Joint Resolution Authorizes U.S. Military Force Against Nine International Cartels Including Sinaloa and MS13

This joint resolution is essentially Congress giving the President a massive green light to use the U.S. Armed Forces against nine specific, named international criminal organizations—including the Sinaloa Cartel, Jalisco New Generation Cartel, and MS13 (Mara Salvatrucha). The core argument is that these cartels are acting like terrorists against the U.S. by flooding the country with fentanyl, running human trafficking networks, and violating U.S. territory. This resolution, which specifically names the nine “covered cartels” (SEC. 1), aims to wipe out their ability to operate, and it officially counts as the legal authorization required under the War Powers Resolution (SEC. 2).

The Cartel Hit List: Who’s Getting Targeted?

Think of this as Congress defining a new type of enemy. Instead of a nation-state, the target is a list of criminal groups, including the notorious Tren de Aragua, the Northeast Cartel, and the Cartel del Golfo. The resolution doesn't just stop at the nine named groups; it also authorizes military action against any organizations “working directly with” them or any “successor organizations” that pop up later (SEC. 1). This is where the policy gets broad. For a regular citizen, this means the U.S. is officially shifting its approach from law enforcement and border security to full-scale military engagement against non-state actors operating largely outside our borders. This is a significant escalation from previous counter-narcotics efforts.

Blurring the Lines Between War and Policing

When we talk about using the military, we’re talking about combat operations, not just drone surveillance or border patrols. This authorization grants the President broad power to determine when military force is “necessary” against these groups. The challenge here is the lack of specific geographic limits. Since these cartels operate extensively in Mexico, this resolution opens the door for U.S. military operations on foreign soil—potentially without the explicit, enthusiastic consent of the host country. If you’re a government official in Mexico, this resolution looks like the U.S. is reserving the right to send troops across the border to deal with a problem your government has struggled to contain. This carries a high risk of diplomatic friction, or worse.

The Real-World Risks of Open-Ended Authority

For the U.S. military families, this means service members could be deployed into complex, urban, or remote areas for sustained combat operations against highly decentralized, non-uniformed enemies. The risk profile shifts dramatically from traditional warfare to counter-insurgency or counter-terrorism operations. For civilians living in areas controlled or contested by these cartels—often poor, rural communities—this resolution means they could suddenly find themselves caught between U.S. military operations and cartel retaliation. The military engagement, while intended to stop the flow of fentanyl and human trafficking, could inadvertently increase instability and put non-combatants in harm's way.

While the resolution aims to provide a legal basis for action by complying with the War Powers Resolution (SEC. 2), the broad language defining targets (“working directly with,” “successor organizations”) means the scope of this military authority could expand over time without requiring Congress to vote again. This grants the Executive Branch significant, sustained power to define and engage targets based on their own assessment of necessity, shifting the balance of power toward military solutions for what are fundamentally transnational crime problems.