The Bizarre Confluence of Trump's Anti-Terrorism Strategy

From Venezuelan officers to Antifa groups, the definition of terrorist organizations has evolved.

Venezuela in the Crosshairs

Recently, the US designated Cartel de los Soles as a Foreign Terrorist Organization, intensifying efforts to displace President Nicolás Maduro. This decision coincides with a major US military build-up in the Caribbean, targeting vessels believed to be used for narcotics trafficking, resulting in significant fatalities. Trump's authorization for clandestine operations within Venezuela has escalated tensions.

Cartel de los Soles, allegedly under Maduro and other officials, is said to offer fresh avenues for US intervention, as per Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth. However, the precise nature of these options is unclear from a legal standpoint. While designating an FTO allows for sanctions and visa restrictions, it doesn't legitimize military engagement. Trump's previous administration blurred these boundaries, notably with Iran's Revolutionary Guard Corps, paving the way for Soleimani's assassination just after branding them as terrorists.

Critics like Brian Finucane warn of cloaking regime change efforts as counterterrorism. This broad use of the terrorism label marks a significant departure from previous US strategies.

The Changing Dynamics of the 'War on Terror'

The term 'Cartel de los Soles' is more cultural shorthand than an organizational label, referring to a coalition of military and governmental players in Venezuela engaging in criminal acts, especially drug smuggling. Trump's first year in office has seen numerous groups labeled as foreign terrorist organizations, with a third of these affiliations occurring within 2025 alone.

While Iran-backed militias feature among these designations, the focus has primarily shifted to Latin American crime syndicates, including drug cartels in Mexico and gangs across the Americas. This administration’s expanded use of 'narcoterrorism' merges the lines between criminal and military threats, a methodology few administrations have employed to such a degree.

Although foreign criminal organizations do contribute to drug issues in the US, critics argue the spotlight should remain on reducing demand rather than solely combatting supply, as culpability lies with trafficking organizations rather than ideologically driven entities.

Spanning Territories Beyond the Americas

The US's new terror focus isn't confined to America. Europe has also come under attention, with groups from Italy, Germany, and Greece being flagged for leftist extremist violence under the banner of anti-fascism. Despite accusations, the threats these groups present aren't typical hallmarks of US security priorities.

Donald Trump’s decision to classify antifa at home as a domestic terror entity, albeit lacking formal legal roots, continues to stir controversy. The fluidity of antifa's structure further complicates its definition as a terrorist group.

Legal analyst Brian Finucane describes these moves as navigating 'legal limbo.'

A Shift from Conventional Terrorism

It's ironic that this blitz against terrorism arises amidst the fading relevance of the post-9/11 counterterrorism era. During his campaign and early presidency, combatting globally recognized threats like al-Qaeda and ISIS was a staple of Trump's security policies.

Nonetheless, jihadist activities occasionally intersect with Trump's cultural advocacies, garnering federal responses, such as in cases involving alleged financial links to al-Shabaab or threats against Boko Haram for targeting Christians. Yet, rising concerns like ISIS’s surfacing in Syria or al-Qaeda’s advances in Mali have barely disturbed the Washington dockets.

Interestingly, al-Nusra Front, once tied with al-Qaeda in Syria, is off the US terror list under Trump’s watch. Its leader's recent engagement with US officials underscores the dramatic shift in alliances from earlier rhetoric.

Despite declining attention on former adversaries like ISIS, the 'terrorism' label persists as a vital tool for identifying administrative foes, both internationally and within domestic borders, although its meaning continues evolving.