Read

May 11: Jeffrey James Higgins is featured on the Fair Observer podcast show — “Why Narcoterrorism Still Matters”

May 11, 2026 — Producer and podcaster Atul Singh explains: In this episode of FO Podcasts, Atul Singh and Jeffrey James Higgins examine how narcoterrorism combines organized crime, insurgency and geopolitical conflict. They discuss the rise of synthetic opioids and how cartels in Latin America increasingly resemble paramilitary organizations capable of challenging state authority. Should narcotics be treated as a public health issue, or an insidious national security threat?

In this episode: Editor-in-Chief Atul Singh speaks with former counterterrorism operative Jeffrey James Higgins about narcoterrorism, a threat that sits between organized crime, insurgency and geopolitical conflict. Higgins argues that illicit drug networks are no longer merely criminal enterprises. They fund armed groups, corrupt institutions, hollow out communities and, in some cases, operate like shadow states. As synthetic opioids such as fentanyl spread and cartels acquire paramilitary capabilities, Singh and Higgins examine whether narcotics should be treated as a public health crisis, a law enforcement problem or a national security threat.

Drugs, terror and power: Higgins defines narcoterrorism as “the nexus between terrorism and illicit narcotics trafficking.” He says this connection once met skepticism inside parts of the US intelligence community, but his experience in Afghanistan after 2004 convinced him that the overlap was undeniable. Taliban-linked networks, drug traffickers and armed groups often shared routes, revenue streams and operational interests.

The logic is straightforward. Drugs generate enormous profits, and illegal organizations need money that cannot be raised openly. Afghanistan’s opium economy once supplied much of the world’s heroin, while groups such as the Taliban used narcotics revenue to sustain their political and military ambitions. Today, Higgins argues, fentanyl has transformed the landscape because it is cheaper, more potent and easier to produce than plant-based narcotics.

He breaks narcoterrorism into several types: cartels that use political violence to protect drug profits, ideological groups that use drug money to fund their goals, individuals who are both traffickers and terrorists, and broader partnerships between criminal and militant networks. Singh adds that states can also use narcotics as tools of destabilization, citing Pakistan’s alleged role in the Indian state of Punjab and the wider debate over China’s role in the fentanyl trade.

Fentanyl and unrestricted warfare: Much of the conversation turns to China. Higgins argues that Beijing benefits from the flow of fentanyl and related synthetic opioids into the United States, even when it takes limited steps to appear cooperative. In his view, China has the capacity to do far more to stop precursor chemicals and fentanyl analogues from leaving its territory.

Singh complicates the argument by placing it in historical context. He recalls Britain’s 19th-century use of Indian opium against China, which helped inaugurate China’s “century of humiliation.” Higgins accepts the historical parallel but argues that the present danger is part of a broader strategy. He links narcotics to cyberattacks, financial pressure and what he calls disintegration warfare — the effort to weaken a rival from within.

This results in not just overdose deaths, Higgins says, but institutional decay. Narcotics weaken public health, reduce productivity, increase enforcement costs and deepen mistrust in government. Unlike a dramatic terrorist attack, drug-driven destabilization unfolds slowly. This process, in Singh’s words, can “hollow out” entire communities.

Learn more about: Cartels as insurgents • Public health or national security? • Shadow states and justice

Read all about it here • Listen to the episode on Spotify