Transnational Gangs Are Just a Prop in Trump's ‘Deportation Theater'
Designating a group as a Foreign Terrorist Organization, or FTO, was once an important and significant measure for the United States government. After more than 3,000 lives were lost in the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, Washington's most visible response was to send troops into Afghanistan and Iraq, while using drones to hunt terrorists throughout the Middle East and Africa, and providing military training, equipment and intelligence to other countries globally to target terrorists. More quietly, and perhaps more effectively, the Justice Department went after anyone who financed or assisted groups on a rapidly growing FTO list.
To some extent, and with plenty of disagreements along the way, that list was replicated by the European Union, the United Nations and others, and then used as a legal justification to target terrorists around the world. There are plenty of arguments that some or all of the strategies the U.S. employed in its so-called Global War on Terrorism were not ideal and even counterproductive. But nobody can deny that the U.S. spent significant time and resources as it focused on the terrorism threat.
In contrast, after his inauguration for a second nonconsecutive term in January, U.S. President Donald Trump's counterterrorism strategy has consisted more of rhetoric than of action. Even as the administration has expanded the definition of terrorism to include transnational violent gangs, few resources have been expended to actually challenge those groups and treat them as a national security threat. Instead, the designations have been used as domestic political fodder to justify Trump's mass deportation campaign, even as the U.S. has cut foreign aid and its overseas presence.
Since Trump took office, his administration has designated 11 new groups as FTOs, 10 of them in the Western Hemisphere. Implementing an executive order that Trump issued in the first week of his new presidency, Secretary of State Marco Rubio designated six Mexican cartels as well as the Salvadoran gang MS-13 and the Venezuelan gang Tren de Aragua, or TdA, as FTOs on Feb. 20. Last week, the administration added two Haitian gangs, Gran Grif and Viv Ansanm, to the list.
To get more in-depth news and expert analysis on global affairs from WPR, sign up for our free Daily Review newsletter.
So far, Washington has not accompanied the designations with much international follow-up. Trump and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth have hinted at the possibility of U.S. military operations against the Mexican cartels within Mexico, but they have yet to act. While unilateral drone strikes may take out some high-value targets or several fentanyl labs, that would represent at best a symbolic victory rather than a real strategy. In the long-term, however, it would be counterproductive, as it would anger the Mexican government, which has rejected any possibility of U.S. forces operating in its territory, in a way that would likely reduce ongoing cooperation, while potentially provoking the cartels to retaliate and doing little to help improve security within Mexico.
Nor has Trump acted against MS-13. In fact, his administration has eagerly cooperated with Salvadoran President Nayib Bukele, whose negotiations with MS-13 and other Salvadoran gangs have been part of his political strategy since the time he was mayor of San Salvador. Last week, for instance, the Salvadoran daily El Faro published interviews with gang members about Bukele's negotiations with the leaders of Barrio 18—MS-13's rival—from that time. Upon subsequently becoming president, Bukele, like his predecessors, continued to negotiate backchannel deals with MS-13. That resulted in the release of various gang leaders several years ago in return for pledges to reduce violence, even as Bukele began to launch his high-profile 'war on gangs.' Trump did Bukele the favor of deporting those leaders back to El Salvador before they could testify in U.S. criminal proceedings against them about their relationship with the Salvadoran president.
Similarly, Trump hasn't acted against Tren de Aragua. His administration has used the purported threat posed by TdA as a justification for invoking the Alien Enemies Act of 1798, which allows the government to expel citizens of a foreign power during times of war. Despite an assessment by the U.S. intelligence community to the contrary, Trump maintains that the TdA is launching an 'invasion' of the U.S. under the direction of the Venezuelan government, and he is using that unsubstantiated accusation to claim increased authority to detain and deport Venezuelan migrants. But this 'deportation theater' has not been accompanied by action against TdA's actual leadership structures and finances around the hemisphere.
With regard to Haiti, the Trump administration has cut aid funding to the Haitian government and is looking to scale back its financial support for a multilateral security support mission currently deployed there. That is hardly an approach commensurate with the concern that Haitian gangs are terrorists representing serious security threats. As with MS-13, the Miami Herald reports that the designation of these Haitian gangs as terrorists is likely about supporting Trump's deportation agenda, rather than a security-focused policy.
The only exception to the Trump administration's record of inaction against FTO-listed groups has been with regard to Yemen's Houthi rebels, who have been attacking commercial shipping in the Red Sea and launching missiles at Israel since the beginning of the war in Gaza. For the past few months, the Trump administration has been engaged in a bombing campaign against the group in an effort to secure the busy maritime artery. However, just weeks after re-designating the Houthis as a terrorist organization, Trump announced a truce, bringing the airstrikes to an abrupt end.
This raises important strategic questions about whether the Trump administration is open to negotiating with terrorists now, and if so, whether the Mexican cartels and TdA might cut a similar deal. Trump's recent pattern of flip-flopping on tariffs is a chaotic strategy that may improve or worsen the U.S. position in trade negotiations. But flip-flopping on defeating a terrorist group can put national security at risk.
So, what is the Trump administration's counterterrorism strategy? Perhaps even engaging in this debate is a form of 'sane-washing,' a term Trump's critics use to describe the process whereby outside analysts seek to rationally evaluate what is likely just a stupid or cruel policy the U.S. president has not really thought through. The administration's counterterrorism approach appears to be a policy designed for domestic consumption rather than international effect. Additionally, it's likely a positive sign that Trump is not pursuing these groups with the level of effort of a full 'global war on terrorism,' given all the negative second-order consequences of that kind of military involvement.
However, whether or not the terrorism designation is justified, these groups are a security threat. So the discussion of what should be done to counter them is worth having.
In theory, the designation of Mexican cartels and Haitian gangs as terrorist organizations should trigger investigations and actions to stop the massive flow of U.S. weapons overseas. Approximately 70 percent of firearms recovered at Mexican crime scenes originate in the United States, and the Caribbean is also awash in illegally trafficked U.S. weapons. If the cartels and gangs are terrorist organizations, then the U.S. firearms dealers, gun shops and straw purchasers who supply them are providing material support to terrorists. That's a serious federal offense that carries lengthy prison sentences. And yet, for political reasons, the Trump administration is unlikely to do anything to prosecute these or any other groups that are part of its support base.
Beyond firearms, there would also be more intelligence-sharing with regional governments, accompanied by increased aid to address the root causes of instability and efforts to target the listed groups' financial networks. While there has been some additional intelligence-sharing with Mexico, the rest of the potential support hasn't increased. In fact, it's been cut.
This underscores one of the most important pieces that is missing in the administration's strategy of designating these groups as FTOs: a consistent application of both the law and the broader policy. In the past, one strength of the terrorist designation has been that private sector companies fear investigation and prosecution for working with the groups on the list. Unfortunately, given the politicized nature of the Trump administration's actions, it's less clear whether and how it will follow through on any of these designations. Worse, it is not clear if it will attack the terrorist groups or negotiate with them. And administration officials have given the impression they will remain friendly with leaders like Bukele and even shake hands with Maduro, despite evidence or credible claims of ties to the groups now designated as terrorists. Finally, designating the Haitian gangs as terrorists while abandoning support for the country and its security forces is illogical and exacerbates a growing risk of instability for the hemisphere.
Whether dealing with terrorism, drug trafficking, corruption or sanctions, simply putting names on a list is not a national security strategy. And in the fight against terrorists, it's never a good idea to politicize the issue when it hurts political opponents and turn a blind eye when allies break the rules. Whether in counterterrorism or foreign policy more generally, those are the kinds of approaches that come back to haunt governments later.
As a result, when the next U.S. administration inherits Trump's terrorism list, it will need to think deeply about what strategies are needed to combat these groups. It is possible that the list itself will need an overhaul after four years in which we will likely see many more flip-flops and domestically focused initiatives that leave real security challenges unaddressed.
James Bosworth is the founder of Hxagon, a firm that does political risk analysis and bespoke research in emerging and frontier markets, as well as a global fellow at the Wilson Center's Latin America Program. He has two decades of experience analyzing politics, economics and security in Latin America and the Caribbean.
The post Transnational Gangs Are Just a Prop in Trump's 'Deportation Theater' appeared first on World Politics Review.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Newsweek
an hour ago
- Newsweek
Donald Trump Touts 'Obliteration' of Iran Sites Seen in Satellite Images
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. President Donald Trump said "monumental damage" was done to Iran's nuclear sites citing satellite imagery after Tehran disputed whether the strikes on the facilities had dealt a knockout blow to the Islamic Republic's atomic program. Trump posted on Truth Social on Sunday that "obliteration is an accurate term" for the strikes on three key Iranian facilities amid attempts by analysts to clarify whether the strikes had completely destroyed Iran's hopes for developing a nuclear bomb. Former Israeli intelligence official Avi Melamed told Newsweek that at this stage, Iran's military nuclear program has been significantly set back by the attacks but not entirely dismantled. President Donald Trump disembarks Marine One upon arrival at the White House South Lawn in Washington, DC, on June 21, 2025. President Donald Trump disembarks Marine One upon arrival at the White House South Lawn in Washington, DC, on June 21, 2025. MEHMET ESER//Getty Images Why It Matters Trump said the U.S. struck Fordow, around 60 miles south of Tehran, as well as the Natanz complex to the southeast and Isfahan, southwest of Natanz. The U.S. president is often accused of hyperbole and social media posts saying Iran's key nuclear enrichment facilities had been destroyed have been greeted with caution by analysts as questions remain over whether the operation dubbed Midnight Hammer spells the end of the Iranian nuclear threat. What To Know On Sunday, Trump posted that "monumental damage" had been done to all nuclear sites in Iran, citing satellite imagery. He described how the white structure in one image was embedded into the rock and the biggest damage took place far below ground level," adding "Bullseye!!!" U.S. Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Dan Caine said there was "severe damage and destruction" to the facilities at Fordow, Natanz and Isfahan, but did not say Iran's nuclear capacities had been obliterated. Trump did not share the imagery in his post but he could have been referring to pictures published by the firm Maxar on Sunday showing large craters or holes at the top of the ridge above the underground complex at Fordow. When asked if Iran still retains any nuclear capability, Caine said that "BDA is still pending" referring to Battle Damage Assessment by intelligence analysts and reconnaissance teams, using data from drones, satellites, radar, or ground reports. Melamed, a Middle East analyst told Newsweek Iran's military nuclear program has been significantly set back—though not entirely dismantled. Craters are visible and ash can be seen on the ridge at Fordow on Sunday, after U.S. strikes on the underground facility. Craters are visible and ash can be seen on the ridge at Fordow on Sunday, after U.S. strikes on the underground facility. Satellite image ©2025 Maxar Technologies Tehran can either escalate, which threatens the regime's survival, or negotiate, which would preserve its power base "while swallowing a bitter pill," he said. At this point, all eyes should be on Beijing who will likely pressure Iran to deescalate. Pranay Vaddi, who served as special assistant to President Joe Biden as well as senior director for arms control, disarmament, and nonproliferation at the National Security Council, told the publication Defense One that if the deeper reaches of Fordow had survived, Iran could still enrich uranium beyond the reach of the monitors of the IAEA (International Atomic Energy Agency). That may require further "high risk" U.S. action if the locations are beyond the reach of bunker-busting bombs. Also, Iran retains substantial know-how on enrichment and possibly nuclear weaponization, added Vaddi, senior nuclear fellow in the Center for Nuclear Security Policy at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. The UN nuclear watchdog chief, Rafael Grossi, has said it was not yet possible to assess the damage done at the Fordow nuclear facility. Iranian state media said key nuclear sites had been evacuated ahead of U.S. attacks, with enriched uranium moved "to a safe location." What People Are Saying President Donald Trump on Truth Social: "Monumental Damage was done to all Nuclear sites in Iran, as shown by satellite images. Obliteration is an accurate term!" Former Israeli intelligence official Avi Melamed: "At this stage, it can be assessed that Iran's military nuclear program has been significantly set back—though not entirely dismantled." Pranay Vaddi, former senior director for arms control, disarmament, and nonproliferation at the National Security Council, to Defense One: "If the deeper reaches of Fordow survive, Iran is able to enrich, and there's no monitoring anymore because Iran suspends any IAEA access, that's a bad outcome and may require further U.S. action." What Happens Next Tehran has threatened retaliation for the strikes. Experts say these could include additional rocket launches at Israel, the disruption of shipping in the Strait of Hormuz or strikes against U.S. military sites.
USA Today
an hour ago
- USA Today
LA isn't burning. ICE has terrorized many into an ominous silence.
The threat of ICE raids on commencement ceremonies was credible enough that our Los Angeles school district devised plans to protect students from being kidnapped as they received their diplomas. Apparently, according to Attorney General Pam Bondi and President Donald Trump, 'California is burning.' Here in Los Angeles, however, we know too well the smell of a serious conflagration ‒ and also the stench of political gas when politicians try to justify corrupt assertions of authoritarian power. We are protesting now not because we are lawless, but because what is happening is a racially selective application of immigration laws that should have been reformed years ago. We are protesting because we still believe in decency, human dignity and respect for hard work and family. Some protesting among us have succumbed to anger, while others have opportunistically caused mayhem the way some revelers do when the Lakers or the Dodgers win a championship. Meanwhile the president and his ministers of cruelty, hysteria and lies are opportunistically causing far more mayhem, disrupting businesses and communities and devastating families and insulting our brave troops by gratuitously deploying them to our streets, pitting them against American civilians, trying to use the selfless members of our military as an authoritarian flex. Rogue opportunists don't represent all LA protesters California is not burning. LA is not burning. Some cars and other objects have been set ablaze by a few individuals who are willing to go to jail for their outrage, nihilism, pyromania or whatever. Their conduct doesn't represent me or most of the rest of us. They certainly do not represent my students now living with terror and dread, watching masked Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents in armored vehicles occupying the parking lots of their supermarkets, scrolling the rumors that scream across social media about the next ICE raid at another Home Depot or factory or a school graduation. The threat of ICE raids on this spring's commencement ceremonies was credible enough that our Los Angeles school district officials devised plans to protect parents, grandparents, and other friends and family members and the students themselves from being kidnapped as they receive their diplomas. My students didn't talk much about it during their last days of the school year. They were trying to be happy about the impending summer vacation. They are exhausted. They spent more than a year of their childhood isolated from peers by the COVID-19 pandemic, many of them trapped in chaotic circumstances, watching the parents who are now treated as expendable when they were essential workers compelled to risk their health and their family's health to keep things going for the rest of us. Some watched those parents get sick and in some cases die or infect grandparents or aunts and uncles who died. My students saw those sacrifices of their parents rewarded with vicious slights and condemnations, heard them called criminals for their very presence in this country. Those adults now must wonder if it is safe to go to work anymore, if there is any other way to provide food and shelter. This summer, end-of-the-school-year silence was ominous We can only guess what is happening to many of our students and their families, though. Not only because of their silent stoicism but because, actually, most stopped attending classes ‒ more of them than usual, even for the last week of school. I don't know what that means but I can imagine. One girl told me almost no one showed up recently at her usually crowded church. With fear and apprehension come small doses of relief. When a graduation goes unmolested by federal agents. When a kid reaches out by email to say they and their family are all right ‒ and asked that I round their grade up to a B. The end of a school year usually brings a silence that is a break from the constant cacophony. This year, that end-of-the-day at the end-of-the-school-year silence was ominous. This year, that silence reminds me of the cruelties. Not just the ICE raids and not just the threats to people who wish to exercise their First Amendment rights, but also the threats to Pell Grants and other forms of student financial aid that could derail the hopes and dreams of my students and undermine the hard work that my colleagues and I commit ourselves to every day. As a parent myself, I know how difficult it is to go through adolescence with a child. It can be frustrating and terrifying, and the feelings of powerlessness can overwhelm. I cannot imagine what it is like to experience that and wonder if you're going to suddenly be seized by armed men and not know if you will ever see your child again. So when I see the silent stoicism of my students, I don't know what to make of it. Is it fatalism or denial disguised as optimism or something else that I don't understand? Whatever it is, my colleagues and I will continue to indulge it and keep things as optimistic as the kids want it, understanding that there could be some we won't ever see again and others returning to school without parents at home. We will try to prepare ourselves to pick up the pieces left by the brutality that is being unleashed on some of the most vulnerable people in our city. Larry Strauss, a high school English teacher in South Los Angeles since 1992, is the author of 'Students First and Other Lies: Straight Talk From a Veteran Teacher' and "A Lasting Impact in the Classroom and Beyond," a book for new and struggling teachers.
San Francisco Chronicle
an hour ago
- San Francisco Chronicle
GOP tax bill would ease regulations on gun silencers and some rifles and shotguns
WASHINGTON (AP) — The massive tax and spending cuts package that President Donald Trump wants on his desk by July 4 would loosen regulations on gun silencers and certain types of rifles and shotguns, advancing a longtime priority of the gun industry as Republican leaders in the House and Senate try to win enough votes to pass the bill. The guns provision was first requested in the House by Georgia Rep. Andrew Clyde, a Republican gun store owner who had initially opposed the larger tax package. The House bill would remove silencers — called 'suppressors' by the gun industry — from a 1930s law that regulates firearms that are considered the most dangerous, eliminating a $200 tax while removing a layer of background checks. The Senate kept the provision on silencers in its version of the bill and expanded upon it, adding short-barreled, or sawed-off, rifles and shotguns. Republicans who have long supported the changes, along with the gun industry, say the tax infringes on Second Amendment rights. They say silencers are mostly used by hunters and target shooters for sport. 'Burdensome regulations and unconstitutional taxes shouldn't stand in the way of protecting American gun owners' hearing,' said Clyde, who owns two gun stores in Georgia and often wears a pin shaped like an assault rifle on his suit lapel. Democrats are fighting to stop the provision, which was unveiled days after two Minnesota state legislators were shot in their homes, as the bill speeds through the Senate. They argue that loosening regulations on silencers could make it easier for criminals and active shooters to conceal their weapons. 'Parents don't want silencers on their streets, police don't want silencers on their streets,' said Senate Democratic leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y. The gun language has broad support among Republicans and has received little attention as House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., and Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., work to settle differences within the party on cuts to Medicaid and energy tax credits, among other issues. But it is just one of hundreds of policy and spending items included to entice members to vote for the legislation that could have broad implications if the bill is enacted within weeks, as Trump wants. Inclusion of the provision is also a sharp turn from the climate in Washington just three years ago when Democrats, like Republicans now, controlled Congress and the White House and pushed through bipartisan gun legislation. The bill increased background checks for some buyers under the age of 21, made it easier to take firearms from potentially dangerous people and sent millions of dollars to mental health services in schools. Passed in the summer of 2022, just weeks after the shooting of 19 children and two adults at a school in Uvalde, Texas, it was the most significant legislative response to gun violence in decades. Three years later, as they try to take advantage of their consolidated power in Washington, Republicans are packing as many of their longtime priorities as possible, including the gun legislation, into the massive, wide-ranging bill that Trump has called 'beautiful." 'I'm glad the Senate is joining the House to stand up for the Second Amendment and our Constitution, and I will continue to fight for these priorities as the Senate works to pass President Trump's One Big Beautiful Bill,' said Texas Sen. John Cornyn, who was one of the lead negotiators on the bipartisan gun bill in 2022 but is now facing a primary challenge from the right in his bid for reelection next year. If the gun provisions remain in the larger legislation and it is passed, silencers and the short-barrel rifles and shotguns would lose an extra layer of regulation that they are subject to under the National Firearms Act, passed in the 1930s in response to concerns about mafia violence. They would still be subject to the same regulations that apply to most other guns — and that includes possible loopholes that allow some gun buyers to avoid background checks when guns are sold privately or online. Larry Keane of the National Shooting Sports Foundation, who supports the legislation, says changes are aimed at helping target shooters and hunters protect their hearing. He argues that the use of silencers in violent crimes is rare. 'All it's ever intended to do is to reduce the report of the firearm to hearing safe levels,' Keane says. Speaking on the floor before the bill passed the House, Rep. Clyde said the bill restores Second Amendment rights from 'over 90 years of draconian taxes.' Clyde said Johnson included his legislation in the larger bill 'with the purest of motive.' 'Who asked for it? I asked,' said Clyde, who ultimately voted for the bill after the gun silencer provision was added. Clyde was responding to Rep. Maxwell Frost, a 28-year-old Florida Democrat, who went to the floor and demanded to know who was responsible for the gun provision. Frost, who was a gun-control activist before being elected to Congress, called himself a member of the 'mass shooting generation' and said the bill would help 'gun manufacturers make more money off the death of children and our people.' 'There's a reason silencers have been regulated for nearly a century: They make it much harder for law enforcement and bystanders to react quickly to gunshots,' said John Feinblatt, president of Everytown for Gun Safety. Schumer and other Democrats are trying to convince the Senate parliamentarian to drop the language as she reviews the bill for policy provisions that aren't budget-related. 'Senate Democrats will fight this provision at the parliamentary level and every other level with everything we've got,' Schumer said earlier this month.
