How Does Fentanyl Reach the United States?

How Does Fentanyl Reach the United States?

As fentanyl flows in from the south, the U.S. government has stepped up measures both at the border and beyond to curb the influx.
As fentanyl flows in from the south, the U.S. government has stepped up measures both at the border and beyond to curb the influx. Christian Torres/Anadolu/Getty Images

President Trump has imposed steep tariffs on Canada, China, and Mexico in the name of curbing fentanyl flows into the United States. In reality, supplies of the drug—and related deaths—have sharply declined in the past year, though they are still at worrying levels.

March 4, 2025 2:36 pm (EST)

As fentanyl flows in from the south, the U.S. government has stepped up measures both at the border and beyond to curb the influx.
As fentanyl flows in from the south, the U.S. government has stepped up measures both at the border and beyond to curb the influx. Christian Torres/Anadolu/Getty Images
Article
Current political and economic issues succinctly explained.

In March 2025, President Donald Trump followed through with his promise to impose sweeping tariffs on three of the United States’ major trading partners: Canada, China, and Mexico. He cited the “extraordinary threat” posed by fentanyl, a lethal and highly potent synthetic opioid and the countries’ failure to prevent the flow of illegal fentanyl into the United States. 

More From Our Experts

The opioid crisis has been ravaging the United States for the past several years, although fatalities sharply declined in 2024. At the crisis’s peak in 2022 and 2023, drug overdoses caused more than 111,000 fatalities per year, most of them driven by fentanyl. Fentanyl and synthetic opioids quickly rose to become the leading cause of death for Americans aged eighteen to forty-five. 

More on:

Drug Policy

National Security

Tariffs

China

Mexico

China and Mexico, two countries that see elements of fentanyl traffic to the United States, have stepped up measures to contain the flow of the drug. Canada has done the same, despite it being responsible for almost none of the fentanyl that winds up inside U.S. borders.

What is the status of the fentanyl crisis?

Annual fentanyl-related deaths remain in the scores of thousands but are trending downward for the first time in years. Fatal overdoses have dropped nationwide by more than 21 percent since June 2023, data from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) shows. The death toll dipped below eighty-five thousand deaths in a twelve-month period ending in September 2024; while that’s still significantly high, it’s a level not seen since 2020. 

Experts say the decline is in large part due to concerted efforts to curb trafficking by the Joe Biden administration in cooperation with other countries, namely China and Mexico.

More From Our Experts

Yet in announcing tariffs, the Trump administration has pointed to the countries’ roles in trafficking fentanyl into the United States as a reason to impose tariffs, and has claimed that fentanyl deaths range anywhere from three hundred thousand per year to “tens of millions” of mortalities—figures that law enforcement and public health experts say are inaccurate.

How much U.S. illicit fentanyl supply comes from Canada, China, and Mexico?

Mexico

Mexico is a major recipient of precursor chemicals used as ingredients for fentanyl via illicit networks set up by cartels. The cartels, after manufacturing the drug, then often hire U.S. citizens to smuggle it across the border. Due to fentanyl’s potency, it is much easier to smuggle undetected as only a small amount is necessary to transport. Mexico has been the main source of fentanyl into the United States: nearly all of the 21,900 pounds that U.S. law enforcement seized last year was at the southern border while only 43 pounds of fentanyl was seized at the Canadian border, according to U.S. data. 

More on:

Drug Policy

National Security

Tariffs

China

Mexico

The country has been facing mounting pressure to clamp down; President Claudia Sheinbaum has upped government enforcement toward gangs, and Mexico made the biggest arrest of fentanyl traffickers in its history in December. U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) data also indicates that the amount of fentanyl seized at the southern border last year dropped by around 20 percent. 

China

China’s role is a little more complicated. Beijing banned fentanyl and all potential fentanyl variants within its own borders in 2019 and maintains that it does not allow the drug to be made. Chinese companies are widely known to make precursor chemicals, many of which have legitimate reasons to produce controlled substances, principally in the medical sector. However, these precursors are often purchased by transnational criminal organizations in Mexico to synthesize fentanyl. 

For years, China has remained resistant to tackling the supply chain of precursor chemicals, pointing to its own ban on the drug as its lack of contribution to the fentanyl issue. But Beijing reached agreement in 2024 with the Biden administration to impose tough new measures on precursor chemicals. The two sides also agreed to boost cooperation to stem drug trafficking, which U.S. officials say has helped damper fentanyl’s flow into the United States.

Canada

Canada plays virtually no role in the U.S. fentanyl influx, especially compared to the other countries. The country contributes less than 1 percent to its southern neighbor’s street fentanyl supply, as both the Canadian government and data from the DEA report. 

Notably, Americans are heavily involved in the fentanyl crisis as well; U.S. citizens have accounted for around 90 percent [PDF] of fentanyl trafficking convictions in recent years.  

How have these countries responded? 

The leaders of Canada and Mexico negotiated a pause on implementing tariffs and have since ramped up their antidrug measures. Canada unveiled a $1.3 billion plan to secure the border and appointed a fentanyl czar. Mexico announced that it would immediately reinforce its border with another ten thousand National Guard troops aimed specifically at stopping fentanyl in its tracks.

After Trump’s announcement, the Chinese foreign ministry said in a statement that the tariffs will actually undermine the cooperation against drug trafficking. Other U.S. experts warn of the same thing. Trump’s move to pause all foreign assistance has already halted anti-fentanyl work in Mexico, officials familiar with the matter told Reuters. Tariffs are slated to go into effect on March 4—a closely watched move to see how it will affect fentanyl flows, as well as costs of living and geopolitical relations.

All three countries have vowed swift tariffs on the United States should Trump’s tariffs take effect as scheduled. Both Canada and Mexico have pledged similar tariffs in response to the U.S.-imposed 25 percent levies. China noted that it would take “necessary countermeasures” to defend its interests and announced duties ranging from 10–15 percent to counter the United States’ 10 percent tariffs. Trump responded with yet another 10 percent tariff, totaling a 20 percent levy on all Chinese imports.

Will Merrow contributed to the graphics for this article. 

Creative Commons
Creative Commons: Some rights reserved.
Close
This work is licensed under Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0) License.
View License Detail
Close

Top Stories on CFR

Trade

President Trump doubled almost all aluminum and steel import tariffs, seeking to curb China’s growing dominance in global trade. These six charts show the tariffs’ potential economic effects.

Ukraine

The Sanctioning Russia Act would impose history’s highest tariffs and tank the global economy. Congress needs a better approach, one that strengthens existing sanctions and adds new measures the current bill ignores.

China Strategy Initiative

At the Shangri-La dialogue in Singapore last week, U.S. Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth said that the United States would be expanding its defense partnership with India. His statement was in line with U.S. policy over the last two decades, which, irrespective of the party in power, has sought to cultivate India as a serious defense partner. The U.S.-India defense partnership has come a long way. Beginning in 2001, the United States and India moved from little defense cooperation or coordination to significant gestures that would lay the foundation of the robust defense partnership that exists today—such as India offering access to its facilities after 9/11 to help the United States launch operations in Afghanistan or the 123 Agreement in 2005 that paved the way for civil nuclear cooperation between the two countries. In the United States, there is bipartisan agreement that a strong defense partnership with India is vital for its Indo-Pacific strategy and containing China. In India, too, there is broad political support for its strategic partnership with the United States given its immense wariness about its fractious border relationship with China. Consequently, the U.S.-India bilateral relationship has heavily emphasized security, with even trade tilting toward defense goods. Despite the massive changes to the relationship in the last few years, and both countries’ desire to develop ever-closer defense ties, differences between the United States and India remain. A significant part of this has to do with the differing norms that underpin the defense interests of each country. The following Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) memos by defense experts in three countries are part of a larger CFR project assessing India’s approach to the international order in different areas, and illustrate India’s positions on important defense issues—military operationalization, cooperation in space, and export controls—and how they differ with respect to the United States and its allies. Sameer Lalwani (Washington, DC) argues that the two countries differ in their thinking about deterrence, and that this is evident in three categories crucial to defense: capability, geography, and interoperability. When it comes to increasing material capabilities, for example, India prioritizes domestic economic development, including developing indigenous capabilities (i.e., its domestic defense-industrial sector). With regard to geography, for example, the United States and its Western allies think of crises, such as Ukraine, in terms of global domino effects; India, in contrast, thinks regionally, and confines itself to the effects on its neighborhood and borders (and, as the recent crisis with Pakistan shows, India continues to face threats on its border, widening the geographic divergence with the United States). And India’s commitment to strategic autonomy means the two countries remain far apart on the kind of interoperability required by modern military operations. Yet there is also reason for optimism about the relationship as those differences are largely surmountable. Dimitrios Stroikos (London) argues that India’s space policy has shifted from prioritizing socioeconomic development to pursuing both national security and prestige. While it is party to all five UN space treaties that govern outer space and converges with the United States on many issues in the civil, commercial, and military domains of space, India is careful with regard to some norms. It favors, for example, bilateral initiatives over multilateral, and the inclusion of Global South countries in institutions that it believes to be dominated by the West. Konark Bhandari (New Delhi) argues that India’s stance on export controls is evolving. It has signed three of the four major international export control regimes, but it has to consistently contend with the cost of complying, particularly as the United States is increasingly and unilaterally imposing export control measures both inside and outside of those regimes. When it comes to export controls, India prefers trade agreements with select nations, prizes its strategic autonomy (which includes relations with Russia and China through institutions such as the Shanghai Cooperation Organization and the BRICS), and prioritizes its domestic development. Furthermore, given President Donald Trump’s focus on bilateral trade, the two countries’ differences will need to be worked out if future tech cooperation is to be realized.