The arrest and escalation in Latin America
On January 3, 2026, a major operation unfolded in Venezuela. U.S. special forces captured President Nicolás Maduro, charging him with narco-terrorism. This bold move marked a pivotal moment in President Donald Trump’s administration, which has been more active in Latin America than any U.S. government in recent decades. Since the campaign began, over 200 lives have been lost in the push to dismantle alleged drug trafficking and terror networks. The operation highlighted the Trump administration's aggressive approach to counternarcotics and its use of military force to achieve political goals.
To strengthen its position in the region, the U.S. has expanded its military and intelligence presence, focusing on the Caribbean and the eastern Pacific. Southern Command has targeted small, fast-moving vessels suspected of drug smuggling. These operations are part of a broader strategy to cut off the supply chain of illegal drugs. By labeling these groups as narco-terrorists, the administration justifies the use of force and the deepening of security alliances with right-wing governments, such as those in Ecuador and El Salvador.
Narco-terrorism as a political tool
The term 'narco-terrorism' has a long history in U.S. foreign policy, especially during the Cold War. It first appeared in the 1980s in Peru when President Fernando Belaúnde Terry used it to describe the activities of Sendero Luminoso, or the Shining Path. This group, a radical offshoot of the Peruvian Communist Party, launched a violent campaign to overthrow the government.
The U.S. government, through agencies like the Drug Enforcement Administration, supported Peruvian efforts to combat the group. Together, they formed specialized units focused on eradicating coca crops in regions like the upper Huallaga Valley. However, these operations often backfired. Many peasant farmers resisted crop destruction, leading to increased support for Shining Path. This cycle of resistance and conflict made the insurgency stronger. Eventually, by the 1990s, the Peruvian military managed to break the link between the guerrillas and drug traffickers, a key step in dismantling the group.
The U.S. also played a major role in Colombia during the 1980s and 1990s. A significant event that shaped U.S. policy came during the 1985 M-19 siege of the Colombian Palace of Justice. The M-19, a leftist guerrilla group seeking to establish socialism, took over the building and held justices hostage. Though the extent of Pablo Escobar’s involvement with the M-19 remains unclear, the incident led the U.S. to push for a more militarized approach to counternarcotics. The connection between drug cartels and guerrillas became a key justification for expanding the war on drugs in the region.
Controversies and contradictions
The Trump administration's use of the narco-terrorism label has shown signs of inconsistency. While pursuing aggressive military actions in Latin America, it also pardoned Juan Orlando Hernández, a former Honduran president who had been convicted and sentenced to 45 years in prison for drug trafficking and weapons violations. This decision sparked criticism, with some observers calling it hypocritical and undermining the administration's claims about fighting the drug trade. The contradiction between punishing some and protecting others has raised questions about the true priorities behind the campaign.
Looking back, the concept of narco-terrorism has often been shaped more by political goals than by clear evidence of drug-related terrorism. During the Reagan administration, for example, the label was frequently used to suppress leftist movements in Latin America, even when the connection between drug trafficking and terrorism was not fully established. By linking drug groups to terrorism, U.S. officials could justify military and intelligence activities that advanced anti-communist agendas. This pattern is now being mirrored under Trump, as the administration broadens its definition of threats to include a wide range of groups.
The current approach, much like past campaigns, is as much about shaping the geopolitical landscape as it is about controlling drugs. By designating numerous organizations as foreign terrorist entities, the Trump administration has given itself a powerful tool to justify military action and diplomatic influence. Whether this strategy leads to long-term stability or deeper conflict remains to be seen, but its roots are firmly tied to historical patterns that blend counter-narcotics efforts with political interests.
