The policies of Donald Trump may make the United States more susceptible to the hazardous trafficking of synthetic drugs from other countries, despite the administration’s commitment to preventing fentanyl from entering the nation, according to former government officials.
This week, Trump enacted tariffs on Mexico, Canada, and China, supposedly as a strategy to reduce the influx of illegal drugs into the US.
Jim Crotty, who previously served as the deputy chief of staff at the Drug Enforcement Administration, described this strategy as “coercive” and warned that it could produce unintended consequences. Additionally, cuts to federal funding could compromise the security of US borders, as noted by Enrique Roig, a former State Department official who managed the Bureau of International Narcotics and Law Enforcement Affairs (INL) portfolios and has also worked with USAid.
In 2023, the US saw a notable decrease in overdose deaths for the first time in years, after a long period of increases. However, Crotty emphasizes that this progress is precarious.
“We’re witnessing a decline in overdose deaths, and everyone is still trying to figure out the reasons. I don’t believe this is the moment to halt any of the current initiatives, as we know that at least some of them, or a combination thereof, have been effective,” Crotty remarked.
Roig concurred: “All these efforts need to work together harmoniously.”
Cuts in federal funding may place the US at a disadvantage regarding drug detection technology. The global drug market has increasingly focused on highly potent synthetic substances like fentanyl and new nitazenes. These drugs often enter the US as powders or precursor chemicals that occupy minimal space and are challenging to detect by smell.
Roig states that advanced drug detection technology is essential, but Trump’s federal budget and staffing reductions mean less funding available for the latest technology and fewer personnel to implement it.
Ram Ben Tzion, CEO of Publican— a company supplying drug detection technology to non-US government agencies— explains that state-of-the-art techniques can identify suspicious shipments even before they reach the border. Publican employs large language models to detect shipments that “don’t seem to make sense” and are likely to contain illegal substances. For instance, the company once uncovered fentanyl precursors in a package sent to a residential address in California; the shipment claimed to contain fashion items but originated from a Chinese construction firm.
Similarly, the UN Container Control Programme, historically funded by the State Department, assists authorities in identifying suspicious shipments before they arrive at their destinations. This program has enabled law enforcement worldwide to seize hundreds of tons of illegal drugs annually. Roig mentions that funding cuts have hindered the program’s implementation in Mexico, despite it being a key security focus for Trump.
Some of Trump’s actions appear more performative than effective, according to Crotty and Roig. The classification of certain cartels as terrorist organizations “doesn’t achieve much”.
Crotty views this designation as largely symbolic, given that these entities were already labeled transnational criminal organizations. Roig claims that other measures are a detrimental waste of resources. Just this week, the administration halted the use of military aircraft to deport immigrants, including those charged with drug-related offenses, due to the excessive costs.
Roig argues that this action was unnecessary since “ICE already operates its own fleet of planes” that are much more cost-effective.
Crotty expresses concern that such aggressive tactics could backfire.
“The Mexican populace is very protective of their culture and sovereignty. If you apply too much pressure, could it lead to more harm than good?” he questioned.
Mexico deployed 10,000 troops to its US border to align with Trump’s demands, but Crotty notes, “While that number sounds significant in isolation, Mexico’s border is expansive, and drugs are typically transported in ‘minute quantities’. Therefore, the US requires Mexico’s collaboration on intelligence to locate the ‘needle in the haystack’,” Crotty asserted.
Roig emphasized that “it’s crucial to collaborate with Mexico rather than alienate them,” adding that Trump’s confrontational approach toward China might undermine the Biden administration’s efforts to forge cooperation with the Chinese government on counternarcotics initiatives.
Significant cuts to USAid also jeopardize initiatives aimed at addressing the “root causes” of the drug trade, according to Roig. Some USAid-funded programs concurrently focused on combating drug trafficking and another of Trump’s main concerns—migration, as the same cartels involved in drug trafficking often engage in human trafficking as well.
During his time with USAid, Roig dedicated considerable efforts to community violence prevention initiatives, including programs designed to deter young individuals from joining international crime organizations and cartels. (It is noteworthy that the Trump administration has eliminated many websites detailing USAid initiatives.)
If the drug supply increases, the US could see a resurgence in overdose rates. However, Crotty worries that we may not even be aware if that occurs. Staff reductions at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention could limit the number of personnel available to monitor overdose statistics, and Trump’s criticism of government data sharing could obscure the situation.
“The CDC oversees the overdose death dashboard. Much of that information is data-driven. Will they still have access to the necessary data?” he questioned.
The Guardian reached out to INL and UNODC for comment.
