Keep Factually independent
Whether you agree or disagree with our analysis, these conversations matter for democracy. We don't take money from political groups - even a $5 donation helps us keep it that way.
How have cartel strategies for producing and distributing fentanyl and meth changed in the U.S. over the past five years?
Executive summary
Over the past five years, cartel strategies shifted from importing finished fentanyl to building domestic Mexican production, diversifying smuggling methods, and blending fentanyl with other drugs such as meth — trends reflected in U.S. and international law‑enforcement reporting and government analyses [1] [2] [3]. Authorities report growing use of precursor chemical networks (including suppliers in China and emerging suppliers in India) and increased investment by cartels in laboratory capacity, pill production, and alternative revenue streams like fuel theft to finance trafficking [4] [5] [6].
1. Domestic manufacture in Mexico: cartel vertical integration intensifies
Mexican transnational criminal organizations (TCOs) moved from relying mainly on foreign finished fentanyl shipments to producing large quantities inside Mexico, operating increasingly sophisticated clandestine labs and pill‑making operations to supply U.S. markets — a dynamic documented by DEA reporting and related government analyses [1] [7]. The Justice Department and ICE prosecutions show brokers have supplied tens of thousands of kilos of precursor chemicals enabling production of billions of doses, underscoring how cartels secured upstream inputs and scaled manufacture [5] [8].
2. Precursor sourcing: China remains central; India emerges
China continues to be the principal supplier of fentanyl and meth precursors, but U.S. indictments and reporting in 2024–25 point to an expanding role for other countries — notably India — where companies have been charged with supplying chemicals used to make fentanyl to North America [3] [4]. U.S. enforcement has targeted chemical brokers and foreign companies to interrupt that supply chain, but recent government actions suggest precursors now flow through more complex, multi‑country broker networks [5] [8].
3. Product evolution: pills, adulteration, and mixing with stimulants
Cartels shifted product strategies toward pressed pills and mixed supplies: Mexican pill‑mill production of fentanyl‑containing tablets expanded, and forensic data show fentanyl increasingly appears combined with methamphetamine and cocaine — for example, one in eight meth submissions and one in four cocaine submissions contained fentanyl in recent NFLIS/DEA reporting [1] [2]. This mixing increases overdose risk and broadens markets by appealing to stimulant users [9].
4. Smuggling methods: ports of entry, mail, maritime routes and domestic networks
Smuggling tactics diversified. While mail and direct shipments from Asia were dominant earlier, cartels now exploit large volumes at ports of entry, overland corridors from Mexico, maritime routes, clandestine airstrips, and warehouse networks — and U.S. agencies report many major seizures at official entry points and in organized operations against storage and distribution hubs [10] [11] [12]. Canada and domestic U.S. networks also feature increasingly in production and distribution chains [4] [10].
5. Financing and alternative revenue: fuel theft and money‑laundering sophistication
Cartels have diversified revenue and finance models to support synthetic drug production. OFAC and Treasury sanctions note CJNG and related actors turned to fuel theft and crude oil smuggling as powerful revenue generators, enabling expanded trafficking capacity [6]. Financial agencies and FinCEN analysis emphasize complex laundering methods and trade‑based schemes to hide proceeds of synthetic opioid trafficking [13].
6. Enforcement and policy responses shaping cartel behavior
U.S. prosecutions, extraditions, indictments of chemical suppliers, and sanctions have focused efforts on cutting precursor flows and target cartel leadership; DOJ and ICE cases have produced long sentences for chemical brokers and traffickers tied to massive precursor imports [5] [8]. The federal government has also adjusted trade and tariff tools aimed at supplier countries, and agencies report coordinated interdiction operations seizing pill presses, precursors and finished product [12] [14].
7. Market signals and limits of the available reporting
Available sources show both increased domestic production and continued importance of foreign precursors, but different datasets point to nuance: some analysts argue China’s role shifted toward precursors rather than finished fentanyl, while enforcement notices document new supplier countries [3] [4]. NFLIS and DEA data document fentanyl mixed into stimulants, but sources do not provide a single, quantified national trend for every tactic; regional variation is substantial and not fully captured in the cited materials [2] [9].
8. Competing perspectives and what to watch next
Law‑enforcement sources emphasize cartel capability and supply‑side countermeasures, while academic and policy analysts stress market adaptations and the need for demand‑reduction and international chemical control [8] [3]. Watch for further prosecutions of chemical suppliers, additional sanctions or trade measures, shifts in seizure locations (ports vs. inland), and forensic trends showing the prevalence of fentanyl in stimulant markets — each will indicate how cartels continue to adapt [5] [2] [11].
Limitations: reporting is drawn from DEA, DOJ, Treasury, investigative outlets and analyses provided above; available sources do not mention granular regional production volumes or internal cartel decision‑making beyond law‑enforcement findings [5] [1].