The Heritage Foundation hosted an event in September titled, “Exposing China’s Complicity in America’s Fentanyl Crisis.” The event was meant to sow a fear of China, and support for the drug war. These sentiments, when combined with hawkish policy, lead to misguided immigration policies, trade war, and a hawkish foreign policy. The myths discussed at the event must be dispelled.
The fentanyl crisis is highlighted as an impending health and national security crisis, one that can be fixed through more sanctions and a stronger border. The panel mentioned that there have been 70,000 fentanyl-related deaths since 2021, which is more than the American casualties from the Vietnam War. This number seems significant, and fentanyl is unquestionably a dangerous substance, but looking at deaths related to other substances can add important context.
The CDC reports that around 178,000 people die from alcohol abuse every year, and an astounding 480,000 people die from tobacco usage annually. Fentanyl-related deaths do not compare at 70,000 since 2021.
The Heritage panel lays the blame for fentanyl-related deaths on China, where it is manufactured, and Mexico, where cartels traffic it. “Part of the reason that it has become so quickly a major crisis is that it is at its origin, directed and supported by the top adversary of the US, China,” claimed Andres Martinez-Fernandez, Senior Analyst at the Allison Center for National Security. “Chinese actors are at the heart of this crisis, the outflow of fentanyl, precursor chemicals, centers within China, and travels into Mexico, travel into the United States itself.”
This is true, but the solutions the panelists offer have either been tried or will likely lead to further negative consequences, rather than solving the problem. Further sanctions, or “making it too expensive for China to continue manufacturing,” is seen as an obvious step in the right direction. Unfortunately, this ignores how unreliable sanctions are, and the fact that fentanyl production can shift as needed.
Since prohibition traditionally doesn’t work, prohibiting any traditionally-grown drugs hasn’t ended the drug trade or trafficking, it has instead led to the rise in synthetic drugs. Fentanyl fits this label and can be created from various chemical compounds and common ingredients. Thus, the banning of certain chemical compounds has led to a “whack-a-mole” game where manufacturers shift to new compounds as necessary, rather than successful prohibition. Additionally, sanctions have already been attempted. President Biden made sanctions permanent with the FEND Off Fentanyl Act in 2022. These sanctions may have served to boost Indian producers of fentanyl, but have not stopped its production and shipment into the United States.
Also suggested in the panel was that the United States should further attempt to restrict Chinese action in its sphere of influence. This comes with the demand that the United States further involve itself in the South China Sea in an attempt to curb Chinese expansion. Involvement in Ukraine and Israel is not enough. Rather than reining in America’s presence overseas, the Heritage Institute is insisting that Washington become increasingly antagonistic towards China.
Not only is it utopian to expect China to restrict its regional influence in Asia, but it is also dangerous to promote aggression with China, as a full-out war would be devastating for the United States and others. Understanding that sanctions don’t work and that international powers act out of self-interest should discourage the policies suggested by Heritage.
The next piece of this puzzle is Mexico. A common talking point amongst conservative lawmakers is that cartels run Mexico, that the border crisis was created by an open border, and we simply have to effectively close it to solve the problem. Non-state actors indeed run parts of Mexico, or at least have great influence. However, these groups are not a monolith and are subject to market signals, as opposed to state actors.
Drug prohibition has created this mess and the cartels and gangs have taken advantage of it. Since prohibition simply makes the market for said product more profitable, gangs are further enabled or willing to begin operations in that market. This has been the case with both immigration and fentanyl. Human and drug trafficking wouldn’t occur at nearly the rates witnessed if the American immigration system weren’t so complicated and expensive, and if lawmakers did not insist on pursuing the failed War on Drugs.
As is common, the domestic policy of the War on Drugs has implications for America’s foreign policy. Congressman Green (R-TN) has introduced an amendment in the 2025 NDAA to move Mexico from North Command to South Command, which would increase the amount of resources and permissions available to fight the cartel. Additionally, Vice President-elect JD Vance has endorsed the United States entering Mexico to fight the cartel, regardless of consent from Mexico’s government.
As the fentanyl issue leads even so-called “America First” politicians to support a larger American footprint around the world, libertarians must remain vigilant in opposition to solutions that increase state control. Enlarging America’s military footprint or the authority of three-letter agencies are natural consequences of the policies suggested by the Heritage Institute during this panel. Fentanyl is a dangerous substance, but the state has the potential to cause far more harm.
