These Eight Charts Show Why Fentanyl Is a Huge Foreign Policy Problem

These Eight Charts Show Why Fentanyl Is a Huge Foreign Policy Problem

Overdoses involving fentanyl and other synthetic opioids are the leading cause of death among young Americans and a threat to U.S. public health, the economy, and national security. Combating the epidemic requires addressing China’s and Mexico’s roles in the global fentanyl supply chain.

December 21, 2023 3:51 pm (EST)

Article
Current political and economic issues succinctly explained.

An explosion of fentanyl-linked overdoses in recent years has driven what has become the deadliest drug crisis in U.S. history. Overdoses involving fentanyl and other synthetic opioids are now by far the leading cause of death for American adults aged eighteen to forty-five, and has become “the single greatest challenge we face as a country,” said Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Secretary Alejandro N. Mayorkas in March 2023. Fentanyl poses an extraordinary threat because the drug is cheap to make, easy to smuggle, and extremely lethal in small doses. Despite growing alarm among the public and policymakers, the crisis continues to devastate communities and overwhelm law enforcement officials. 

More From Our Experts

Fentanyl has also become a major U.S. foreign policy and national security challenge, as the drug’s supply chain largely runs through China and Mexico. President Joe Biden has declared fentanyl trafficking a national emergency, and he has pushed Chinese President Xi Jinping and Mexican President Andrés Manuel López Obrador to do more to cut the flow of the drug into the United States.

The Human Toll 

More on:

United States

Opioids

Drug Policy

China

Mexico

Fentanyl is the latest and deadliest culprit in what the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) characterizes as the three “waves” of the opioid overdose crisis. The first wave began in the 1990s with prescription-opioid overdoses, followed in the early 2010s with heroin, and a few years later, the rise of fentanyl. Some health officials say a “fourth wave” is emerging amid an increase in overdoses from fentanyl mixed with other stimulants.   

Fentanyl deaths tripled between 2016 and 2021, with overdoses involving the drug and other synthetic opioids quickly rising to become the biggest killer of Americans between the ages of eighteen and forty-five. Overdoses spiked during COVID-19 lockdowns, as social-distancing measures led more people to take drugs alone.

This boom in overdose deaths is due in large part to the fact that many users take the drug unknowingly. Fentanyl is incredibly cheap to produce, and it is increasingly being blended with other illicit drugs, such as cocaine and methamphetamine, as well as fake prescription medicines, often without the user’s knowledge. Out of every ten fake prescription pills sold in the United States, six contain a lethal dose of fentanyl, according to the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA). 

More From Our Experts

Fentanyl and the wider opioid crisis are wreaking havoc on the United States to a degree not seen in other parts of the world.

While opioid addictions have emerged as a significant problem in other countries in recent years, no nation has faced death rates as high as the United States’.

More on:

United States

Opioids

Drug Policy

China

Mexico

The Global Supply Chain

The majority of the illicit fentanyl consumed in the United States is manufactured abroad. (Meanwhile, the legally made fentanyl used in health-care settings is mostly manufactured within the United States.) The supply chain typically begins in China, where most of fentanyl’s precursor chemicals—the ingredients for the drug—are made. China banned the production and sale of fentanyl in 2019, but it continues to be the primary manufacturer of fentanyl’s precursors. India has also emerged [PDF] as a major source of fentanyl precursors.

Once manufactured, fentanyl precursors are distributed around the world, generally via international mail services. The most common destination is Mexico, where the precursors are synthesized into fentanyl. (Other routes ship the precursors to Canada or directly to the United States.) In 2022, the U.S. State Department identified Mexico as the “sole significant source” [PDF] of illicit fentanyl that crosses the southern U.S. border. Mexican transnational criminal organizations—principally the Jalisco New Generation Cartel and the Sinaloa Cartel—serve as the main producers and traffickers of finished illicit fentanyl.

The Biden administration has taken steps to curb the flow of fentanyl precursors into the United States, including by imposing sanctions against more than two dozen Chinese companies and individuals and adding China to the U.S. list of major illicit drug–producing or drug-transit countries, alongside others such as Colombia, India, and Mexico. More recently, at the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation summit in San Francisco in November 2023, Biden reached separate agreements with Chinese President Xi and Mexican President López Obrador to boost bilateral cooperation on curbing the manufacturing and distribution of fentanyl precursor chemicals abroad. However, some experts say the agreement with China, which remains to be finalized, will not be enough to curb rising overdoses.

The Smuggling Challenge

The bulk of the fentanyl that ends up in the United States is smuggled across the U.S.-Mexico border; it is one of the drugs most seized by customs and border patrol officials. Like other illicit drugs, fentanyl is frequently hidden in cargo that passes through legal ports of entry, including road and rail border crossings, or in concealed compartments in vehicles. Traffickers also smuggle fentanyl into the country on foot, through tunnels, and by boat, drone, and plane. In many cases, Mexican criminal groups hire U.S. citizens to smuggle drugs across the border. Data indicates that in fiscal year 2022, Americans accounted for nearly 90 percent [PDF] of fentanyl trafficking convictions.

The potency and portability of fentanyl, compared to other drugs such as marijuana, adds to the challenge facing law enforcement. Most fentanyl is smuggled across the border as pills or powders, or even mixed into other drugs, making it easy to conceal. As little as two milligrams of fentanyl, equivalent to between ten and fifteen grains of table salt, can be lethal. Because fentanyl is often transported in small, hard-to-detect quantities—and because substantially less fentanyl needs to be smuggled into the United States to meet demand—some experts say that relying on catching it at the border is futile.

Two milligrams of fentanyl, considered a lethal dose, compared to the size of a penny.
Two milligrams of fentanyl, considered a lethal dose, compared to the size of a penny. U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration

Some of the busiest crossing points for fentanyl on the southern U.S. border are San Diego, California—described by some officials as the epicenter for fentanyl trafficking—and Tucson, Arizona, both of which have seen overall fentanyl seizures climb in recent years.

It’s also relatively easy for drug cartels to hide their fentanyl production facilities in Mexico, exacerbating the challenge for counternarcotics authorities. One kilogram (about two pounds) of fentanyl—enough for more than fifty thousand doses—can be produced in just a few days in clandestine labs as small as eighteen square meters, or roughly the size of the average American’s living room. By comparison, roughly ten thousand square meters of land, about the area of two football fields, are needed to grow enough poppy plants, the main source of opium, to produce about one kilogram of pure heroin.

The Economic Cost 

Mexican cartels are estimated to have reaped hundreds of millions of dollars from fentanyl trafficking, spurring on a drug crisis that has caused immense damage to the U.S. economy, analysts say. A 2022 report [PDF] by the U.S. Joint Economic Committee stated that the opioid crisis cost the country $1.5 trillion in 2020 alone. This extraordinary figure incorporates the costs of health care, lost productivity in the workforce, counternarcotics and criminal justice efforts, reduced quality of life for overdose survivors, and all human lives lost. This sum is more than the federal government spends on any of its largest agencies or programs, including Medicare, social security, and national defense.

Additional Resources

This Backgrounder by Mariel Ferragamo and Claire Klobucista looks at how fentanyl is exacerbating the U.S. opioid epidemic.

For Think Global Health, CFR Senior Fellow David P. Fidler outlines the foreign policy implications of the U.S. fentanyl crisis.

This episode of the Why It Matters podcast explores China’s role in the U.S. fentanyl crisis.

The Congressional Research Service offers a historical recap of the U.S. opioid crisis in this 2022 report [PDF].

At this CFR webinar, participants discuss policies aimed at ending the opioid crisis and challenges in stopping the flow of fentanyl across U.S. borders.

The Brookings Institution’s Julia Paris and Caitlin Rowley explore the economic impact of the opioid epidemic.

Michael Bricknell and Will Merrow helped create 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.