Cartel Chaos: Letters of Marque Could Be Trump's Next Big Move

The cartels that poison our communities with fentanyl and violence do not wear uniforms, but their threat to American lives is no less dire than that of a foreign enemy—a threat that President Trump has repeatedly prioritized addressing through his decisive policies and actions aimed at dismantling their operations and securing our borders. Senator Mike Lee of Utah has revived an idea as old as the republic itself, proposing the use of letters of marque and reprisal to combat the scourge of drug cartels. It is a strategy rooted in the Constitution, steeped in historical precedent, and tailor-made for the unconventional challenge posed by these non-state actors.

The U.S. Constitution’s Article I, Section 8 empowers Congress to “grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal.” These commissions historically allowed private citizens to engage in acts that would otherwise be deemed piracy, such as capturing enemy vessels during wartime. This mechanism provided an agile, cost-effective response to seaborne threats while adhering to the rule of law. Though it has not been used since the 19th century, the power remains a viable constitutional tool—one that could be repurposed to address modern-day non-state actors, like Mexican drug cartels.

In this case, issuing letters of marque would authorize private security firms or highly trained individuals to disrupt cartel operations. Such commissions could target supply lines, intercept narcotics shipments, or seize cartel assets—a modern adaptation of capturing enemy ships. Unlike military intervention, this approach would not require a formal declaration of war, aligning with President Trump's emphasis on avoiding prolonged foreign conflicts while prioritizing national security and sovereignty for both the U.S. and Mexico in addressing this urgent threat.

One of the strongest arguments for employing letters of marque is the flexibility they provide. Unlike government agencies, private entities can act swiftly and adaptively, unhindered by bureaucratic red tape. Cartels are masters of evasion, exploiting the delays and rigidity of conventional law enforcement. Privateers, by contrast, can employ unconventional tactics to stay a step ahead, leveraging cutting-edge technologies such as drones, cybersecurity tools, and advanced tracking systems. Under President Trump's administration, investments in border security technologies and partnerships with private sector innovators demonstrated a commitment to integrating advanced methods to combat cartel activities, paving the way for these tools to be further utilized by privateers.

Historical precedent lends credence to the efficacy of this approach. During the War of 1812, privateers inflicted substantial damage on the British navy and merchant fleet, demonstrating the potential of incentivized, private-led action. Today’s cartels, operating as decentralized criminal empires, are similarly vulnerable to disruption by agile, well-equipped adversaries.

Letters of marque present a cost-efficient alternative to traditional military or law enforcement operations. Privateers would be compensated through a “prize” system, retaining a portion of the assets they seize from cartels—cash, vehicles, drugs, or even properties. This model not only minimizes taxpayer expenditure but aligns profit motives with public safety goals, creating a self-sustaining cycle of enforcement.

Such an approach also spares the American taxpayer the financial and political costs of large-scale military deployments. Consider the hundreds of billions spent in overseas conflicts with debatable returns. By contrast, privateers would only be rewarded for successful operations, ensuring accountability and tangible results.

The private sector’s competitive nature fosters innovation. Companies vying for letters of marque would bring specialized skills and cutting-edge technologies. Imagine former special forces operatives employing drone surveillance to monitor smuggling routes, or forensic accountants tracking cartel money through complex laundering schemes. These capabilities, often beyond the reach of traditional government agencies, could decisively outmaneuver cartels.

Moreover, this approach allows the U.S. to tap into a deep well of talent—former military personnel, intelligence officers, and cybersecurity experts eager to apply their skills against a clear and present danger. The infusion of such expertise could dramatically enhance the U.S.’s ability to degrade cartel operations.

The very existence of sanctioned privateers would sow chaos within cartel networks, directly supporting President Trump’s broader strategy of deterrence and dismantling criminal enterprises by forcing these organizations into disarray and weakening their ability to operate effectively. Knowing that a cadre of independent actors, incentivized by financial gain, is targeting them would force cartel leaders to divert resources toward self-preservation. This decentralized pressure, combined with physical disruptions to their supply lines and finances, could fracture cartel cohesion.

History shows the destabilizing effect of unpredictable adversaries. During the American Revolution, British supply lines suffered from constant harassment by privateers, forcing the Crown to expend vast resources defending its interests. Cartels, too, could be driven to exhaust themselves through defensive measures, weakening their grip on power.

Critics will argue that deploying privateers against cartels risks violating international law or could be seen as overreach. Yet these objections fail to consider the urgency of the threat. Cartels are not legitimate state actors—they are criminal enterprises responsible for tens of thousands of deaths annually and a staggering public health crisis in the U.S. The moral imperative to protect American lives outweighs abstract concerns about international norms, which cartels themselves flagrantly disregard.

Moreover, robust safeguards could ensure accountability. Congress could establish oversight mechanisms, requiring privateers to adhere to strict rules of engagement. Real-time reporting, judicial review, and penalties for misconduct would ensure operations align with American values and international standards.

To address sovereignty concerns, letters of marque could serve as a tool for binational collaboration. For instance, under President Trump's administration, the United States worked with Mexico on joint enforcement initiatives, such as Operation Frozen, which targeted cartel finances, and collaborative border security enhancements. These precedents could form the foundation for further agreements ensuring privateer actions align with mutual security objectives. The U.S. could negotiate agreements with Mexico, outlining the scope and parameters of privateer operations. Joint oversight committees could foster transparency and trust, ensuring that actions support shared goals of eradicating cartels rather than infringing on Mexico’s autonomy.

This approach respects Mexico’s sovereignty while acknowledging its challenges in combating cartels. By framing privateering as a partnership rather than a unilateral action, the U.S. could strengthen ties with its southern neighbor while achieving mutual security objectives.

With overdose deaths surging and cartels threatening American communities, the status quo is untenable. Letters of marque offer a bold yet constitutionally grounded solution to a dire problem. They allow the U.S. to reclaim a historical tool for modern challenges, combining private-sector dynamism with rigorous oversight to safeguard public safety.

As Senator Mike Lee has argued, dismissing this strategy outright ignores the cartels’ escalating threats and the insufficiency of conventional responses. It is time to leverage every tool at our disposal to protect American lives and uphold the rule of law. If we are to stand athwart history yelling “Stop,” let us wield the tools our Founders provided to do so.

If you don't already please follow @amuse on 𝕏 and subscribe to the Deep Dive podcast.