How much of Mexico is governed by cartel?
Executive summary
The short answer: mainstream expert estimates put the land area under meaningful cartel control or governance at roughly one-third of Mexico, but that figure depends on definitions and methodology; other claims range higher or lower depending on whether one measures direct territorial rule, areas of influence, or economic and social control [1] [2] [3]. The longer truth is messier: cartels exercise pockets of de facto governance, influence policing and commerce in many municipalities, and at the same time the Mexican state retains formal sovereignty across the country [4] [5].
1. What analysts mean by "governed" — territory, influence, or parallel rule
Quantitative claims differ because “governed” can mean military control of territory, routine extortion and tax-like levies, provision of services and dispute resolution, or simply the ability to project lethal force and influence local officials; sources emphasize this fragmentation and the difficulty of drawing a single map—ACLED describes a fragmented gang landscape with volatile alliances and varied local models of control [3], while Vision of Humanity documents instances where cartels act as de facto rulers, operating courts and enforcing rules in some areas [4].
2. The rough consensus: about one-third of Mexican territory under cartel control or strong influence
Several respected analysts and institutes have converged on a figure near one-third: New Lines Institute reported cartels controlled “about one-third” of Mexico’s territory as of May 2024, which has been cited by other researchers and policymakers studying territorialization and militarization of criminal groups [1]. A 2022 U.S. congressional resolution referenced U.S. Northern Command reporting that cartels control roughly 30–35 percent of Mexican territory, a statistic that has circulated in policy debates [2].
3. Why some estimates claim much more — and why they should be read cautiously
Higher-sounding metrics—such as claims that cartels influence 85% of “city-states” or control massive swathes of municipal life—often mix different measures (economic influence, extortion networks, recruitment, corrupt officials) and sometimes come from partisan or advocacy publications; for example, a policy report cited a figure that the CJNG “controls or has influence in about 85% of Mexican city-states,” a claim that requires careful unpacking because it conflates influence with direct governance and draws on contested methodologies [6]. Other reputable sources instead emphasize embeddedness—cartels as major local employers and power brokers—without translating that directly into contiguous territorial rule [5] [7].
4. What the map of control looks like in practice
Control is patchy and dynamic: powerful groups such as the CJNG and the Sinaloa Cartel hold extensive operational footprints across multiple states, fighting over transport corridors and local economies, while hundreds of smaller groups, splinter factions and local gangs contest and share influence, producing a mosaic of contested municipalities rather than a single contiguous cartel state [3] [8]. Analysts also note that cartels have diversified into extortion, oil theft, and other predatory businesses that extend their influence beyond pure drug corridors, blurring the line between criminal enterprise and local governance [3] [4].
5. Limits of the data and why policy rhetoric sometimes overreaches
Estimating territorial control relies on varied sources—field reporting, military and intelligence assessments, homicide and extortion data—so uncertainties are large and politically salient; U.S. policymakers and politicians sometimes use high-end figures to justify interventionist rhetoric (as in recent public comments advocating expanded U.S. roles), but Mexican leaders have resisted foreign military operations and emphasize joint law-enforcement measures instead [9] [10]. In short, the best-supported, mainstream assessment is that cartels exercise effective control or governance over roughly one-third of Mexican territory, while influence and criminal penetration extend farther in non-territorial ways that complicate any single percentage figure [1] [2] [4].