer be treated solely as a criminal offense but as a strategic threat comparable to international terrorism.
This shift coincides with a decision that raised concern in the Dominican Republic: the closure of a key Drug Enforcement Administration office in the country.
According to CNN en Español, the measure followed internal investigations into alleged corruption within the U.S. anti‑drug structure operating in Dominican territory.
Source: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2026/mar/05/hegseth-latin-america-drug-cartels
For some local observers, the news sparked fears that the DEA’s departure could weaken international cooperation against drug trafficking.
However, under Washington’s emerging logic, the fight against these networks would not rely exclusively on the DEA. Agencies such as the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Central Intelligence Agency, and military intelligence structures can also intervene when the phenomenon is considered a national security threat.
The Law That Changes Everything: “Material Support”
The most delicate element of this new doctrine is a U.S. legal framework known as “material support” to terrorism.
Sections 18 U.S.C. §2339A and 18 U.S.C. §2339B establish that providing resources to organizations designated as terrorist groups constitutes a serious federal crime.
According to U.S. Congressional documents, these statutes are among the tools most frequently used by federal prosecutors in terrorism‑related cases.
Source: https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/R41333
The definition of material support is extraordinarily broad and includes:
• money transfers
• professional services
• legal or financial advice
• concealing or disguising the origin of resources
• facilitating logistics or infrastructure
Penalties can reach up to 15 years in prison under Section 2339A and up to 20 years under Section 2339B.
When a Donation Can Become a Federal Crime
The scope of the law is what most concerns legal analysts.
The U.S. Treasury Department has warned that any person or entity conducting transactions with designated organizations could be accused of providing material support to terrorism.
Even receiving boxes of food from a political figure to donate in a neighborhood — if the resources originate from a sanctioned organization — could be considered material support.
Source: https://ofac.treasury.gov/media/934096/download?inline
This means that even seemingly indirect actions — such as channeling resources, managing funds, or receiving money for community projects — could fall under the law if the origin of those resources is linked to a sanctioned organization.
The Birth of “Narco‑Terrorism” in Courtrooms
This new legal language is already appearing in recent cases.
In February 2026, the Drug Enforcement Administration announced charges against an alleged Sinaloa Cartel leader that include narco‑terrorism and material support for terrorism.
Legal analysts argue that this strategy allows U.S. prosecutors to use broader tools for financial investigation and international cooperation.
The real impact of this doctrine may be felt beyond the criminal underworld.
Source: www.lawfaremedia.org/article/the-justice-department-s-multifront-battle-against-drug-cartels
If cartels are formally treated under the legal framework of terrorism, any financial relationship with them could be investigated under U.S. federal law.
This potentially includes:
• political campaign financing
• community donations
• financial intermediation
• legal or business consulting
In such a scenario, a practice long tolerated or ignored — receiving resources from actors linked to drug trafficking for political or social activities — could become evidence of material support for terrorism.
For Caribbean countries like the Dominican Republic, historically located along strategic routes of international drug trafficking, this doctrinal shift could redefine how relationships between organized crime, economic power, and politics are investigated.
This comes as substantial evidence documented by Kapulett begins to emerge regarding the presence of Hezbollah cells in the Dominican Republic operating as financing networks, including powerful law firms in Santiago.
For decades, the fight against drug trafficking focused on capturing kingpins.
But in the new paradigm emerging in Washington, the focus may expand to the financial and political networks that allowed those kingpins to exist.
If this doctrine takes hold, the old “coro” — the blend of illicit money, local power, and social legitimacy — could become something far more dangerous.
It would no longer be simply drug trafficking.
It would be material support for terrorism.
0 Comments