Trump calls cartels terrorists. Is that enough to go to war?

Summary

---

Consider This from NPR – Episode Summary

Episode Title: Trump calls cartels terrorists. Is that enough to go to war?
Air Date: October 6, 2025
Host: Scott Detrow
Guest: John Yoo, Law Professor at UC Berkeley, former Bush Justice Department lawyer

---

Episode Overview

This episode examines the Trump administration’s decision to use counterterrorism powers against Latin American drug cartels by declaring them terrorist organizations. Host Scott Detrow discusses the legal, ethical, and practical implications of equating drug-related crime with acts of war, drawing on insights from John Yoo—a legal architect of the post-9/11 “war on terror” doctrine. The conversation centers on what constitutes “war” versus “crime” under the U.S. Constitution, the risks of blurring that line, and whether congressional approval is necessary for this new approach.

---

Key Discussion Points & Insights

1. Historical Context of Counterterrorism Powers

• [00:00–01:36] The episode opens by tracing the evolution of U.S. national security doctrine since 9/11, highlighting how successive presidents invoked broad legal authorities to confront non-state actors such as Al Qaeda and ISIL.
  • Memorable Quote:

    “Our war on terror begins with Al Qaeda, but it does not end there. It will not end until every terrorist group of global reach has been found, stopped, and defeated.”
    — John Yoo quoting President Bush [00:30]

• Both Bush and Obama used the same legal foundation (Authorization for Use of Military Force, AUMF) to justify military action against increasingly varied threats.

2. Trump Administration: Cartels as Terrorists

• [01:36–02:26, 03:48–03:57] The Trump administration now targets drug cartels as terrorist threats, authorizing military strikes on suspected drug-trafficking boats.
  • Memorable Quote:

    “When you flood American streets with drugs, you are terrorizing America.”
    — Secretary of State Marco Rubio [01:50]

3. Defining War vs. Crime

• [04:28–05:35] John Yoo argues that legally, war and crime should remain distinct:
  • War: Focuses on eliminating or detaining foreign enemies without judicial procedures.
  • Crime: Triggers constitutional rights—due process, legal counsel, and trial by jury.
  • Memorable Quote:

    “War invokes powers too extraordinary to be used against crime.”
    — John Yoo [04:28]

  • Using war powers for crime risks eroding civil liberties and due process.

4. Magnitude of Harm vs. Political Purpose

• [05:35–06:47] Detrow asks if the scale of harm (drug overdoses vs. terror attacks) should influence classification.
  • Yoo: Harm alone doesn’t make an act a war. It’s about political motivation and methods:
    • Terrorist groups attack the U.S. for political or ideological reasons.
    • Drug cartels are profit-driven and lack a political agenda against the U.S.
  • Notable Exchange:

    Scott Detrow: “Arguably, illegal drugs…have killed way more people than terror attacks in the United States. Should that be part of the consideration?” [05:35]
    John Yoo: “But the harm to the country itself does not define whether something’s war or crime.” [05:52]

5. Legal Precedent and Executive Authority

• [07:00–08:10] Yoo describes the post-9/11 legal rationale and limitations:
  • After 9/11, Bush went to Congress for AUMF; the Supreme Court signed off on treating terrorist groups similarly to foreign enemies.
  • Trump’s approach extends this logic far beyond original intent.
  • Memorable Quote:

    “They’re going out way on a limb, way beyond what we did. They’re going to have to get Congress to agree.”
    — John Yoo [08:03]

6. Congressional Authorization and Supreme Court Skepticism

• [09:05–10:19] Yoo believes congressional buy-in would make a legal difference, especially since drug cartels attacking the U.S. isn’t as clear-cut as a direct act of war.
  • Supreme Court likely to be “very skeptical” of using war powers against criminals due to protections like the Bill of Rights.
  • The precedent could have “obvious implications in policing in the United States.”
  • Memorable Quote:

    “The court’s going to be very skeptical.”
    — John Yoo [10:17]

---

Notable Quotes & Segments

• On the boundary between war and crime:

  “Our Constitution and our laws distinguish between war and crime.”
  — John Yoo [04:43]

• On historical harm vs. classification:

  “…we don’t use the military to fight murders at home.”
  — John Yoo [06:14]

• On potential institutional overreach:

  “This argument that the government can wage war against drug gangs has such obvious implications in policing in the United States...”
  — John Yoo [10:15]

---

Key Timestamps

• 00:00–01:36: Historical use of war powers post-9/11
• 01:36–02:26: Trump administration begins targeting cartels as terrorists
• 04:28–05:35: Explanation of differences between war and crime
• 05:35–06:47: Debate over the harm caused by crimes vs. acts of war
• 07:00–08:10: Legal history, congress and the Supreme Court’s role
• 09:05–10:19: Importance of congressional authorization and Supreme Court posture

---

Tone & Style

The conversation is thoughtful, measured, and nuanced. Scott Detrow facilitates with incisive, clarifying questions, while John Yoo responds with careful, historically grounded legal argumentation. The discussion is serious, focusing on constitutional distinctions and the risks of blurring them, with an undercurrent of concern for precedent and civil liberties.

---

This episode offers an urgent examination of the growing use of war powers in domestic and foreign policy contexts and serves as a primer on why distinguishing crime from war remains vital to preserving constitutional protections.

Transcript

[Scott Detrow]

Nine days after the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, President Bush laid out a roadmap for a new kind of war.

[John Yoo]

Our response involves far more than instant retaliation and isolated strikes. Americans should not expect one battle, but a lengthy campaign unlike any other we have ever seen.

[Scott Detrow]

The enemy was not a nation state, but rather an armed group. And more than that, it was an idea.

[John Yoo]

Our war on terror begins with Al Qaeda, but it does not end there. It will not end until every terrorist group of global reach has been found, stopped and defeated.

[Scott Detrow]

And as the decades have gone by, that open endedness has become a defining feature of the war on terror.

[John Yoo]

Last month, I ordered our military to take targeted action against ISIL to stop its advances.

[Scott Detrow]

More than a decade after 9 11, President Obama used some of the same legal reasoning and the same congressional authorization to justify attacks on the Islamic State or isil, a sworn enemy of Al Qaeda. And also a drone strike that targeted and killed an American citizen. In 2020, in President Trump's first term, it was yet another enemy, Iran.

[John Yoo]

Last night, at my direction, the United States military successfully executed a flawless precision strike that killed the number one terrorist anywhere in the world, Qasem Soleimani.

[Scott Detrow]

Trump, too, cited Bush era legal authority. Today, nearly a quarter century after the September 11 attacks, the Trump administration is using the language of terrorism to target a new enemy, Latin American drug cartels.

[John Yoo]

The president has designated these as terrorist organizations, which is what they are. When you flood American streets with drugs, you are terrorizing America.

[Scott Detrow]

And that's that is Secretary of State Marco Rubio in September, after the first of several US Military strikes on boats in the Caribbean that the administration says were trafficking drugs. Consider this, the president says we are in armed conflict with drug cartels. We will talk to a Bush era lawyer who says the powers of war are too extraordinary to use against crime. From npr.

[John Yoo]

Scott.

[Scott Detrow]

I'm Scott Detrow.

[John Yoo]

On the Throughline podcast from npr. Immigration enforcement might be more visible now, but this moment didn't begin with President Trump's second inauguration or even his first, a series from Throughline about how immigration became political and a cash cow. Listen to Throughline in the NPR app or wherever you get your podcast.

[Rachel Martin]

A lot of short daily news podcasts focus on just one story, but right now you probably need more on up first from NPR. We bring you three of the world's top headlines every day in under 15 minutes because no one story can capture all that's happening in this big crazy world of ours on any given morning. Listen now to the UPVERSE podcast from NPR shortwave thinks of science as an invisible force showing up in your everyday.

[John Yoo]

Life.

[Rachel Martin]

Powering the food you eat, the medicine you use, the tech in your pocket. Science is approachable because it's already part of your life. Come explore these connections on the Short Wave podcast from npr.

[Scott Detrow]

It's Kid Sid of this from npr. We got some more details late last week about the Trump administration's legal justification for recent attacks on alleged drug boats in the Caribbean. In the form of a notification sent to Congress and obtained by npr, it says that the president has determined the US Is in armed conflict with unspecified drug cartels. That argument has found many critics, including law professor John Yoo. He was a lawyer in the Bush administration's Justice Department and played a key role in developing the legal justification for the war on terror after 9 11, as well as the ways the US government interrogated people captured during that war. John Yoo, welcome to the program.

[John Yoo]

Hi. Great to be here.

[Scott Detrow]

I want to start with something that you wrote recently. You wrote that war invokes powers too extraordinary to be used against crime. Walk me through what those powers are and why it's important to you and to many legal scholars to keep them separate.

[John Yoo]

Our Constitution and our laws distinguish between war and crime. For example, if you are arrested by the government because you're suspected of a crime, you get all the protections of the Bill of Rights. You have the right to be presented to a judge to learn the charges against you, to get the Miranda warnings, a lawyer ultimately be tried by a jury before you're sentenced. Think of war. We try to kill the enemy or detain members of the enemy. If they can't fight, you don't have to have evidence. You don't present it to a judge. You don't go out and arrest people and give them a trial. You, because you're fighting a foreign enemy that threatens a national security. So the most important problem is identifying who's really an enemy versus what's part of just a perpetual social problem we have.

[Scott Detrow]

I mean, arguably, illegal drugs and overdoses have killed way more people than terror attacks in the United States. Should that be part of the consideration? Do you think there's a clear cut? This is a standard crime, even if it has deadly effects. And this is a war.

[John Yoo]

You're definitely right. The harms that our country suffers from crime are definitely higher. I think last year or the last two years, we've lost about 100,000 a year, maybe 200,000 every two years just to fentanyl and other drug overdoses, which is way more than the casualties in Korea, Vietnam, Iraq or Afghanistan, but that the harm to the country itself does not define whether something's war or crime. You could say murders inflict way more harm on the United States than a lot of the wars that we fought. But we don't use the military to fight murders at home. Instead, I think what you need to see is a foreign entity that is using force against the United States because of a political agenda, because of disagreement with our ideology, to take territory for political objectives.

[Scott Detrow]

Is that what to you is the main difference then between an international terrorist group like Al Qaeda and a big drug trafficking group? Is it just the overall end goal that each of them has?

[John Yoo]

Yes, in part. So I was at the Justice Department, as you said, on 9 11, and we had to actually face the question that we really hadn't faced in the United States before, whether we could have a war against something that was other than another country. And we decided that Al Qaeda and other terrorist groups were much like a foreign country in the level of force they could use against us. Why? They used force against us for political reasons. I think that that decision with drug cartels that are not connected, they're not fighting for Venezuela, for example, but just drug cartels don't pass that test because they aren't using force against us, because they disagree with us politically, because they want to harm the country, because they have some ideological agenda. They just want to make money.

[Scott Detrow]

The Trump White House is drawing a clear line between what it is doing here and what the Bush administration first articulated 20 some years ago and what the Obama administration in many ways continued as policy. And I'm wondering, as you have seen this played out and used in different ways, have you had any second thoughts about the standards that you and others put into place in the wake of 9 11?

[John Yoo]

I don't. And I'm not saying that we have perfect answers. We were under a lot of pressure on September 11 itself while we were suffering attacks from Al Qaeda. But the way we thought about it was, can we ever use the military against something other than a nation? And look, there were a lot of people in Congress and in the academy and media who were critical of that view. And that's why we went to Congress and within a week got an authorization to use military force. And we went to the Supreme Court when the very first detainees were captured out of Afghanistan, and the Supreme Court agreed. I think that's something that the Trump administration should do if they really. Because I think they're going out way on a limb way beyond what we did. They're going to have to get Congress to agree. And I think that would then have a big influence on the way the Supreme Court will view it when these cases start to come up later this year.

[Scott Detrow]

How much of a difference do you would congressional authorization make here? Would it make a difference at all, or do you think this is still a clear cut case that they are, they are using powers that they don't have?

[John Yoo]

I think it make a big difference in this sense. I think everyone agrees no matter where you fall on the debate over whether Congress has to authorize force or not, I tend to think it doesn't. But everyone agrees that if the United States is attacked, the president can automatically respond without having to go to Congress. But the problem here is that it's not clear whether the United States is being attacked by the operations of drug cartels. And so if you're going to go out as the White House and really push this argument into new territory, then congressional support becomes all important because the Supreme Court wants to see the president and Congress in agreement if it's going to bless some new kind of war that we've never seen before. I tend to think the Supreme Court is going to be very leery of it because they see as their mission the protection of the individual rights of Americans and everyone who lives here under the Bill of Rights. And this argument that the government can wage war against drug gangs has such obvious implications in policing in the United States that the court's going to be very skeptical.

[Scott Detrow]

That is John Yoo, a law professor at the University of California, Berkeley. Thanks so much for talking to us.

[John Yoo]

Thank you. Great to be with you.

[Scott Detrow]

This episode was produced by Connor Donovan. It was edited by Courtney Dorning. Our executive producer is Sammy Yenigun. It's consider this from npr. I'm Scott Detrow.

[Rachel Martin]

Here at Life Kit, we take advice seriously. We bring you evidence based recommendations. And to do that, we talk with researchers and experts on all sorts of topics because we have the same questions you do, like what's really in my shampoo? Or should I let my kid quit soccer? Or what should I do with my savings in uncertain economic times? You can listen to NPR's Life Kit in the NPR app or wherever you get your podcasts. I'm Rachel Martin. If you're tired of small talk, check out the Wild Card Podcast. I invite your favorite celebrities to open up about the big topics we all think about, but rarely talk about. Tune in this fall to hear Matthew McConaughey, Shonda Rhimes and Padma Lakshmi talk about everything from grief and God to ambition and forgiveness. Watch or listen on the NPR app, YouTube, or wherever you get your podcasts. Want to hear this podcast without sponsor breaks? Amazon prime members can listen to Consider this sponsor free through Amazon Music. Or you can also support NPR's vital journalism and get consider this [e-mail] that's plus.NPR.org.