Washington builds a new enemy, but the legal basis looks as murky as the geopolitical stakes
In a bold move that smacks more of political theatre than airtight prosecution, the US Department of Justice has charged the fugitive leader of Venezuela’s Tren de Aragua gang with terrorism. Behind the legal jargon lies a well-known pattern: redefine crime as war when foreign regimes slip from Washington’s grip.
From prison gang to transnational terrorist threat?
On Thursday, the US Justice Department announced indictments against over 70 individuals allegedly connected to the Venezuelan-born Tren de Aragua gang. Among them, the star target: Héctor Rusthenford Guerrero Flores, known as “Niño Guerrero”, the elusive 42-year-old fugitive now accused of leading what the US brands a transnational terrorist organisation.
Prosecutors in New York claim Guerrero “ordered, orchestrated, and facilitated acts of terrorism and violence within the United States,” including murders, kidnappings, extortion, mutilations, and drug trafficking on an industrial scale. The focus keyphrase Tren de Aragua is being etched into the American national security narrative, conveniently at a time when geopolitical tensions with Caracas are peaking.
More interestingly, the DOJ alleges that Guerrero operated “in concert” with the so-called Cartel de los Soles, a shadowy group Washington insists is headed by Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro himself.
The Cartel de los Soles: intelligence fact or political fiction?
Here, American rhetoric stretches thin. The Cartel de los Soles, frequently cited in US statements, remains unproven in any international court. Most Latin American analysts describe it less as a structured cartel and more as a corrupt ecosystem within Venezuelan state apparatuses, opaque, certainly, but far from the operational clarity implied by the US accusations.
By connecting the Tren de Aragua
With each new indictment, Washington redraws the map of “terror,” placing its strategic rivals squarely in the crosshairs — not for what they do, but for what they represent.
