President Donald Trump announced a new U.S. counterterrorism strategy this week that expands the legal definition of terrorism to include drug cartels and far-left movements [1, 3].

The shift represents a fundamental change in how the federal government identifies domestic and international threats. By broadening the scope of terrorism, the administration can now apply counterterrorism tools and resources toward non-state actors and political movements previously categorized as criminal or civil disturbances [1, 2].

The 2026 strategy document prioritizes the elimination of drug cartels within the Western Hemisphere [1, 3]. Administration officials said the move is necessary to target emerging threats that destabilize the region and the U.S. border [5].

Alongside the focus on cartels, the strategy explicitly includes loosely organized far-left movements, such as Antifa, within its definition of terrorism [1, 2]. This designation allows for expanded surveillance and enforcement capabilities against these groups [1].

Counter-terrorism adviser Sebastian Gorka played a central role in the development of the plan [1, 4]. While the White House describes the strategy as a security necessity, critics said the policy is driven by political grievances rather than objective security needs [5].

Some observers have questioned the professional nature of the rollout. The Atlantic editorial team said, "The policy is unfocused, run by amateurs, and concerned more with the president's many grievances than with the security of the United States" [4].

Additional criticism has targeted the leadership style of the counter-terrorism office. The Economist editorial staff said Sebastian Gorka is "abrasive" and noted that he has referred to journalists as "scumbags" or "punks" [2].

“The new policy expands the definition of terrorism to include drug cartels and loosely organized movements like Antifa.”

This policy shift marks a transition from a counterterrorism focus on designated foreign terrorist organizations and lone-wolf actors toward a broader application of state power against ideological domestic opponents and transnational criminal enterprises. By blurring the line between organized crime and terrorism, the U.S. government may increase its legal authority to use intelligence-gathering tools and military-grade strategies against non-traditional targets.