The US government has officially designated several Latin American organized crime groups as terrorist organizations, but the move will do little to help attack these complex criminal networks.

US Secretary of State Marco Rubio announced February 20 that the Venezuelan mega-gang Tren de Aragua, the MS13 street gang, and the Sinaloa Cartel, Jalisco Cartel New Generation (Cartel Jalisco Nueva Generación – CJNG), Gulf Cartel, Northeast Cartel, Familia Michoacana, and United Cartels in Mexico would be declared “foreign terrorist organizations.”

The official designation stemmed from an executive order US President Donald Trump signed on his first day in office announcing his intention to make this decision.

“The Cartels have engaged in a campaign of violence and terror throughout the Western Hemisphere that has not only destabilized countries with significant importance for our national interests but also flooded the United States with deadly drugs, violent criminals, and vicious gangs,” Trump said at that time.

The new designations are likely to put further strain on US-Mexico relations, which are already tense due to Trump’s threats to impose tariffs on Mexican goods and his statements claiming Mexico’s government is controlled by criminal interests. Experts consulted by InSight Crime cautioned that this measure is far from a cure-all for the threats posed by transnational criminal networks and may actually complicate joint efforts to fight them.

“If the question is how to effectively weaken, combat, and dismantle criminal networks in Mexico, then the starting point needs to be addressing them for what they are,” said Stephanie Brewer, director for Mexico at the Washington Office on Latin America (WOLA).

“Mexican criminal groups are very powerful and cause horrific levels of violence and suffering, but they are not pursuing the type of political ends that a terrorist organization pursues,” she added.

US authorities already have a number of legal tools at their disposal to prosecute criminal leaders, impose financial sanctions, and seize assets. While the US can now impose stiffer penalties on the people they target and obtain warrants under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) to carry out their own electronic surveillance, Brewer told InSight Crime that the foreign terrorist designation does not significantly increase the tools needed to combat these groups and risks unintended consequences.

“The concern is that this could open the door to both criminal prosecutions and immigration consequences for a wide range of everyday people, organizations, and businesses on both sides of the border that might find themselves inadvertently caught up in the framework of providing material support to terrorist groups,” she added.

What’s more, the move is based on the premise that these are monolithic groups when they are highly complex, horizontally-integrated organizations with no clear lines separating who is part of the network and who is not. Their use of violence is based on protecting economic interests, not obtaining political objectives or imposing an ideology.

“The designation fundamentally misunderstands how these criminal operations work,” said Cecilia Farfán-Méndez, an expert on organized crime.

What you need to know about the criminal groups the US just labeled ‘terrorists’

On January 24, 2025, U.S. Secretary of State, Marco Rubio, issued an immediate halt to most foreign aid programmes for 90 days, pending a comprehensive review to ensure alignment with the current administration’s values and policies. Since then, it has been made public that approximately 10,000 US foreign aid grants, awards and contracts have been, or will be terminated over the coming days causing heightened confusion and disbelief within the HIV, TB and malaria sector and well beyond. This U.S. policy directive affects a wide range of global health and development initiatives with wide ranging implications for people who use drugs and their access to services.

We’ve developed this survey to get a better sense from harm reduction organisations and networks of people who use drugs of how these recent US funding directives are affecting harm reduction services, HIV and hepatitis care, and human rights programming for people who use drugs at the regional and country level. 

We will present the findings from this survey during the UN Commission on Narcotic Drugs (CND, March 10-14, 2025) and widely with our partners and funding agencies.

Time is of the essence. Please take a few minutes today and complete this survey to share how these devastating U.S. policy changes are affecting your organisation and the services you provide to our community.

This survey should take 10-12 minutes of your time and your responses will be fully anonymised.

 Your candid responses are crucial to monitoring and documenting how this US-policy affects the lives of our community and will help to inform our collective advocacy efforts. While this survey will remain anonymous, we have also provided the option for you to share your contact details should you wish to provide additional quotes or testimonials in this report.

Documenting the early impact of the US foreign aid directives on harm reduction programming

In Lisbon, which was once the heroin capital of Europe, safe-use spaces such as IN Mouraria are a relatively new innovation. Over the country’s 20-year experiment with decriminalization, public health leaders here have learned that providing spaces for people to take drugs with access to health and social care services helps them to get a grip on their dependencies. “People are desperate to find a community to get sober,” Caldas says. Some “visit us after a few years without taking drugs, and you see the difference in them. It’s absolutely incredible.”

In 1999, Portugal saw a record high 369 deaths from drug overdoses. Most were related to heroin. The crisis spurred decriminalization and ramped-up funding for rehabilitation programs that have since helped reduce the annual number of deaths from overdose to about 80. Meanwhile, the rate of HIV infection in Portugal, which once accounted for more than half of cases across the entire European Union, has also plummeted.

Statistics like these and the existence of facilities such as IN Mouraria are signs that a new dawn is appearing above the wreckage left in the wake of a futile half-century war on drugs. In Portugal and elsewhere around the world, policymakers are reckoning with the reality that no matter how many millions of people are imprisoned, and no matter how much money is spent on anti-drug policies, people are going to continue to do drugs. Despite the U.N.’s 1998 declaration that a drug-free world was possible and the U.S. spending more than a trillion dollars over the past 50 years to stymie drug use, rates of use have risen hand-in-hand with significant upticks in addiction and death, even while most people take and enjoy drugs without any serious harm.

A new dawn for the failed war on drugs

STOPAIDS and its members, in solidarity with people living with and affected by HIV globally, welcome the news that the temporary freeze on US funding for ‘lifesaving’ HIV medicines has been lifted. However, it remains unclear whether funding for HIV testing, prevention and other critical services, and the community systems that are so essential to delivering these, will be reinstated alongside this. *

We urge President Trump to grant an exemption for the entire PEPFAR budget, this great demonstration of positive US impact in the world, so it can continue to deliver its life saving services.

We are deeply concerned about the broader question mark over the future of US funding for the HIV response, the loss of which would have catastrophic implications for the global goal of ending AIDS, and would almost certainly undermine the HIV response here in the UK.

The US President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR) – established in 2003, provides antiretroviral medication as well as crucial prevention, testing, support and educational services in 54 countries. To date, its critical work has saved nearly 

The scale of interventions that PEPFAR supports cannot be understated. According to 

, the Foundation for AIDS research, on a daily basis around the world, PEPFAR is responsible for supporting:

More than 222,000 people living with HIV to have access to treatment

Services for 17,695 orphans and vulnerable children impacted by HIV;

7,163 cervical cancer screenings, newly diagnosing 363 women with cervical cancer or precancerous lesions, and treating 324 women with positive cervical cancer results (a critical intervention as women living with HIV are 6 times more likely to develop cervical cancer).

Care and support for 3,618 women experiencing gender-based violence, including 779 women who experienced sexual violence. This includes HIV testing and pre-exposure prophylaxis to prevent HIV acquisition.

In addition, PEPFAR is currently providing ARV treatment to 679,936 pregnant women living with HIV both for their own health and to prevent vertical transmission.

These services are delivered by 190,000 clinical and ancillary care providers worldwide. Stop work orders are already affecting this workforce, with 

 that receive PEPFAR funding reporting that they have been instructed to terminate staff contracts, a move that has already seen services shut. If this continues, it will leave hundreds of thousands of people unable to access life-saving HIV services.

Without these services, rates of HIV acquisitions and AIDS-related deaths in the 54 countries that rely on PEPFAR funding will dramatically increase. The countries most affected by this policy include key strategic partners for the UK such as Kenya, South Africa, Malawi, and Nigeria among many others. An under-resourced HIV response globally will also have a detrimental impact on the UK in terms of growing resistance to HIV treatments, which will not respect borders. These abrupt cuts will also put additional pressure on health systems globally, decreasing their pandemic preparedness and resistance which will cause further economic strain, negatively affecting us all.

Stepping-up to support communities living with and affected by HIV globally is therefore not just the right thing to do, it is clearly in the UK’s national interest.

Raise the concerns about the impact of funding cuts to PEPFAR at the highest possible level with the US administration.

Identify ways to advance UK funds both to address the urgent funding crisis, working with other countries and with civil society and community partners to coordinate a rapid response to save lives, and to plan ways to fill the long-term funding gap that will likely be left if the US withdraws funding to the communities that are most affected by HIV.

Issue a ministerial statement setting out the FCDO’s analysis on the impact of this policy on UK aid programmes and the communities they support.

On Tuesday 28th January the US administration communicated that there would be a waiver for certain life-saving interventions across USAID and PEPFAR but there was a lack of specificity of exactly what would be included and excluded. Over the weekend, a leaked document suggested that the waiver would be applied to PEPFAR on limited terms, enabling the resumption of “life-saving HIV care and treatment services” as well as HIV testing and prevention and treatment of opportunistic infections, alongside prevention of vertical transmission services and “reasonable implementing agency and implementing partner administrative costs”.

If this document can be relied on, then funds for the following services will remain frozen: all other prevention tools and approaches, support including post-exposure prophylaxis for people who have experienced sexual and gender-based violence, cervical cancer screening and treatment and support for orphans and vulnerable children impacted by HIV. At present however, organisations implementing US-funded programmes have received no communication regarding a waiver, and remain unclear about whether they can reopen any services, with many now forced to proceed with terminating staff contracts. We are deeply unsettled about the catastrophic implications that this uncertainty is having on the HIV response, and what the current dire situation could mean for the future of funding for PEPFAR.

STOPAIDS membership statement on impact of PEPFAR cuts on the HIV response

The Robert Carr Fund (RCF) is excited to share a major advocacy success from one of our grantees, the Harm Reduction Consortium – led by the International Drug Policy Consortium (IDPC).

In this interview, Jamie Bridge, Deputy Director of IDPC, explains how the coordinated efforts of numerous civil society partners led to the historic inclusion of harm reduction in a United Nations resolution. This achievement, made possible through years of dedicated advocacy and long-term support from RCF, shows the vital role civil society plays in shaping global drug policies. By sharing this story, we want to show how sustained funding can fuel community-led advocacy, driving real change in global health and human rights.

Which problem did the Harm Reduction Consortium and partners want to address?

Jamie Bridge: The main issue we aimed to address was the lack of recognition for harm reduction in the United Nations (UN) drug policy discussions in Vienna, where the Commission on Narcotic Drugs (CND) convenes. Despite harm reduction being acknowledged in other UN spaces, such as the General Assembly in New York and the Human Rights Council in Geneva, it was noticeably absent in Vienna. This discrepancy created a significant barrier. Countries would often justify their inaction on harm reduction by pointing to the lack of support in the CND and related international drug control conventions, which were drafted decades before harm reduction even existed as a concept. We needed to close this gap to enable consistent, supportive international language and policy on harm reduction across all UN bodies.

At the March 2024 CND meeting, a historic resolution was passed that explicitly included harm reduction—a first for this UN body. The United States submitted the resolution, marking a significant shift, as the country had historically opposed harm reduction. This change was largely driven by the opioid overdose crisis in North America. The passage of the resolution was not straightforward, as it broke with the CND’s traditional practice of consensus decision-making. Instead, the resolution went to a vote, with overwhelming support from member states and only two countries—Russia and China—voting against it. This vote set a new precedent, demonstrating that progress could be made despite opposition and lack of traditional consensus approach to decision-making in this UN institution.

This breakthrough is monumental for future advocacy efforts. It not only aligns Vienna with other UN bodies but also opens the door for more ambitious resolutions on many critical issues. For us, harm reduction advocates, this development represents a powerful tool to challenge resistance at the national and regional levels, as governments can no longer claim that the CND does not support harm reduction. The long-term core funding from the Robert Carr Fund was pivotal in enabling the Harm Reduction Consortium to sustain our advocacy efforts over the years, ensuring that relationships, expertise, and readiness were in place for this specific moment in time.

Jamie Bridge: Our strategy has always been about persistence and collaboration. Since IDPC received its first grant from the Robert Carr Fund in 2012, engaging at the CND has been our core activity. Over the years, we focused on developing trust and constructive relationships with government delegations through regular meetings, briefings, and constant engagement. Alongside this, we coordinated civil society’s presence at the CND by organizing training sessions to prepare community representatives and NGOs for advocacy in this space. The result has been an exponential rise in the levels of civil society participation at CND (Figure 1).

Turning the tide: Growth, visibility and impact of the civil society drug policy reform movement at the UN - International Drug Policy Consortium (IDPC)

Additionally, we consistently kept harm reduction and human rights at the center of discussions, advocating for countries that practice harm reduction to openly support it in UN statements.

The sustained financial support from RCF allowed us to maintain this comprehensive strategy year after year. These long-term efforts culminated in March 2024 when, for the first time, a resolution explicitly mentioning harm reduction was approved at the CND. This breakthrough required tenacity, strategic relationship-building, and a collective push from our partners. The RCF’s contributions ensured that we could adapt, respond, and act decisively when the opportunity arose.

Who were the network partners, and how were they engaged in the advocacy?

Jamie Bridge: This success was a collective effort, powered by a broad coalition. Key partners included the Harm Reduction Consortium members and others such as the Transnational Institute and the International Network of People Who Use Drugs (INPUD).

Our advocacy was thoroughly coordinated. For example, every March before the CND session, we hold a full-day civil society strategy meeting funded by the Robert Carr Fund. Representatives from over 70 NGOs worldwide come together to strategize, assign tasks, and ensure everyone is aligned. This includes deciding which governments to approach, preparing side events, and crafting interventions. Without this coordination, the unified civil society presence that has been critical to our success would not have been possible.

Community representatives played a critical role. In the lead-up to the resolution vote, these activists worked tirelessly, navigating the corridors of the UN building, briefing governments, and ensuring they understood the significance of the vote. Their advocacy directly influenced key decisions. The ability to sustain this high level of coordination and engagement over years is directly tied to the long-term financial support from RCF.

How were RCF’s funds used to achieve this success?

Jamie Bridge: The Robert Carr Fund’s support has been instrumental in both direct and indirect ways. The CND work has always been a priority in the Harm Reduction Consortium’s work plans. However, advocacy at this level requires years of groundwork, training, coordination, and trust-building. These are resource-intensive activities that cannot be accomplished with project-based funding alone. Without RCF’s core support, we wouldn’t have had the capacity or relationships to achieve this milestone. The flexibility of core funding has allowed us to adapt our strategies to changing political landscapes, ensuring that we remain effective advocates for harm reduction.

What are the outcomes of this case and its broader impact on human rights and the global harm reduction movement?

Jamie Bridge: The inclusion of harm reduction in a CND resolution represents a landmark victory. For the first time, we now have a unified acknowledgment of harm reduction across all relevant UN structures, from Vienna to Geneva and New York. This alignment eliminates a significant barrier that governments previously used to avoid implementing harm reduction measures.

For communities, the potential impact can be profound. NGOs and activists can now leverage this CND resolution to advocate for harm reduction services at their national level. For instance, in countries without naloxone programs for overdose prevention, this resolution explicitly calls for their implementation. It’s a powerful tool for challenging resistance and pushing for change.

Moreover, this success has shifted the dynamics at the CND. Historically, decisions were made by consensus, which allowed a few opposing countries, like Russia and China, to veto progress. In March 2024, this tradition was broken when the resolution went to a vote. With overwhelming support, harm reduction became part of UN policy.

This shift opens the door for future resolutions on previously untouchable topics, such as the death penalty for drug-related offenses or broader human rights issues. It’s a game-changer. The momentum is on our side, and we’re already strategizing for the next steps.

However, we’re realistic. Progress at the UN level is rarely linear, and we need to see what role the United States may continue to play as a harm reduction ally. UN resolutions also don’t automatically translate into immediate change on the ground. The real challenge lies in translating this victory into better access to harm reduction services and stronger human rights protections worldwide. This requires continued advocacy, capacity-building, and long-term investment—areas where the Robert Carr Fund’s support remains critical.

‘RCF’s long-term investment into community-led networks fuels harm reduction advocacy’ — Interview with Jamie Bridge

In January 30, employees at TB HIV Care received a letter informing them that they’d soon get their last paychecks. The nonprofit organization, working directly with people who use drugs in South Africa, has been forced to halt operations—part of a global freeze imposed on groups receiving United States humanitarian aid. 

Some 5,000 people were being served by TB HIV CARE at two harm reduction sites in eastern South Africa—depending on them for access to resources including sterile syringes and medications for opioid use disorder (MOUD).

“I owe my HIV-negative status to their efforts.”

Barend Beukes, 42, who lives in the city of Tshwane in Gauteng province, has relied on groups like TB HIV Care, and others funded by US aid programs, for years. “I owe my HIV-negative status to their efforts,” he told 

He got his first dose of methadone right before the COVID lockdowns. “It has progressively been changing my life ever since. Programs like opioid support therapy have allowed me the semblance of a normal life.”

The two sites include one in Tshwane, which has been serving about 4,000 people, and another in the Ehlanzeni district of Mpumalanga province, serving around 1,000.

“Both sites are now closed, leaving these clients without access to critical harm reduction services,” Klaus Mtshweni,a national leader with the SANAC Civil Society Forum PWUD Sub-sector, told 

People who use drugs among victims of Trump's assault on USAID

The situation is under control, which wasn’t the case a year ago when the number of crack users was doubling every month, according to Thomas Herquel, director of Première Ligne, the association that runs the Quai 9 injection room. In an interview published on Saturday in the Le Temps paper, he stated that “the number of users is constant and violent acts have decreased”.

Herquel’s estimates are based on the number of crack pipes distributed, which averages about 90 a day. According to him, the peak of users has been reached. He notes that the police and the association have succeeded in better monitoring of the area and combating ‘crack tourism’.

Crack consumption soared in Geneva from 2021 onwards, with the arrival on the market of very small doses of this highly addictive drug at very low prices. The government launched a three-year action plan at the end of 2023, costing CHF6 million a year.

Switzerland: Geneva’s fightback against crack cocaine making inroads

A recent study suggests the ACT's cannabis legislation is mostly working as intended, but shows the majority of cannabis cultivators are engaging in illegal activity in order to grow it.

growing, possession and use of small amounts of cannabis was legalised in the ACT.

The research, conducted by the Lambert Initiative for Cannabinoid Therapeutics based at the University of Sydney, indicated the five-year-old laws are having the intended effect.

Academic Director of the Lambert Initiative, Iain McGregor, said the legislation had "been a real positive for cultivators".

Nearly three years after the legislation was introduced, 311 people who grew cannabis were asked a series of questions.

Some respondents also sent samples of their cannabis for chemical analysis, including the amount of tetrahydrocannabinol — the chemical that produces a high — in them.

Australia: Canberra cultivators mainly grow 'mild and modest' cannabis, study finds

KUALA LUMPUR, Jan 20 — Selangor’s Local Government and Tourism Committee chairman Datuk Ng Suee Lim recently proposed urine screening to detect drug use among ravers or concert-goers.

 of four people who attended the New Year's Eve Pinkfish Festival in Sunway here.

Post-mortem reports indicated they died from complications caused by the drugs they consumed, likely to be ecstasy in pill form. Three other attendees were also hospitalised because they were suspected of taking the same pills.

There were mixed reactions to the proposal. Drug policy advocates suggested urine screening may not be effective at all, and could actually do more harm. The National Anti-Drug Agency, meanwhile, said the idea was impractical.

Why is urine screening may not be a good idea?

Palani Narayanan, Director of Drug Policy Program Malaysia, said urine screening is inherently defective as a solution to drug use problems

“Firstly, urine screening can only tell you if someone used a drug in the short past, say three weeks before, so someone who hasn’t taken a drug in six months will likely test negative,” he said.

“Now when they consume a drug at the music festival after having not taken anything in the last six months, just a small dose of drugs can be fatal because their tolerance level is lower than someone who takes drugs regularly,” he added.

“This person has a higher chance of fatal overdose and urine tests are useless to identify this.”

Then there is the cost factor. Urine screening is expensive. In the US, urine drug screening costs billions of dollars annually. Between 2011 and 2014, the cost of urine tests were reported to be around US$8.5 billion.

There is no available data on how much enforcement agencies spent on urine screening, but drug policy advocates believe it could reach hundreds of millions in the past ten years.

Palani said it makes little sense to pour money into a defective system that could be better spent on harm reduction measures like the health care workers who can advise people on the safety of the drugs they take.

Malaysia: Urine screening before concerts? Drug policy advocates explain why that may do more harm than good

This blog post was originally published by the EAPC blog and is available here.

Screams of pain punctuate households worldwide, but disproportionately more so in low and middle income countries.

Our home witnessed this for two years as my adoptive mother was ravaged by cancer. She was finally administered pentazocine two days before she died. It barely made a dent on the pain emanating from a backbone broken by cancer. As she took her last breath, we exhaled in guilty, tearful relief.

Twenty three years later, my biological mother lay dying of interstitial lung disease and needed oral morphine to ease her breathlessness. Despite working for a WHO Collaborating Centre for Training and Policy on Access to Pain Relief, getting access to these pills in the most populated state in India was a nightmare. Ironically, the same state where the only government-run opium and alkaloids factory is located. A local doctor reluctantly prescribed oral morphine, which was then sent from Kerala – an approximate distance of 1952 kms.

Read more from Smriti Rana’s powerful piece for the EAPC (European Association for Palliative Care) Blog 

The influence of colonialism on the pain relief access abyss

: To inform the preparation of the HRC-mandated comprehensive study on human rights and the social reintegration of persons released from detention and persons subjected to non-custodial measures

Human Rights Council resolution 57/9 of 9 October 2024, entitled “Social reintegration of persons released from detention and persons subjected to non-custodial measures”, requests the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights to “prepare a comprehensive study, with practical recommendations, on human rights and the social reintegration of persons released from detention and persons subjected to non-custodial measures, with a view to assessing the benefits of further developing guiding principles”.

The resolution requests OHCHR to prepare the report based on wide consultations with relevant stakeholders.

The report will be presented to the Human Rights Council at its 60th session in September – October 2025.

The report aims to gather information on legislation, policies, programmes and other initiatives, including public-private partnerships, that facilitate the social reintegration of persons released from detention or subjected to non-custodial measures, with a particular emphasis on approaches grounded on human rights.

Download Human Rights Council resolution 57/9 on Social reintegration of persons released from detention and persons subjected to non-custodial measures: 

Unless otherwise stated, contributions will be made available in full and as received on this website.

Human rights and the social reintegration of persons released from detention and persons subjected to non-custodial measures - OHCHR call for inputs

Deep inside Somawathiya National Park in Sri Lanka, surrounded by barbed wire and electric fencing to keep the elephants away, lies the military-operated Kandakadu Drug Rehabilitation Center. Formerly an army camp set up to forcibly reform the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) militants who fought against the government during the 26-year civil war, it has now pivoted to treating drug-dependent people from all over the country.

In June 2022, Anthony Pathmaraja, whose name has been changed to conceal his identity, was being treated at the Kandakadu center for heroin and methamphetamine addiction, when he — along with 600 other inmates — tore down the gates and fled from the center into the jungle.

Their escape was triggered by the death of a fellow inmate, who, Pathmaraja claimed, had been beaten, waterboarded and ultimately murdered by the soldiers operating the center. “We heard the screams in the next room all night,” Pathmaraja, the son of a migrant worker, told New Lines. “In the morning we protested, demanding they let the media in, but when they refused, we broke out.”

Pathmaraja hid in the jungle for three days dodging crocodiles and elephants until he finally surrendered to the police after he contracted a painful throat infection from drinking river water. “I was very scared [in the jungle], and I couldn’t swallow once the infection set in, but I didn’t want to return no matter what,” he said.

Fifteen years after the end of the ethnic conflict between Tamil separatists and the Sri Lankan government, which claimed over 100,000 lives, Sri Lanka is dealing with a new crisis and engaging in a new war: a war on drugs. Conflict-ridden areas often struggle with increased substance abuse, partly due to new drug routes that emerge as a result of instability and inadequate rule of law.

While data on drug-related activities in Sri Lanka is largely limited to arrests, this number has been steadily increasing in the last five years. According to the National Dangerous Drugs Control Board (NDDCB), over 89,000 people were arrested in 2019, compared with around 162,000 people in 2023, and arrests for methamphetamine possession, in particular, skyrocketed during the same period — to nearly 13 times more than the number in 2019.

News