[House Hearing, 119 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
INTERNATIONAL NARCOTICS AND LAW ENFORCE-
MENT SHOULD FIGHT CRIME, NOT FIGHT CON-
SERVATIVES
=======================================================================
HEARING
OF THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON WESTERN HEMISPHERE
BEFORE THE
COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED NINETEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
March 27, 2025
__________
Serial No. 119-9
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Foreign Affairs
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available: http://www.foreignaffairs.house.gov, http://docs.house.gov,
or http://www.govinfo.gov
______
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
60-455 PDF WASHINGTON : 2025
COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS
BRIAN J. MAST, Florida, Chairman
MICHAEL T. McCAUL, Texas GREGORY W. MEEKS, New York,
CHRISTOPHER H. SMITH, New Jersey Ranking Member
JOE WILSON,, South Carolina BRAD SHERMAN, California
SCOTT PERRY, Pennsylvania GERALD E. CONNOLLY, Virginia
DARRELL ISSA, California WILLIAM R. KEATING, Massachusetts
TIM BURCHETT, Tennessee AMI BERA, California
MARK E. GREEN, Tennessee JOAQUIN CASTRO, Texas
ANDY BARR, Kentucky DINA TITUS, Nevada
RONNY JACKSON, Texas TED LIEU, California
YOUNG KIM, California SARA JACOBS, California
MARIA ELVIRA SALAZAR, Florida SHEILA CHERFILUS-McCORMICK,
BILL HUIZENGA, Michigan Florida
AUMUA AMATA COLEMAN RADEWAGEN, GREG STANTON, Arizona
American Samoa JARED MOSKOWITZ, Florida
WARREN DAVIDSON, Ohio JONATHAN L. JACKSON, Illinois
JIM R. BAIRD, Indiana SYDNEY KAMLAGER-DOVE, California
THOMAS H. KEAN, JR, New Jersey JIM COSTA, California
MICHAEL LAWLER, New York GABE AMO, Rhode Island
CORY MILLS, Florida KWEISI MFUME, Maryland
KEITH SELF, Texas PRAMILA JAYAPAL, Washington
RYAN K. ZINKE, Montana GEORGE LATIMER, New York
JAMES C. MOYLAN, Guam JOHNNY OLSZEWSKI Jr, Maryland
ANNA PAULINA LUNA, Florida JULIE JOHNSON, Texas
JEFFERSON SHREVE, Indiana SARAH McBRIDE, Delaware
SHERI BIGGS, South Carolina BRADLEY SCOTT SCHNEIDER, Illinois
MICHAEL BAUMGARTNER, Washington MADELEINE DEAN, Pennsylvania
RYAN MACKENZIE, Pennsylvania
James Langenderfer, Majority Staff Director
Sajit Gandhi, Minority Staff Director
------
SUBCOMMITTEE ON WESTERN HEMISPHERE
MARIA ELVIRA SALAZAR, Florida, Chairwoman
CHRISTOPHER H. SMITH, New Jersey JOAQUIN CASTRO, Texas, Ranking
MARK GREEN, Tennessee Member
MICHAEL LAWLER, New York DINA TITUS, Nevada
CORY MILLS, Florida SARA JACOBS, California
JEFFERSON SHREVE, Indiana GREG STANTON, Arizona
SHERI BIGGS, South Carolina JONATHAN JACKSON, Illinois
RYAN MACKENZIE, Pennsylvania SYDNEY KAMLAGER-DOVE, California
Maggie Goessler, Subcommittee Staff Director
C O N T E N T S
----------
REPRESENTATIVES
Page
Opening Statement of Subcommittee Chairwoman Maria Elvira Salazar 1
Opening Statement of Subcommittee Ranking Member Joaquin Castro.. 3
WITNESSES
Statement of Chelsa Kenney, Director, International Affairs and
Trade, United States Government Accountability Office.......... 5
Prepared Statement............................................. 7
Statement of Andres Martinez-Fernandez, Senior Policy Analyst,
Latin America, Allison Center for National Security at The
Heritage Foundation............................................ 26
Prepared Statement............................................. 28
Statement of Adam Isacson, Director, Defense Oversight,
Washington Office, on Latin America............................ 32
Prepared Statement............................................. 34
APPENDIX
Hearing Notice................................................... 66
Hearing Minutes.................................................. 68
Hearing Attendance............................................... 69
Questions for the Record
Questions submitted by Rep. Dina Titus to Chelsa Kenney.......... 70
INTERNATIONAL NARCOTICS AND LAW EN-
FORCEMENT SHOULD FIGHT CRIME, NOT
FIGHT CONSERVATIVES
----------
Thursday, March 27, 2025
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on the Western Hemisphere,
Committee on Foreign Affairs,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 11:21 a.m., in
room 2172, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Maria Elvira
Salazar [chairwoman of the subcommittee] presiding.
Ms. Salazar. Welcome to all of you. Thank you for staying
after votes.
The subcommittee on the Western Hemisphere will come to
order. The purpose of this hearing is to discuss the Bureau of
International Narcotics and Law Enforcement for the purposes of
the subcommittee's reauthorization of J family programming at
the State Department. Now I am going to recognize myself for an
opening statement.
OPENING STATEMENT OF CHAIRWOMAN MARIA ELVIRA
SALAZAR
Once again, thank you to the witnesses for coming and
giving us your time and your expertise. Always welcome. So the
Bureau of International Narcotics and Law Enforcement Affairs,
INL, acronym, the motto is security through justice. But,
unfortunately, for the last 4 years they have been more
interested in security through ideology, trading fight against
narcotics for seminars to teach pronouns and workshops on
gender diversity.
I believe that the result of this alien ideology has been
damaging to our national security, especially in a region which
is very close to my heart, Central America. As some of you
know, I was the Central American bureau chief for Univision
Network during the Civil War in El Salvador, I lived in that
country for many years until 1992 when they signed a peace
treaty. Central America, don't I know it, has suffered for
decades, and this was the perfect time to help them.
Let's go to Guatemala. Almost 9 million migrants passed
through their territory trying to come to the United States in
the last 4 years. The Guatemalans needed INL's assistance to
tackle the human trafficking and narcotics. But, unfortunately,
the Biden administration refused to work with the attorney
general of that country because, apparently, she was too
conservative. They sanctioned her. Her name is Consuelo Porras.
I don't know her, but I do know that she is the head of
ministerio publico, which is for us, the United States, the
attorney generals--the attorney general.
Unfortunately, the previous administration refused to work
with her. I believe that if the Guatemalans put her there, the
Biden's bureaucrats don't have any business in telling her that
she was not fit for the job and they attacked her over and over
again.
This is the perfect definition of putting politics and
ideology before safety and respect for our neighbors' political
views. If the Guatemalans are conservative, well, so be it. We
have got to respect it.
Let's talk now about El Salvador, the country which has
been tackling a terrible gang problem for 30 years. I was
killed--I mean, I was about to be killed in few instances; I
lived it, I know it and things were terrible in El Salvador
until President Bukele arrived in the picture.
El Salvador should have been a perfect partner for the INL
Bureau--which, by the way, it says that its mandate is to bring
down transnational criminal organizations like MS-13 and Tren
de Aragua. But instead of training the Salvadorian police
forces, INL law enforcement academy taught gender and inclusion
as one of their main goals for El Salvador. I believe, I am
sure, that at that moment the Salvadorian were going to be
saying, the gringos have gone crazy. I am no law enforcement
expert, but I am fairly confident that getting MS-13 to learn
how to pronounce correctly pronouns is not going to destroy
them from committing any crimes.
I am a witness--I have spoken to him--that Bukele wants to
work with the United States. But, instead, the Biden
administration cut funds to the Salvadorian police by 50
percent. Why? And INL concentrated its budget for El Salvador
to give it to NGO's that attack his security plan.
With or without us, Bukele was successful. His strategy
reduced one of the world's highest homicide rates to nearly
zero. He presented the strategy to INL, and they said, no, we
are not going to work with you.
During the last 4 years, unfortunately, woke ideology has
replaced common sense. But thankfully, things have changed
under President Trump, and we are going to return the Bureau of
International Narcotics and Law Enforcement Affairs to its
original mission, which is helping allies fight crime,
dismantling gangs, restoring law and order.
They have a budget of $2 billion a year, and I think we owe
it to the American taxpayers to commit and re-establish their
mandate; finding drugs, stopping human trafficking, training
police forces worldwide with American-made weapons bought by
our allies. INL is one of the best tools we have as Americans
to create a safer, stronger, and more prosperous country, while
helping our neighbors to do the same, whether it is in Central
America or anywhere else in the world.
I believe that we are still the United States. We are the
point of reference for the rest of the hemisphere at least when
it comes to good governance, the beacon of hope that there is a
political system that respects human dignity. Thank God we are
back on the right side of history.
I yield back. And now I recognize my dear ranking member,
the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Castro, for any statements he may
have.
OPENING STATEMENT OF RANKING MEMBER JOAQUIN
CASTRO
Mr. Castro. Thank you, Chairwoman. Good afternoon,
everyone. Thank you, Chairwoman, for convening this hearing,
and thank you to our witnesses for testifying at the
subcommittee's first hearing in Congress--this Congress.
The topic of this hearing is broadly to discuss the
reauthorization of the State Department's Bureau of
International Narcotics and Law Enforcement. This is certainly
important, and I look forward to the discussion on this issue,
but I first need to paint a picture of what's going on right
now.
In just the last few weeks, we have witnessed a deeply
troubling pattern of executive overreach and undermining of
congressional authority. The administration has attempted to
dismantle congressionally established agencies--USAID, the
Inter-American Foundation, and the U.S. African Development
Foundation--all without a single hearing from this committee
where the administration has defended its actions.
The Trump administration is trying to shut down the U.S.
Agency for Global Media, a move cheered by autocrats and
dictators from Havana to Moscow to Beijing to Caracas. They are
trying to do this without this committee, the full committee,
demanding the administration even explain themselves. The
committee has given up its role of oversight. It has abandoned
any oversight of the Trump administration, which is astounding
in the history of Congress.
The committee has abandoned--I am sorry. We, as a Nation,
because of the Trump administration, have abandoned brave human
rights defenders in Cuba, Venezuela, Nicaragua, and everywhere
else in the world as we went back on our word and froze
programs that support them. We left them to get rounded up and
put in prison. That is what this administration has done.
The committee has not called Secretary Rubio in or any
other administration official to explain these actions. That is
why I say they have abandoned any oversight responsibilities.
Donald Trump has canceled temporary protected status and
humanitarian parole for hundreds of thousands of Venezuelans,
Nicaraguans, Haitians, and Cubans who have sought refuge in our
country as millions of people have over generations. These were
people who had status to be here. This is after President Trump
said that he would only go after criminals.
Masked ICE agents are pulling people off the streets in
Texas, in Florida, and in cities across our country and sending
them to prisons in El Salvador without any due process at all.
President Bukele has become a mercenary for prisoners--to house
prisoners from the United States and, I imagine, other parts of
the world.
Every day we learn of new horrors and innocent people
brutalized by the administration. To do this, the Trump
administration has used a wartime authority, the Alien Enemies
Act, and claimed that we are being invaded by Venezuela. The
idea that we are currently at war with Venezuela would be news
to most Americans. In fact, it would be news to almost all
Americans. If we are truly at war, I certainly--I certainly
think this committee should be holding a hearing on it.
Unfortunately, what we are seeing from the Republican
majority is a total surrender of their power as legislators.
Why hasn't this committee demanded testimony from Secretary
Rubio, Pete Marocco, and others on all of this? We need
answers, we need accountability, and we need this committee to
do its job.
We meet at a time when the United States is facing serious,
complex threats abroad, and the responses from this Congress
and this administration have too often been silence, confusion,
or political theater. Across the world vital U.S. foreign
assistance programs, many of them managed through the INL
Bureau, have been cut, delayed, or outright canceled.
We have seen freezes to police academy training in Mexico,
programs designed to disrupt human trafficking, and efforts to
equip law enforcement agencies across the globe with the tools
to fight money laundering, fentanyl production, and organized
crime. These aren't just line items in a budget. They are
lifelines to communities here and abroad.
The impacts of those decisions are not abstract. They
absolutely make Americans less safe. When you see more fentanyl
entering this country, when violent cartels operate with
impunity, this is part of the reason why. These decisions will
haunt us in the coming years.
As we turn specifically to the reauthorization of the INL
Bureau and its programs, we must approach reauthorization with
clear eyes. INL has been a critical tool in our foreign policy
toolkit, but I agree that it must evolve. Synthetic drugs like
fentanyl are not only devastating American families, they are
destabilizing entire regions. Scam centers and cyber-enabled
fraud schemes are preying on our most vulnerable citizens. INL
must be equipped and reoriented to tackle these challenges.
At the same time, we must resist the impulse to think that
security means police alone. Sustainable progress requires more
than just training and equipping security forces. It means
building robust justice systems, effective prosecutors,
professional judges, strong defense attorneys, independent
courts, prisons, and investing in the civil society actors who
hold their leaders accountable. Funding police while defunding
anti-corruption and Rule of Law programs is not just
shortsighted, it is dangerous, and it is counterproductive.
Today's hearing is an opportunity to begin a serious,
hopefully sober, conversation about what INL needs to succeed
and what reforms we need to pursue to ensure its work aligns
with our values, advances our interest, and keeps our
communities safe.
Thank you, Chairwoman, and I yield back.
Ms. Salazar. Thank you, Mr. Castro. Thank you for your
statement.
Now we are pleased to have a distinguished panel of
witnesses before us today on this important topic. Let me
introduce Ms. Chelsa Kenney. She is the Director, International
Affairs and Trade, for the U.S. Government Accountability
Office. Thank you and welcome.
Mr. Andres Martinez-Fernandez, senior policy analyst, Latin
America, Allison Center for National Security at the Heritage
Foundation.
Mr. Adam Isacson, Director for Defense Oversight,
Washington office, on Latin America.
This committee recognizes the importance of the issues
before us and is grateful to have you here to speak to us
today. Your full statements will be made part of the record,
and I will ask each of you to keep your spoken remarks to 5
minutes in order to allow time for members' questions.
Now I recognize Ms. Kenney for her opening statement.
STATEMENT OF CHELSA KENNEY
Ms. Kenney. Chairwoman Salazar, Ranking Member Castro, and
members of the subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to
discuss our findings and recommendations related to the Bureau
of International Narcotics and Law Enforcement Affairs.
INL contributes to some of the U.S. Government's top
security priorities. These include combatting the flow of
illicit narcotics into the U.S., promoting Rule of Law around
the world, and combatting transnational crime. We have reviewed
many of INL's programs in recent years and identified successes
as well as opportunities for improvement in at least 15
reports, many at the request of this committee.
Since 2020, we have made 16 recommendations to improve the
effectiveness of INL programs. I will highlight three key areas
of improvement related to performance management, program
monitoring, and program evaluation.
First, we have made five recommendations to improve how INL
is managing the performance of its projects. Of these, INL has
implemented one recommendation on combatting firearms
trafficking in Mexico, but four related to firearms trafficking
in the Caribbean and on assistance to Mexico more broadly
remain unaddressed. Performance management is meant to ensure
that the U.S. Government is spending taxpayer dollars
effectively and achieving U.S. goals.
For example, since 2008, the U.S. has provided over $3
billion in assistance to Mexico to address crime and violence
and enhance the country's Rule of Law. However, in 2023, we
reported that INL could not demonstrate that it was achieving
its goals because of gaps in its approach to performance
management.
Specifically, we found that INL had established goals and
objectives but had not identified which of its projects were
key to achieving them. So, for example, under the goal of
preventing transborder crime, INL had established a joint
objective with Mexico to disrupt and dismantle narcotics
production; however, while INL implemented and collected data
on individual projects, it had not linked which of these
projects were helping to meet this goal.
We recommended that INL strengthen its performance
management approach to determine whether it was achieving its
goals in Mexico. Considering the importance of the U.S.-Mexico
relationship and the level of U.S. investment, we have
identified this to be a priority recommendation for the agency.
Second, we have made six recommendations to improve INL's
program monitoring. Of these, INL has implemented three, but
three related to its wildlife trafficking programs remain
unaddressed. Consistent program monitoring helps assess
progress and identify problems that might prevent the Bureau
from reaching its goals. Wildlife trafficking is a crime that
fuels corruption and destabilizes communities.
In recent years, media reports have alleged that park
rangers trained by U.S.-funded entities had committed human
rights abuses, including sexual assault and murder. Since 2020,
State has taken steps to enhance safeguards to prevent these
abuses; however, we found that INL had not conducted consistent
program monitoring to ensure that these U.S.-funded entities
reported on the implementation or effectiveness of these
safeguards. We also found an alleged incident of sexual abuse
by a ranger that INL was unaware of.
INL agreed with our recommendations, including that it
clarify reporting requirements for human rights abuses.
Third, we have made two recommendations to INL to conduct
program evaluations or studies that would determine how well a
program is working. For example, in 2024 we reported that,
despite years of support for activities to strengthen the
security situation in Haiti, including specific efforts to
improve the capacity of Haiti's national police, INL had no
formal plans to evaluate the effectiveness of its activities.
We recommended that INL conduct such an evaluation, and the
Bureau agreed.
INL plays a critical role in achieving U.S. security
priorities, such as combatting transnational crime and
supporting Rule of Law worldwide. INL's effectiveness depend on
robust performance management, program monitoring, and program
evaluation. While INL has made some progress, important gaps
remain.
We urge INL to fully implement our recommendations to help
ensure that it is spending taxpayer dollars effectively and
achieving U.S. goals.
Thank you, and I would be pleased to respond to your
questions.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Kenney follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Ms. Salazar. Thank you, Ms. Kenney.
Now I recognize Mr. Martinez-Fernandez for his opening
statement.
STATEMENT OF ANDRES MARTINEZ-FERNANDEZ
Mr. Martinez-Fernandez. Thank you, Chairwoman Salazar,
Ranking Member Castro, and members for holding this hearing and
inviting me to participate.
The Western Hemisphere is experiencing a period of surging
instability, violence, and criminality, largely driven by
increasingly powerful criminal organizations. From Haiti's
collapse at the hands of gangs, newfound narcoviolence in a
once peaceful Ecuador, increasingly deadly drug cartels in
Mexico and Colombia, and more, we are constantly confronted by
evidence of a failed status quo for security in our hemisphere.
These threats do not stay in Latin America. Instead, they
drive increasingly deadly and destabilizing consequences to the
United States and directly to the American people. The absence
of robust and effective security engagement from the United
States in Latin America is a key driver of the current State of
affairs.
Indeed, the collapse of the hemispheric consensus on
counternarcotics is due in no small part to decisions on the
part of Washington to blunt and curb security cooperation in
the Americas away from the core support from regional security
forces. This trend is driven, in part, by Washington's focus on
other foreign conflicts, as well as a series of challenges that
we continue to focus on in other parts of the world.
However, the impact and inattention that this has brought
has exacerbate--been exasperated by mission drift and the
watering down of critical institutions like the State
Department's International Narcotics and Law Enforce Bureau.
Additionally, hemispheric security and stability has suffered
from the Biden administration's politicization of U.S. security
engagement and tools in Latin America.
The so-called expert consensus on Latin America security
policy has shifted dramatically over the past few decades
prompting detrimental changes in the nature and magnitude of
U.S. security cooperation. Vocal leaders and activists have
successfully framed organized crime in Latin America as
primarily being an issue of economic development and judicial
institutions, deemphasizing in particular the role of
enforcement and security forces.
Today, at the core of this new conventional wisdom in many
circles in Washington and in the region, is the increasingly--
is increasingly the poorly substantiated claim that confronting
Latin America's powerful criminal organizations only serve to
exasperate--exacerbate insecurity and criminality.
One of the key events that provided support for this view
was the spike in violence in Mexico during the late 2000's
following President Felipe Calderon's efforts to crack down on
the cartels. However, notably, today after over a decade during
which the Mexican government has pulled back from confronting
the cartels, Mexico's homicide rates now exceed the worst years
of violence during the Calderon administration. Add to that the
over 100,000 overdose deaths in the United States due to
fentanyl and other deadly drugs.
Indeed, Mexico's disastrous hugs, not bullets strategy on
the cartels showcases the dire consequences of deemphasizing
enforcement and security forces in our security policies in the
Western Hemisphere. When President Andres Manuel Lopez
Obrador--apology.
With Mexico, the Merida Initiative drifted away from its
initial focus of providing training, equipment, and operational
support to Mexican security forces and, instead, shifted
support to--instead, U.S. support shifted for reform of the
Mexican judicial system increasingly.
Then, when President Lopez Obrador fully abandoned the
Merida Initiative, the new security cooperation framework
further de-emphasized security forces and the role of
enforcement as a core aspect of security policy.
In both Mexico, Colombia, and elsewhere, the United States
failed to push back on regional leaders' abandonment of
security cooperation and commitments. This was particularly
egregious under the Biden administration where we saw the
increase of deaths of American people reaching 100,000 each
year due to fentanyl and other drugs; and yet, we did not
adequately push the administration in Mexico to address the
security threat posed by the cartels.
Even worse, at times the Biden administration leaned into
its wrongheaded approach within the region to--apologies--
leaned into this wrongheaded approach on organized crime by
regional leaders. In the case of Colombia, President Biden
actively drew attention away from Colombia's deteriorating
security situation by ending the long-standing program of U.S.
monitoring of coca cultivation.
To confront the dire threats posed by organized crime in
our hemisphere, U.S. security assistance through INL and other
critical agencies should be bolstered and refocused on the core
mission of counternarcotics and transnational organized crime.
Failure to do so urgently will bring increasingly deadly
consequences for Latin America and for the American people.
Thank you very much.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Martinez-Fernandez follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Ms. Salazar. Thank you, Mr. Martinez-Fernandez.
I now recognize Mr. Isacson for his opening statement.
STATEMENT OF ADAM ISACSON
Mr. Isacson. Chairwoman Salazar, Ranking Member Castro,
thank you so much for holding this hearing and for inviting me.
The State Department's Bureau of INL manages the largest
U.S. aid account for security forces in Latin America and the
Caribbean, though it pays for other things, too. Worldwide, it
is about a billion and a half dollars. In our hemisphere, it is
at least $600 million.
Now, for years, INL was jokingly known as the drugs and
thugs bureau. Its success was measured in hectares eradicated
and kilos seized and kingpins arrested. That narrow focus
reflects its 1980's-era statute, and it hasn't really worked.
You don't have to take my word for it. Just look at overdose
deaths, look at street prices.
Meanwhile, our understanding of organized crime and how to
combat it has evolved. Yes, drugs are still a top revenue
stream for criminal groups, but crime groups also make billions
from gold mining, migrant smuggling, extortion, and more;
sometimes at even bigger profits than they are getting from
drugs. The drug market itself has shifted toward synthetics,
like fentanyl and meth, which don't involve most of Latin
America outside Mexico. And mass migration has made the
question urgent. How can we help people feel safe enough to
stay in their own communities?
This reframes success. It is no longer just kilos and
hectares. It is whether people feel secure, it is whether
justice works, it is whether officials fear punishment for
corruption. To its credit, INL has shifted. It no longer tries
to fight crime the way you would fight a guerilla insurgency.
While guerillas fight governments, organized crime infiltrates
them and hollows them out by bribing, threatening, co-opting,
and corrupting. That makes it a much harder, much more complex
fight.
Now, in response, INL has begun putting more emphasis on
the L, Rule of Law and civilian law enforcement, rather than
just the N. Funding has increasingly gone to prosecutors,
judicial institutions, police academies, oversight bodies, and
independent experts and investigators, a whole comprehensive
security sector, a table with many legs, and not just the
people wearing uniforms.
There is a growing realization that real progress is going
to take time, and it depends on breaking collusion between
government and crime. That is why efforts like the Commission
Against Impunity in Guatemala, the CICIG, mattered so much.
Brave people made historic anti-corruption gains, and INL was
there to support them.
Ironically, de-narcotizing INL's mission may be the best
way to reduce drug supplies in the long-term. But that shift
also means we need to rethink some obsolete frameworks, like
the annual drug certification process. As the 2020 Western
Hemisphere Drug Policy Commission noted, it is a relic. It
hasn't been used to seriously cut aid since the 1990's, and
even then a Republican majority Congress and a Democratic White
House scrambled in the late 1990's to restore it when security
began deteriorating in Colombia.
So, yes, INL needs reform. WOLA supports a serious rethink
to bring the Bureau and its statutes into the mid-21st century.
What we don't support is a rushed 90-day review full of abrupt
freezes and cuts with no input from partners around the world,
many of whom have been risking their lives to fight corruption
and crime and really depend on the relationship with us.
The little we have seen of the proposed cuts so far is
worrying. Aid to police and military agencies looks mostly
untouched, but support to civil society, justice institutions,
U.N. programs, that looks like it is cut by about half. The
risks turning--that risk is turning INL back into what it once
was, a little drugs and thugs bureau, and we know where that
leads; brief dips in violence or drug supplies followed by
resurgence.
It is just a constant game of whack-a-mole. Organized crime
figures get taken down, but organized crime remains strong.
Corrupt officials keep operating with impunity. People keep
fleeing their homes, often coming here.
I am not asking to preserve the status quo. Frankly, I
can't defend much of it because I can't see it. Public
reporting on INL aid has become vague, inconsistent, and far
less quantitative. It is hard to track where the money goes and
what it achieves. And reporting requirements, if we do
reauthorize INL, have to improve. Right now, oversight is
difficult, and it makes the whole program hard to defend when
an administration comes to power questioning its entire value.
This committee can help. First, it can urge INL to keep
expanding its focus on organized crime, corruption, and citizen
security, not just counternarcotics.
Second, it can press for much better transparency.
Third, it can insist that any reform effort be thoughtful,
inclusive, and deliberate, not a 90-day rollback. There is lots
of space for bipartisan agreement here, I think.
I look forward to exploring that here and any other time
that you would like in the future. Thank you again for
organizing this discussion.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Isacson follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Ms. Salazar. Thank you, Mr. Isacson. Now--for your
testimony, I now recognize myself for 5 minutes of questioning.
I am delighted to hear, Mr. Isacson, that you believe
certain quotes here, that INL needs to be modernized and needs
to be reformed, and that maybe they are just following some of
the precepts of the 1980's. But, specifically, I agree that
they are not--that they need to be reorganized, and there needs
to be some revamped, but let's go to the last 4 years.
Do you really believe that talking to the Guatemalans and
to the Salvadorians about gender ideology or the pronouns or
how you can--there are many genders--do you really think that
talking to them was going to make the United States and
themselves safer? I mean, you are going to keep people home? So
explain how one thing comes linked to the other.
Mr. Isacson. I would like to know what percentage of the
program actually was about gender and identity and things like
that. If it is--we don't have that data.
Ms. Salazar. Focused, main focus. The Guatemalans were
complaining.
Mr. Isacson. In terms of dollar amounts?
Ms. Salazar. Of course. And in terms of political
willingness and desire to infiltrate these forces with our
ideology, the American Biden administration ideology. Don't you
think that it was--we did a disservice to them and to us?
Mr. Isacson. If you are fighting human trafficking where
most victims are women----
Ms. Salazar. Yes.
Mr. Isacson [continuing]. you need to ignore the gender----
Ms. Salazar. How can you be talking about sex, when you are
trying to find human trafficking?
Mr. Isacson. If you are fighting gender violence, that is
true.
Ms. Salazar. How do you do that?
Mr. Isacson. I just need to know, you know, how much of the
programming really did go in that direction instead of--like
Joint Task Force Alpha in Guatemala----
Ms. Salazar. Ask the Guatemalans.
Mr. Isacson [continuing]. which was fighting human
smugglers----
Ms. Salazar. The Guatemalans--perfect example. They hated a
lady by the name of Consuelo Porras. Do I know her? No, I
don't. But I know that she is the AG of the country. So why
don't we work with her? Oh, because she is too conservative.
Who are we to say that--to the Guatemalans. Why?
Mr. Isacson. I don't know if Consuelo Porras is hated----
Ms. Salazar. Everything I am saying is quoted. Consuelo
Porras is detested.
Mr. Isacson. Oh, I think she is detested, yes.
Ms. Salazar. It was--OK. But who are we, the Americans, to
come and say, oh, Consuelo is not the person that you need to
work with? She is the AG.
Mr. Isacson. I have never heard that she was held at arm's
length because of--because she favored free markets or like,
you know----
Ms. Salazar. She was too conservative.
Mr. Isacson [continuing]. because she was too conservative.
It was because of----
Ms. Salazar. She was too conservative.
Mr. Isacson [continuing]. significant corruption, according
to what I saw.
Ms. Salazar. You know what I am telling you. So please help
me understand why the Biden administration wanted to
concentrate its resources when it talks to reforming and
securing the Salvadorian-Guatemalan police, concentrated on
something that had nothing to do with national security for the
United States.
Mr. Isacson. My impression was that INL and the justice
department worked very hard with--not with Consuelo, but with
the rest of the public ministry in Guatemala on something
called Joint Task Force Alpha, which was a big effort to get at
the nodes of the network of migrant smuggling. And they have
actually taken out a lot of migrant smugglers working with the
attorney general's office in Guatemala in the last few years.
And the Trump administration is expanding that.
Ms. Salazar. INL, did you know this, would give money to
the NGO's in Guatemala to help the migrants go have a smoother
ride while they were going to Guatemala and getting to Mexico?
Mr. Isacson. I think that would have been illegal in
Guatemala where they actually arrest and deport more than
20,000, 30,000 migrants a year back into Honduras.
Ms. Salazar. Nine million went through it.
Mr. Isacson. Yes. A lot do get through, yes.
Ms. Salazar. All right. Let's go to El Salvador. Bukele,
what do you think--what ranking do you give to Bukele from one
to ten?
Mr. Isacson. I would give him--I would give him a four,
perhaps. I think he is a brilliant communicator, but I do worry
about checks and balances.
Ms. Salazar. Forget about the communicator. What has he
done with the country?
Mr. Isacson. He has put 3 percent of the male population in
prison, which, yes, by doing so did eradicate for now a lot of
the gangs.--feature of democracy.
Ms. Salazar. And you and I agree that if there is one
innocent guy in the CECOT, I was the first one who told him you
got to get him out because we don't want innocent people in
jail. But the thing is that, you know, CECOT, the people who
are full of tattoos that are revealing who they were and what
they did, you know, each drop meant one murder. So you think he
did something right?
Mr. Isacson. If these people were facing judges and if
their families knew what was going on with them, it would be
right. But right now, almost everybody there is pretrial, and
there is not even dates for most of their trials. So, yes, they
need a fair shake. I mean, it was right to clean out the
streets.
Ms. Salazar. I agree with you, that everyone needs due
process, yes, sir.
Mr. Isacson. That is just not happening right now.
Ms. Salazar. All right. But what about us working with him?
Maybe if INL would have done its job, then Bukele would have
been able to really help--we would help him to do a better job,
don't you think?
Mr. Isacson. I----
Ms. Salazar. Talking about diversity and inclusion and
pronouns.
Mr. Isacson. I think one of INL's biggest obstacles
actually there is--and I actually support it--is language that
both Republicans and Democrats put in the foreign aid bill
saying that half of aid--I believe it is half--to El Salvador
is cut until they can certify that the human rights situation
is good and is improving.
Right now more than 300 people dying in the jails in the
last 3 years and widespread allegations of torture, it has been
hard to certify that.
Ms. Salazar. What happens to the human rights of the people
who were outside being killed by those gang members, which is
why he got 90 percent of transparency----
Mr. Isacson. Oh, yes.
Ms. Salazar [continuing]. internationally observed
elections; we agree with that, right?
Mr. Isacson. Oh, yes. If I was a shopkeeper being
extorted----
Ms. Salazar. Why do we have to hate him? Who are we to say
to this guy, don't do it that way?
Mr. Isacson. I think we are just worried about what it is
going to look like in 5 years. But, yes, right now if I am a
shopkeeper who had to pay----
Ms. Salazar. That is--don't you think that they should be
concerned about what they are going to be looking like 5 years
from now? That is their concern, not ours. We are here to help
them have a better police force.
All right. You agree with that, right?
Mr. Isacson. We are certainly here to help them have a
better police force, but we don't want to be funding abuses in
the short-term.
Ms. Salazar. I think that I am exceeding my time. I yield
back.
Now I am going to recognize the ranking member for 5
minutes. Thank you.
Mr. Isacson. Thank you.
Mr. Castro. Thank you, Chairwoman. I want to take up this
issue really quickly because, you know, we disagree, Maria, on
this. I don't think there has ever been a bias of the United
States in--against conservative leaders and in favor of leftist
leaders.
In fact, when you look at the history of the U.S.
involvement in Latin America, Latin America has often--I mean,
the United States, unfortunately, in decades past worked to
undermine the leadership of leaders on the left and treated
leaders on the right as friends; and, in fact, supported what
were some of the most brutal dictatorships, like the Pinochet
ruling in Chile.
When we think about how we--how we provide U.S. assistance,
how we provide taxpayer money, the way we should be thinking
about it is, who is operating consistent with U.S. values and
what we stand for? So democracy, freedom, respect for human
rights.
Really, regardless of where you are in the political
spectrum, whether you are on the left or the right as a leader,
we ought to support leaders who are pursuing those things.
Consuelo Porras, as I understand, had been sanctioned for
severe corruption. That is why we are not working with her, not
because she has got a certain ideology. And Bukele also, I
think it is true--I mean, he has gotten a lot of crime off the
streets and has scared a lot of people, especially young men,
but so has Xi Jinping in China.
So, you know, if the question is, well, why don't we just
let people do what they are going to do, OK, I get that. But
the question for us is, are we going to back them up with money
to commit human rights abuses and other things that we would
never allow for in the United States ourselves?
Now, bear in mind, in the last few weeks we have seen some
disturbing instances of people literally being picked off the
street for having exercised their First Amendment rights by
government agents who don't identify themselves, who aren't
dressed in uniform, and who barely present credentials, if at
all. Those are the kinds of activities that you are used to
seeing in countries that violate people's rights.
So just with that disagreement, let me get into a question
really quick.
Ms. Kenney, as you know, the administration is conducting
multiple reviews of foreign assistance programs. And I believe
those programs have been incredibly disruptive and that the
review has not been done in good faith.
In 2019, the first Trump administration did something
similar on a smaller scale. They unilaterally froze $400
million in foreign assistance funding in Central America for
over 14 months. At the time I, along with other colleagues,
requested the GAO assess the impacts of that freeze. The GAO
determined that many programs, including State Department INL
Bureau programs, had been adversely affected.
Based on your experience with the 2019 freeze, do you
expect adverse effects from the ongoing freeze on many INL
programs?
Ms. Kenney. Thank you for that question. Yes. Where we
reviewed the freeze in 2019, we found that there were a number
of adverse effects.
To the State Department, we found that about 65 or 39
percent of INL programs actually suffered adverse effects where
they had to reduce the geographical region in which they were
implementing programs, they had to reduce the number of
beneficiaries who could participate in trainings, they had to
reduce the quality of programs. And programs that relied on
implementing partners suffered even more consequences because
they had to lay people off, and they were unable to pick up
those programs when the funding resumed.
However, that funding was really just a freeze of 1-year
funding. In a lot of ways those programs were able to continue
because the funding that was still available in the pipeline
from prior year's funding.
We haven't had an opportunity to review the funding freeze
that is occurring right now, but my understanding is that those
programs aren't able to access prior year funding either, and
so my understanding is that they are not continuing at all. We
haven't had--I am sorry.
Mr. Castro. Sure. Thank you for that. And let me ask a
followup really quick.
Will the GAO be willing to conduct a review of the ongoing
freeze and cancellation of hundreds of millions of dollars in
foreign assistance programs?
Ms. Kenney. Yes, we would be happy to do that work.
Mr. Castro. Thank you so much.
With that, I yield back, Chairwoman.
Ms. Salazar. Thank you, Ranking Member Castro.
I now give the opportunity to Representative Lawler from
the State of New York.
Mr. Lawler. Thank you, Chairwoman. It is common practice
for transnational criminal organizations in South and Central
America to source precursor chemicals from China and synthesize
illicit substances like fentanyl. These criminal organizations
then traffic them into the United States where they have
infiltrated far too many communities and led to unimaginable
tragedies for a lot of families across our Nation. 70,000
Americans are dying on an annual basis from fentanyl overdose.
Mr. Martinez-Fernandez, how do you assess INL's role in
stopping the influx of deadly fentanyl into the United States?
Mr. Martinez-Fernandez. Well, clearly, INL and the U.S.
Government is not adequately acting either on resources or
focus to stop the flow of fentanyl. As you mentioned, over
70,000 just--overdose deaths just from fentanyl; when you add
in all the other illicit drugs, 100,000. And I think there is a
very real resource question that has to be addressed.
There is also a partnership and cooperation side to that
where our relationship with Mexico, particularly over the past
4 years under the Biden administration, the cooperation,
security cooperation was almost nonexistent. Even offers to
support port security to identify fentanyl precursors coming in
were rejected by the Mexican government.
The challenges of migration, which grew out of control
under the Biden administration as well, led to a de-
prioritization, in my opinion, of the fentanyl threat with dire
consequences.
Now, President Trump has, obviously, rallied significant
resources, particularly from the Department of Defense, to the
border. I think that is an important aspect of the--confronting
this threat, but we also need to press the Mexican government
to take action.
There is also--certainly, the administration is making
progress on that front and bringing to bear some economic
tools. I think INL is going to play an important role because
at some point we need to restore the security relationship with
Mexico to a functional arrangement with actually targeting the
cartels rather than just having symbolic actions by the Mexican
government be the sum total of the relationship, which is
essentially what we have seen for the past 4 years.
Mr. Lawler. So what can INL do to address China's role
related to the precursor chemicals that are exported into
Mexico and other parts of the Western Hemisphere?
Mr. Martinez-Fernandez. So I think certainly with the
Chinese presence in Mexico is also significant. So there is
action to go after some of the brokers, as well as some of the
trade infrastructure, which is utilized by the Chinese in
Mexico to facilitate the--the flow of illicit precursors.
I think more action also needs to be done in Asia on this
front. We have seen movement of illicit fentanyl supply chains
even out of China. Unfortunately, we don't have a cooperative
relationship on this issue with the government in China. So
there are significant limitations on INL's ability to act
there.
But I think ensuring that, in Mexico in particular, we are
confronting the presence of Chinese criminal organizations, as
well as further south, we have already seen countries like
Guatemala the movement of these illicit supply chains of
fentanyl to new countries, and we need to make sure that we are
reinforcing border security, port security, and those security
relationships to make sure that it doesn't just migrate to
another country.
Mr. Lawler. What--in what way is the INL working with other
entities within the U.S. Government, like the DEA, on this
particular issue, and how can they improve upon that to really
crack down on this?
Obviously, we have a demand issue in this country that is
part of the problem of the deadly flow of fentanyl.
Mr. Martinez-Fernandez. Yes. So I think there is some
important cooperation with other agencies, particularly the
Department of Homeland Security, on the issue of border
security within the region and ensuring that regional partners
can have those capacities to ensure that those flows don't move
through their country without their ability to intercept them.
And on the U.S. side and the side that you referred to, I
think there--as I understand it, there is some conversations
happening here in Congress about potential changes as far as
consequences, judicial consequences in the United States
where--that are going to align, I think, the reality of the
threats and the deadliness of this drug with the consequences
that people face.
Ms. Salazar. Thank you, Representative Lawler.
Now I give the word to Representative Stanton of the State
of Arizona. You have five--been recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. Stanton. Thank you very much, Madam Chair.
The fentanyl crisis is especially acute in my home State of
Arizona where thousands of Arizonans die from opioid overdose
every single year. I know my colleagues and I across the aisle
agree, we need to do more to stop the flow of fentanyl and
other deadly narcotics into the United States of America.
That is why I am at a loss to understand why the Trump
administration has moved to cut funding for the State
Department's Bureau of International Narcotics and Law
Enforcement Affairs' work in Mexico. Drastic cuts. INL works
across law enforcement agencies, intergovernmental agencies,
and with the courts in our partner countries to disrupt the
illicit drug trafficking and bring criminals to justice.
Under previous administrations and with funding approved in
a bipartisan manner, Mexico has been the third largest
recipient of INL funds. INL supports more than a hundred
projects working to combat fentanyl trafficking and
transnational crime by providing services, training, and much-
needed equipment.
One project that has benefited from the INL has deployed
cargo scanners and drug testing equipment to Mexico's Port of
Manzanillo, critical technology to detect and interdict
precursor chemicals from the People's Republic of China.
Another INL project supported a recent operation in Tucson,
Arizona, that led to the arrests of drug trafficking leader and
six other operatives, a good return on taxpayer investment.
Since the Trump administration's freeze on foreign aid,
only 15 percent of INL's programs in Mexico have received
waivers to resume their work, and many of those have not yet
received payment. As former Ambassador marine helicopter pilot
John Feeley phrased it recently, quote, ``They shot the golden
goose right in the leg,'' unquote.
Make no mistake about it, the Trump administration is
hamstringing our response to fentanyl in the region, and while
the--while using this crisis as a justification to raise taxes
on working families through the misguided across-the-board
tariffs on Mexico.
Mr. Isacson, how does this massive cut to INL program
hamper our ability to stem the flow of fentanyl into the United
States?
Mr. Isacson. It definitely deals a blow to our efforts
against fentanyl. This is the hardest drug challenge we have
ever faced. All pure fentanyl that is consumed in the United
States in a year can fit in the beds of two or three pickup
trucks spread out across a 2,000-mile border, unfortunately,
about two-thirds of it coming right to your State right now.
In order to fight this, it is not just a matter of scanners
at the border. You need cooperation from Mexico on everything
you named, investigators, prosecutors, ports, intelligence, all
capital letters, and you cut that off in 90 days and then maybe
restart it? You have to restart everything all over again. It
is incredibly disruptive.
Mr. Stanton. I appreciate that. Now, I have--in my time in
public life both here in Congress and formerly as mayor of
Phoenix, Arizona, I have been a friend to Mexico, making the
case that we need to have a stronger economic unit between
United States, Mexico, Canada, and that is how we are going to
win this economic battle with China.
As a result, I have been a critic of the recent judicial
reforms in Mexico, which I think is a step backward in terms of
promoting U.S. investment in Mexico. INL has helped to train
Mexican institutions to build and present strong legal cases
against organized crime. Mexico's forensic labs and prisons are
accredited to reach higher standards for forensic testing due
to INL support. U.S. officials help to train police
investigators in Mexico City, reducing violent crime in Mexico
City by 58 percent, in partnership with now President
Sheinbaum. And INL's support helped Mexico law schools update
their curriculums to include Mexico's criminal law reform.
These offices that train police and prosecutors and relied
on INL funds are now cut drastically by the dismantling of
foreign assistance.
So another question for Mr. Isacson. You hosted a podcast
last October about Mexico's constitutional reforms where you
open by saying, quote, ``There promise to be serious setbacks
in the struggle to hold powerful people and institutions
accountable for corruption.''
How do Mexico's constitutional changes, including
reorganization of National Guard and judicial reforms concern
you? Maybe you could go on a little bit--for those who haven't
listened to your podcast, go on a little bit more about the
threat of the constitutional reforms.
Mr. Isacson. Sure. And I hope you call in my colleague who
runs our Mexico program, Stephanie Brewer, who really knows
this stuff.
But Mexico, they just changed their judiciary so that
judges are now popularly elected, like people are going to come
and vote for a long list of judges. A justice system,
especially when they are working on these very complicated,
very dangerous cases against these networks of corruption and
powerful people who are ready to kill them need to be free of
political pressures and need to be--need to be autonomous. And
this just dealt a strong blow to that.
As well, substituting police and detectives and people who
are in the community with National Guard troops who rotate in
and out, that also makes it harder to actually--you can find
crimes when they are happening, but you can't really get to the
root of who is behind them.
Mr. Stanton. Thank you very much. Madam chair, I yield
back.
Ms. Salazar. Thank you. I now recognize Representative
Shreve of the State of Arizona.
Mr. Shreve. Representative Shreve, Madam Chairwoman, is
from the State of Indiana and is happy to be here.
Ms. Salazar. State of Indiana. I am sorry. Indiana is one
of----
Mr. Shreve. Madam Chair, we agree. I thank the witnesses
for being here.
I have a question that, in fairness, I will address to Ms.
Kenney because I wasn't in the room to hear the testimony from
our other witnesses, but I appreciate all of you sharing time
and expertise with us.
Of course, INL defines its core mission as keeping America
safe by countering crime, illegal drugs, and instability
abroad. We recognize America is vulnerable to external threats,
certainly including narcotics. We recognize that on both sides
of the aisle.
In my view, the Trump administration is demonstrably making
headway in securing our border and curbing some of the
trafficking that was making its way up I-65 and across I-70 in
Indiana, particularly on the fentanyl trafficking, we are
seeing headway palpably within the district that I represent.
The most pressing drug-related threats in my part of the
country would stem from the trafficking efforts of the Sinaloa
cartel and the Jalisco cartel. These organizations, I am
informed in part by some of the county sheriffs that I
represent, dominate the wholesale supply of illicit opioids,
particularly fentanyl and heroin in through my district.
The crisis is personal to me. I have friends and
constituents who have lost loved ones to fentanyl poisoning,
and this must continue to be a part--bipartisan priority. And
Mr. Stanton had to step out, but I do think this is a
bipartisan priority.
Since 2008, INL has overseen some 3 billion in funding for
security counternarcotics and Rule of Law programs in Mexico.
And, Mr. Isacson, you talked about the abrupt curtailing of
some of that.
There were a few GAO reports of late highlighting gaps in
INL's metrics in monitoring, raising concerns about the
effectiveness of these programs. Certainly, the administration
is attuned to those.
The GAO report concluded, without fully addressing the key
elements for assessing progress, the U.S. Government cannot be
assured that it is achieving its security goals in Mexico and
that its investments at over 3 billion since 2008 are being
spent effectively.
So I will direct my question to the witness that I heard
from in her testimony, though invite anyone else that may have
expertise to respond. Ms. Kenney, what lessons should INL pull
from, take away from the GAO evaluation of its programs in
Mexico that can be used to inform our future initiatives, our
future investment in this cause?
Ms. Kenney. Thank you for this question. We reviewed the
effectiveness, the results of the Merida Initiative and the
Bicentennial Framework. We did our work sort of at a time
period that straddled both of these strategies. And we looked
to see what were the results of the $3 billion plus investment
that the U.S. had made in Mexico.
What we found is that there were key elements of INL's
performance management approach, if you will, that limited our
ability to really evaluate its effectiveness. So in these
strategies, both Merida and the Framework, the Bicentennial
Framework, we found that they had established those top-level
goals and objectives and that they had a number of individual
projects and activities that address things like
counternarcotics flows, fentanyl flows, and they are tracking
data on the implementation of all of these activities.
They had not identified which of these activities were
critical, which were the ones that were really critical to
being able to assess the effectiveness of these top-line goals.
They just hadn't identified the indicators and then monitored
to align them to be able to say this suite of activities is
going to demonstrate our progress in achieving this goal.
When we talked to the State Department about what were the
challenges in being able to complete this--because this went
back to the Merida Initiative which started in 2008--they said
that they--that the U.S. Government was working with the
Mexican government to come up with some shared set of
indicators. These strategies are designed to be sort of shared
approaches, both for the U.S. and Mexican government to be able
to address these shared issues, shared challenges.
And that there were some challenges in being able to
develop a common set of indicators. And some of the
complicating factors were at the time, you know, new
administrations both in Mexico and the United States. However,
we would point out that, given the level of investment and
given the continuity of these challenges, it is really
important that the State Department figure out what these
indicators are, figure out what these suite of activities
should be to be able to support those top-line goals and be
able to measure and share the effectiveness of those efforts
going forward.
So that is really our recommendation. Our recommendation
should be identified as a priority recommendation for the State
Department. Of all of the recommendations that we make, we
believe this is one of the most critical ones to be able to
really make progress on the individual activities and efforts
to be able to address this critical issue between U.S. and
Mexico.
Mr. Shreve. Ms. Kenney, I appreciate it very much. My time
has expired. Madam Chair, I yield back.
Ms. Salazar. Thank you, Representative Shreve, of the State
of Indiana. Appreciate your time with us.
Now I am going to recognize Representative Jackson of the
State of Illinois for 5 minutes.
Mr. Jackson. Thank you, Representative Salazar. Thank you,
Ranking Member.
Colombia is a regional leader in coordinating the
multinational operation Campaign Orion, a Naval campaign
focused on dismantling the transnational network of drug
trafficking and related crimes.
During the 13th Edition of the Orion Naval Campaign last
year, operations in which 125 institutions and 62 countries
from Africa, the Americas, Asia, Europe, and for the first time
Oceana-participating forces seized more than 400 tons of drugs
thanks to the exchange of intelligence and the culmination of
capabilities to counter the illicit trafficking of drugs and
other illegal activities linked to narcotrafficking.
I must say that was a very diverse network. It had a high
level of intelligence being interchanged, and they had shared
interests. They had equity amongst all participants. DEI does
work. I don't know where we get off on this tangent that makes
no sense to me on diversity is bad. Diversity and equity is in
quite a few constitutions around the world. We are going
through a temporary period of some insanity to act as if E
Pluribus Unum, out of many we are one, in the Americas.
I would like to let it be for the record that two-thirds of
our hemisphere and population is not in the United States, and
we are one contiguous land mass.
The operations reach record figures in narcotics seized,
reducing the supply worldwide and dealing significant blows to
the finances of multicrime organizations, preventing them from
receiving more than $18.7 billion, according to the Colombian
military forces. Authorities seized a total of 402 tons of
solid chemical precursors and 1.6 million liters of liquid
chemical precursors and destroyed 302 illegal infrastructures
used for the extraction and processing of drugs.
The Colombian navy reported 112 boats seized and 211
vehicles and on and on. Since this program started about 7
years ago, with only narco trafficking the Orion 12 have
included other crimes that are present in the maritime land
domain as well, such as arms and migrant smuggling,
trafficking, money laundering and the like.
The 13 addition of the Orion Naval Campaigns have
consolidated it as the most important and influential
international cooperation strategy in the global fight against
narco trafficking. And it has also managed to transcend in time
thanks to innovation and rapid adaptation to respond to this
highly complex and changing phenomenon.
Once again I want to thank each of you for coming. And this
question will go to you, Mr. Isacson. Thank you for your
outstanding service as well. Was is the impact of aid cuts in
this program such as Orion Naval Campaigns.
Mr. Isacson. Well, the main impact has been that the
Colombian national police and it is part of the effort to
interdict cocaine has had some real disruptions, even many of
their Black Hawk helicopters were grounded for a while because
they didn't have money for maintenance or fuel. Trainings have
been disrupted and the intelligence that you need in order to
maintain this level of interdictions has been disrupted.
I don't know for how long because I just don't have the
information for how long it has been cutoff and whether
decisions have been made to give waivers. And if so, is that
going to be mean a few blank months this year where the level
of interdiction dips which has been at record levels or whether
they are going to be able to recover that. But we will find out
soon.
Mr. Jackson. Do you think that the money that might have
been saved theoretically will come back to be a penny saved and
a dollar foolish?
Mr. Isacson. I think so, because it's just not good
government practice to stop all of your programs for 90 days
and then to selectively restart them. Your partners just don't
work like that. And it may cost them months and months, if not
a couple of years to really recover from that, even if they do
get to keep the level of funding they had before.
Mr. Jackson. Well, thanks so much.
Are you saying the whiplash, the backlash, the frenetic,
the hectic pace, the capitulation, this erratic behavior is bad
for a long-term goal of reducing the drug trafficking in our
region?
Mr. Isacson. It was definitely good for the organized crime
groups who wanted to evade the police and the navy and others
in Colombia.
Mr. Jackson. I yield back. I thank you so much.
Ms. Salazar. Thank you, Representative Jackson.
I now am going to recognize Representative Titus of the
State of Nevada for 5 minutes.
Ms. Titus. Thank you madam chairman, ranking member.
Mr. Isacson, will you go over this for me just again very
simply, what was the justification given by President Trump for
levying tariffs against Mexico.
Mr. Isacson. The main justification was that Mexico wasn't
cooperating enough in stopping Fentanyl coming into the United
States.
Ms. Titus. And now the President has threatened a trade war
with Mexico, has that compelled greater cooperation from their
authorities on this issue?
Mr. Isacson. I guess that Mexico thinks they can stop the
tariffs then they will come up with some seizures and they will
bomb some labs and things like that, but it won't help with
things like complex investigations and intelligence, no.
Ms. Titus. So it really hasn't moved----
Mr. Isacson. No, if the tariffs happened, then what
incentive does Mexico have once their economy is cratering to
keep cooperating.
Ms. Titus. That is part of the problem. Will they happen,
will they not, from what products, how much, what percent, that
sort of thing.
Will, cuts to it the INL programs in Mexico help or hurt
our ability to stem the flow of Fentanyl into the country.
Mr. Isacson. Yes, we have seen this before, you can't just
have better scanners at the border and hope--or bomb a few
labs. It costs $60,000 to start a new Fentanyl lab. You need a
lot of things that INL does, which is building intelligence,
building core security programs, canine, courts. All this other
stuff so that you can stop the whole network that is doing this
rather than just trying to stop it at a scanner on the border.
And if you disrupt INL programs, you are disrupting that very,
very, very important ingredient in the fight.
Ms. Titus. So it is working counter to what you claim is
the purpose of tariffs and other dealings with Mexico.
Mr. Isacson. Yes, threatening your partners, really taking
away their incentive to cooperate, while freezing and
restarting and halting and putting waivers and confusing the
programs that you are running is obviously not going to be
helpful. It is going to be helpful maybe to the people
producing Fentanyl.
Ms. Titus. So in the meantime, in addition to the tariffs,
can you talk about the effect of the Trump administration's
prioritizing arbitrary mass deportations over things like root
causes of terrorism, transnational crime, drug trafficking,
human trafficking, weapons trafficking, et cetera?
Mr. Isacson. The Trump administration is trying to do mass
deportation with the existing people they have, right? Like,
5,500 ICE enforcement removal officers, which means where do
they get the manpower? They are taking it from DEA, they are
taking it from DOJ, everything, Bureau of Prisons. His,
Homeland Security Investigations, these are the agencies that
are supposed to be working on these drugs cases, as well as
cases everything from child pornography to human trafficking.
They are all be devoted to rounding up migrants now, often even
migrants without criminal records. And it is a really, really
disastrous diversion of our law enforcement resources.
Ms. Titus. So could you sum that up by saying that it has
made us less safe not more safe?
Mr. Isacson. Put it this way, if you are a Fentanyl
trafficker or a child pornographer or something like that, you
are feeling less pressure from the Federal law enforcement
since January 20th because of this diversion of resources.
Ms. Titus. Because you know they are focused somewhere else
and you can get away----
Mr. Isacson. Yes, they are focusing on migrants. And if you
are not in the migrant smuggling business, you have less to
worry about.
Ms. Titus. So if we are going to impose tariffs on Mexico,
that is going to be attacks on families in my district. People
in Nevada are going it pay more out-of-pocket. If you don't
have money in your pocket, you can't go on holiday, people
won't be coming to Las Vegas for a holiday. Certainly if you
are from Canada or Mexico you are not going to be as likely to
come as a tourist and that is our main source of tourism. And
at the same time, what we are doing is undercutting our
response to the flow of Fentanyl. Does that pretty much
summarize the problem?
Mr. Isacson. There is--the arguments against tariffs are
pretty strong economically here at home. But also yes, I mean,
if you are a Mexican government official who even one who
really believes in this fight, what is your incentive to
cooperate if you're being punished without even any clear
benchmarks or guidelines about how to stop the punishment. And
the same goes for Fentanyl as well as working against migrant
smuggling through Mexico too. What is going to push you to work
harder to do the Americans a favor and work harder and together
on this if you already have a 25 percent tariff on all of your
goods.
Ms. Titus. Well, thank you. I yield back.
Ms. Salazar. Thank you, Representative Titus.
Now we have--we are going to start a second round of
questioning, not too long. And I am going to recognize myself
for 5 minutes.
We all agree that we want to revamp and make INL a better
agency, we all agree with that. And I was--just wanted to tell
my respected ranking member that what the Trump administration
is doing is trying to cut waste on important programs like INL
because INL funded hip-hop classes in Guatemala. I go back to
things that they should not be doing. We all agree that we have
to cooperate with Mexico and that we have to help to help the
Guatemalan police force and El Salvador. And by the way, one of
the things I also wanted to--and I want to talk to three of
you, I am not going to just hone in on Mr. Isacson. We
decertified El Salvador, INL decertified El Salvador as a
partner which led to the cuts in funds. These are the things I
don't understand why, because you think Bukele may not be
ideologically aligned with the State Department. Why are you
going to do that? And the same thing with Guatemala. I am just
stating what I think is commonsense.
Right now, in Latin America projects that prove to be
effective are back online. For instance, targeting systems in
Mexico and Peru that provide intelligence on foreign passengers
and cargo. Dogs in Costa Rica.
So my question to Mrs. Kenney. Since you are an impartial
force in this hearing, tell me in very simple terms for those
people who are at home that do not want to spend taxpayers'
money on things that are futile like hip-hop classes in
Guatemala in which way that $2 billion that we give INL every
year where do you think should be spent? Give it to me in 30
seconds like a good television sound bite so people back at
home will say, OK, INL should be back on track. Tell me.
Ms. Kenney. So based on our review of the INL programs what
we have found is that there are some consistent patterns in
terms of implementation. GAO would not identify the policy
choices that INL should make but we are happy to talk to you
about the effectiveness of the implementation. And what we have
found consistently is that there are opportunities to improve
performance management, ensuring that the activities that you
are funding are meeting your strategic goals. We saw it in
Mexico, we saw it in firearms trafficking, we saw it in efforts
in the Caribbean, making sure that the specific activities that
you are funding are linking up and actually helping you achieve
your goal.
Ms. Salazar. Why do you think that happens? So what you are
telling me basically is that I am going to do this, but I am
not sure if it is being effective or not, but I am going to put
the money behind it anyway. Is that what you are telling me? So
why do you think that happened? And how can it be changed? Why
did it happen?
Ms. Kenney. Well, I think our recommendation is that the
State Department figure out how to create that alignment that
these activities should be funded to the overall strategic
goals.
I think in Mexico what we found, what we heard is that
there was some effort to coordinate with the Mexican government
which is a good idea. However, we have been funding the Merida
Initiative since 2008 and the administrations were going to
change so that needed to be done.
I think when we looked at firearms trafficking we found
similar programs or similar issues. We found that everyone
would tell us of firearm trafficking in the Caribbean and in
Central America and Mexico that these were important U.S.
goals. But when we asked about where the metrics were, how they
were measuring effectiveness, it didn't show up. They didn't
have firearms trafficking as one of their performance measures
so they weren't able to track it and demonstrate progress. It
didn't show up in their strategies. So it is just important
that whatever it is you decide your strategy, whatever your
goal is you need to be sure that your activities are aligned
with it and that you are able to track and line those ups to be
sure that you are achieving the goals that you want to achieve.
Ms. Salazar. So I am sure the State Department is listening
to you.
Now let me ask you, lets go to Mexico, maybe we can talk to
Mr. Fernandez or Mr. Isacson. Mexico is a very important ally.
It is our next door neighbor. We have got to work with them
because no one is going to move, right? So we are going to stay
where we are and so are they.
I remember that under AMLO, Mexico, President Trump had a
very good relationship with President AMLO who had a completely
different ideology than President Trump and that AMLO sent
37,000 troops to the southern borders with Guatemala. That
worked very well. All of a sudden, they cooperated. So why did
that stop? And what incentives are we giving now Sheinbaum who
comes from that same Morena party. I hear that relationships
are good between both governments. So what can they really do
and in which way we could help them do it? And do they have the
political willingness to receive money from the United States?
We know that it is like we are neighbors but we are not
necessarily love each other, but we have got to live with each
other, correct? Am I right in my assessment? Let me start with
you, Mr. Fernandez. What can we do?
Mr. Martinez-Fernandez. I think it is important to your
question about whether they will receive that assistance. I
think it goes to the core of the issue.
Ms. Salazar. Will they receive the assistance?
Mr. Martinez-Fernandez. They have rejected significant----
Ms. Salazar. What with they rejected?
Mr. Martinez-Fernandez. I think because there are issues
with corruption, there is issues with nationalism as well. I
mean, we tried, I think very clearly under the Biden
administration, to not pressure and do----
Ms. Salazar. Irrespectful.
Mr. Martinez-Fernandez.--positive engagement as was alluded
to here. It obviously didn't result in anything substantive as
far as countering the Fentanyl threat. It only expanded more
greatly an d----
Ms. Salazar [continuing]. simply what happened during those
4 years once--why so much Fentanyl was able to come through?
What did the Mexican government should have done that didn't
do? And what can they do now under Sheinbaum, simple?
Mr. Martinez-Fernandez. What happened over the past 4 years
is we stopped pressuring them.
Ms. Salazar. We stopped pressuring them?
Mr. Martinez-Fernandez. Yes.
Ms. Salazar. What pressures we should have implemented.
Mr. Martinez-Fernandez. Economic pressure I think is
certainly the most potent that we have in the bilateral
relationship with trade and the USMCA.
Ms. Salazar. Stop right there. You see Mr. Isacson, so I
agree that tariffs are bad for our constituents, I get it. But
then what other tool do we have as a country to send the
message to our neighbors that we need help because we don't
want any more American kids dying.
Mr. Isacson. Prosecutorial cooperation. From 2023 to 2024
there was a 22 percent decrease in Fentanyl seizures at the
border. So far this year it is down another 23 percent. Less
seems to being produced in Mexico, I think because of better
cooperation. This may be premature but no one is declaring
victory but there has actually been progress in the last 2
years.
Ms. Salazar. Very little, very little progress. We had
100,000 kids dying every year.
Mr. Isacson. And deaths, thank goodness, are down about 30
percent.
Ms. Salazar. And the concoction of the chemicals are put
together in Mexico.
Mr. Isacson. Yes, I agree.
Ms. Salazar. Right? And we just passed legislation that the
Congress voted for where we are giving money so we can destroy
those precursors before they get composed into a little pill
and our kids die. So I am saying, what I am trying--political
do we have political lenience as Sheinbaum, does she have
political willingness to really work with us. We want to work
with her.
Mr. Isacson. I think Sheinbaum does. I would be worried at
about people at the State level in Mexico. I would be worried
about corrupt military and police people.
Ms. Salazar. She had her own swamp.
Mr. Isacson. Yes, she does have a swamp that she has to
clean up, as does their judicial system. The INL can help.
Ms. Salazar. Thank you. All right. I yield back.
Now I recognize Ranking Member Castro from the wonderful
State of Texas for 5 minutes.
Mr. Castro. With respect to effective and serious and
thoughtful cutting of waste, fraud, and abuse in government, I
don't think it is going to be carried out by this DOGE
committee that is being lead by folks who have absolutely no
expertise in this area, by 22-year olds and 20-year olds with a
nickname of Big Balls. They are not going to accomplish what we
are trying to accomplish here. They have no background in any
of this. Hardly any life experience, quite honestly. And more
than that, they are keeping all of their work secretive.
In fact, Elon Musk, as I recall, threatened the press that
he would file suit or said that it was illegal if they just
identified who these people were, that are making these massive
decisions about how our government operates. And that is not
fair to the American people. It is not fair to American
taxpayers to have a secret group in charge of what is going on
in government that won't show its face at the United States
Capitol.
Even more than that, a majority party in Congress that sent
even asking them to show up, isn't even demanding that they
show up and account for the work that they are doing. That is
where we are right now. I hope that everybody in the full
committee on this dais when we have our full committee meetings
will join me and others in asking Elon Musk and those
responsible for cuts to INL, cuts at the State Department,
USAID to come here and present to us their work.
We can't even get a clear answer of what percent of INL,
for example, is being cut. And that applies to other agencies
and bureaus as well. So why doesn't this full committee ask
Elon Musk to come and sit in these chairs as our three
witnesses have today and explain the cuts that have been made
and why they have been made?
The one person we had come as I recall Pete Marocco, whose
job title has now changed, he came and I don't know who
insisted, I don't know if the committee insisted or he and his
people insisted that it not be a public hearing, that it be a
closed door private briefing and instead of having 5 minutes to
ask questions we had 2 or 3 minutes to ask questions. Just
bizarre.
This is the U.S. Government and we are running our country
right now or the country is being run like these countries that
we have been critiquing for decades and decades, by people who
are doing secretive things, not transparent. And so look, I
agree that that is why you have a GAO, that is why you have
inspectors general. Yes, can we do more than that? Yes, I think
that we could do more than that. I think we should do more than
that. And we do need to make adjustments because things do get
stale and, you know, need to change and money.
Maria Elvira, I was your Democratic colead on that Fentanyl
bill on precursors. I thought that was a good piece of
legislation.
Remember, I have been presented now I think at least twice
we have been told in this committee and then in my other
committee in unclassified information that, you know, 70 to 90
percent of the precursors or the original source material for
Fentanyl comes to the United States first and then goes over to
Mexico and it ends up coming back.
So these are serious problems, but they demand serious
approaches and they demand people with expertise who actually
know what they are doing, you know, really nothing against
people in their early twenties, I wish I was still in my early
twenties. But the people who have been put in charge of
overseeing this have absolutely no background or no expertise
to do it.
With that, I yield back, chairman.
Ms. Salazar. Thank you, ranking member. I thank the
witnesses for their valuable testimony and the members for
their questions. The members of the subcommittee may have some
additional questions for the witnesses. We will ask you to
respond to these in writing.
Pursuant to committee rules, all members may have 5 days to
submit statements, questions and other materials for the record
subject to the length limitations.
Without objection, this committee stands adjourned. Once
again thank you for your participation.
[Whereupon, at 12:41 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]
APPENDIX
----------
Material Submitted for the Hearing Record
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[all]