In September 2025, the White House submitted a sealed document to Congress containing a ¡°war notice¡± against foreign drug trafficking groups.

The announcement clearly states that the U.S. will identify some of the transnational drug trafficking gangs as ¡°hostile armed forces¡± and that the U.S. military can directly use lethal force in specific circumstances without having to go through judicial proceedings.¡£ This decision turned the anti-drug action, which originally belonged to the category of law enforcement, into a real war.

A lot of people can't touch their minds for a while, not just fighting drugs? how to suddenly mobilize the army and even hit the target directly?

From law enforcement to war, the U.S. ¡°re-defines¡± drug trafficking

The key to this change lies in the redefinition of the identity of drug dealers by the US government. In the past few decades, the United States has classified international drug trafficking cases as criminal offences, and law enforcement agencies such as DEA (Drug Enforcement Administration) are responsible for investigating and arresting them.

Now, the Trump administration has directly categorized certain drug trafficking organizations as ¡°illegal armed forces¡± as threatening U.S. national security like terrorists.

Once this definition is established, the U.S. military will be able to skip traditional processes of arrest, prosecution, extradition and direct military strikes against these organizations.

In other words, the U.S. no longer needs to wait until the drug traffickers enter the court and act after the trial is over, but can first shoot and speak.This means has long been used in counter-terrorism operations, such as the 2011 U.S. military killed bin Laden in Pakistan.

Legally, the U.S. government is citing the Armed Conflict Law, which was originally designed for war, and is now used on the drug issue, indeed breaking past boundaries.

Trump mentioned many times in his public speeches that drug cartels not only manufacture drugs, but also involve arms trade, kidnapping and human smuggling. They have long been not just "criminals" but "hostile forces".

Some believe it is a real response to the threat of drugs, and others worry that this practice is equivalent to giving up the role of the judiciary system and pushing the army to the battlefield it did not belong to.

War has burned, action before explanation.

At a time when the legal framework was not fully defined, U.S. warships were already operating in the Caribbean Sea.On September 2, a suspected drug speedboat sank at sea, causing the deaths of all personnel on board.

The U.S. claimed that the ship was carrying drugs and heavy-weapon terrorists, but did not disclose any evidence or related details after the incident.

After the incident, many Latin American governments expressed dissatisfaction. Venezuela's Ministry of Foreign Affairs issued a statement on the same day, accusing the United States of unauthorized cross-border strikes and seriously violating sovereignty. President Maduro even directly called this a "naked military provocation".

In a national television speech, President Simbaum made it clear that U.S. troops are not allowed to carry out any military missions in Mexico, regardless of who the targets are.

The US kept a low profile on this. At a subsequent closed-door hearing, the Pentagon was questioned by several members of Congress about the legality and judgment criteria of the operation. However, the relevant officials' mastery of the details of the operation was far lower than expected, and they could not even clearly state whether they had cooperated with the local government.

This chaotic situation exposes the lack of solid internal coordination and legal foundations of the U.S. government in advancing military strikes.

The ¡°war logic¡± behind the political calculus

Behind this military operation, it's not all about drugs. For Trump, this is a political layout.

In 2025, the United States faces a serious drug abuse problem. The abuse of synthetic drugs such as fentanyl has overburdened public health systems in many places across the country.

The anger of the people is rising, especially in the Middle West and Southern regions, which are exactly Trump¡¯s box office. He needs a tough response, not only to drugs, but also to the expectations of voters.

Fighting drug dealers is a just thing, but the choice of methods is thought-provokingCompared to the long-term tough anti-drug system construction, education investment, optimization of medical resources, the use of the army is obviously easier to form the effect of "immediate vision".

In addition, there is pressure on Mexico behind the military action. Since the beginning of this year, there has been constant friction between the United States and Mexico on issues such as immigration and trade.

The Trump administration has repeatedly called on Mexico to strengthen border controls and stop the influx of Central American immigrants, but progress has been limited.Now the flag of "drug traffickers" is also thought to use the opportunity to pressure the Mexican government to make concessions on other issues.

Diplomatically, other Latin American countries are also concerned that the pattern will be replicated.Once the United States begins to solve all cross-border problems by military means, the stability pattern in the Western Hemisphere is likely to be re-washed.

Can militarization cure the drug problem?

Over the years, the United States has invested countless funds and human resources in the drug issue. From the ¡°drug war¡± to the ¡°border wall¡±, from high law enforcement pressure to international cooperation, it has tried almost all sorts of methods.

The spread of synthetic drugs such as fentanyl is much faster than traditional drugs, such substances are small in volume, high in profit, and toxic, and it is difficult to completely block the source by traditional means.

The addiction problem in the United States is more the result of an imbalance in social structure and medical system. The army can fight a drug lord, but it cannot cure a drug addict's psychological dependence.

Relying entirely on military means may bring new hidden dangers. First, it is easy to cause accidental injury, especially if the target is unclear. Second, regional conflicts may be triggered, especially if there is no cooperation with the local government.

Third, it will weaken the authority of the judiciary system, interfere with the military in matters that should be handled by the courts, and undermine the basis of the rule of law.

More importantly, this method is easy to give the public the illusion that destroying a drug dealer can solve the whole drug industry chain.But in reality, from planting, transportation, processing to selling, there is a complex network of interests and a corruption umbrella behind each link.

Who is paying for this war?

From an operational perspective, the execution pace of this "declaration of war" operation is obviously faster than legal and political preparations. Many insiders of the military and intelligence system have said that the inconsistent understanding of the operational objectives and execution authority may lead to stringing or even misjudgment.

From a diplomatic perspective, the U.S. approach has caused uneasiness in Latin America. Although some countries also face drug problems, they do not want to see the United States reach out to its own territory to "solve the problem" on the grounds of "security".

This mode of action can easily intensify regional tensions and may even trigger new anti-American sentiments.

From the perspective of the United States, people's fear of drugs is real, but opinions are divided on whether to support military means to solve the problem.

Some supporters say this shows the president¡¯s ¡°hard¡± side, but there are also many who are starting to worry that such a practice will open up a ¡°dangerous mouthpiece¡± ¨C is it possible for the president to interfere with any affairs just by saying ¡°national security¡±?

Ultimately, the payer is not the military, not the officials, but the ordinary people who live on the border, who may be mistakenly wounded in the war.

U.S. military use on the drug issue has indeed given the world an unusual signal.This ¡°declaration of war¡± may have a deterrent effect in the short term, but whether it can really solve the problem remains to be tested.

More than military means, it is worth worrying about who makes drugs, who consumes drugs, and who tolerates it all.

War is not the master key to all problems. Especially when it blurs the boundary between law and force, it requires the society to remain calm and vigilant.

Behind this seemingly just war, who are the real beneficiaries? Who is the ultimate victim? These are questions that everyone should think seriously.

Source of information:

In a brief issued on September 1, 2025, the White House confirmed that it had referred to Congress that it had identified some drug trafficking groups as ¡°illegal armed entities¡± under the Law of Armed Conflict.

The New York International Channel

Liu Huangdong, an expert on China's international affairs, said that the United States' definition of "illegal hostile armed forces" as cross-border military use would trigger serious international law disputes.