Overview
The Trump administration has opened a forceful new chapter in U.S. policy toward Latin America by expanding operations against groups it calls “narco‑terrorists” and escalating military measures to disrupt drug trafficking. What many observers saw as a gradual shift toward public‑health solutions and sentencing reform is now being countered by a renewed, supply‑side, militarized approach — including orders to destroy suspected trafficking vessels at sea.
How This Fits Into the Long War on Drugs
The so‑called war on drugs began under President Richard Nixon in the 1970s as a broad campaign to stop illegal drugs from entering the United States and to limit domestic abuse through criminal penalties. For decades the approach combined international interdiction and aggressive domestic law enforcement and incarceration.
In recent years, however, policy trends moved toward decriminalization of cannabis in many states, greater emphasis on treatment and rehabilitation, and federal sentencing reforms such as the First Step Act. Many scholars, activists and some policymakers increasingly viewed punitive measures as costly, racially biased and largely ineffective at eliminating drug demand.
New Escalation Under the Trump Administration
Historian David Farber, editor of The War on Drugs: A History, told CNN the current measures under President Trump are part of the broader war on drugs but differ significantly in scale and method. "The war on drugs used to be more of a metaphor than an actual descriptor of events," Farber said, arguing the administration has chosen to escalate military activities up to and including what he described as extrajudicial killings of people perceived to be traffickers.
"You could make a case it’s an extension of policies that have existed in the past, but not anywhere near the kind of lethality the Trump administration has chosen to pursue." — David Farber
Officials have started labeling cartels as "narco‑terrorists" and authorized aggressive interdiction tactics in the Caribbean and Pacific. Farber notes that while military involvement in interdiction has precedent — including debates in the George H.W. Bush era about using aircraft against trafficking vessels — the current approach is more unilateral and lethal in practice.
Historical Context And Geopolitics
The United States has long used a range of tools — military, intelligence, Treasury and Justice Department resources — to interdict drugs from abroad, from early 20th‑century efforts to post‑World War II operations. Drug policy has also intersected with geopolitical goals: the U.S. tolerated or turned a blind eye to trafficking by groups it supported during the Cold War, and it used anti‑narcotics rationales in interventions such as the 1989 invasion of Panama to remove Manuel Noriega.
Policy Tradeoffs And Risks
Farber and other scholars caution that a heavy supply‑side, militarized strategy risks sidelining demand‑side public‑health measures that reduce harms and address addiction. Historically, supply disruptions have often been followed by the emergence of new or different drugs, and punitive measures have had disproportionate impacts on Black and Brown communities. The current strategy raises legal, ethical and diplomatic concerns, especially when actions appear extrajudicial or unilateral in Latin America.
Bottom Line: The Trump administration’s tactics represent a visible and potentially dangerous reinvigoration of the international, militarized phase of the war on drugs. The approach foregrounds supply interdiction and military action while leaving open questions about effectiveness, international cooperation, and the consequences for human rights and public health.
Interview source: Excerpts and analysis are drawn from a conversation with David Farber, history professor at the University of Kansas and editor of The War on Drugs: A History, as reported in CNN’s What Matters newsletter.
