Establishing the United States Council on Transnational Organized Crime

Overview

The Establishment of the USCTOC: Executive Order 14060 establishes the United States Council on Transnational Organized Crime (USCTOC) to address the complex and evolving challenges posed by transnational organized crime (TOC). This order signifies a significant realignment in the U.S. government's approach to combating organized crime that crosses borders. By focusing on TOC, the order acknowledges the growing influence of transnational criminal organizations that are responsible for a range of illicit activities, including drug trafficking, human trafficking, and cybercrime. The order underscores the need for a coordinated and multifaceted response, leveraging federal resources and fostering partnerships with state, local, tribal, and international allies.

Goals and Mechanisms: The EO outlines specific actions to enhance intelligence and operational capabilities, aiming to target, disrupt, and degrade transnational criminal organizations seen as threats to national security. The establishment of USCTOC and its associated Strategic Division reflects a whole-of-government approach. This structure replaces the Threat Mitigation Working Group, aiming for a more streamlined and effective coordination between different arms of the government, including key departments like State, Treasury, Defense, and Homeland Security.

Integration with Broader National Strategies: Situated within the broader landscape of U.S. national security priorities, EO 14060 aligns with President Biden's emphasis on reinforcing democratic institutions and combating corruption. The order interfaces with the National Security Council's objectives, suggesting that TOC is not just a law enforcement issue but a national security imperative. By involving various federal departments, it ensures that counter-TOC efforts are well-coordinated and comprehensive, addressing the multifaceted nature of these crimes that exploit global interconnectivity.

Legal and Policy Implications

Transformation of Federal Priorities: The creation of USCTOC represents a pivot in U.S. federal law enforcement strategy and policy. This shifts the focus from individual agency efforts to a cohesive inter-agency collaboration, highlighting TOC as a significant concern for national security, rather than just a law enforcement challenge. The revocation of the Threat Mitigation Working Group marks a transition to a more modernized approach, emphasizing intelligence-sharing and strategic analysis as core components of TOC policy.

New Directive for Agency Collaboration: By mandating that diverse agencies—ranging from the Department of Justice to the Directorate of National Intelligence—work in tandem, the order underscores a shift in interagency collaboration dynamics. The requisite detailing or assignment of personnel, and the pooling of intelligence, suggest a streamlined and integrative approach, potentially leading to more effective enforcement and preventive measures against TOC activities.

Policy and Legal Considerations: The EO does not itself amend statutory law but operates within existing legislative frameworks enhancing federally coordinated strategies to combat TOC. However, it sets the stage for future potential policy refinements and legislative actions related to resource allocation and intelligence operations focusing on international crime syndicates. It reinforces the use of current legal tools while calling for enhancements in technological capabilities to preemptively address emerging TOC threats.

Who Benefits

Federal Agencies: The primary beneficiaries of this EO are federal agencies tasked with national security and law enforcement. Agencies such as the Department of Homeland Security, the Department of Justice, and the FBI will gain enhanced mandate, cooperation, and resources to tackle TOC threats comprehensively. They benefit from increased access to intelligence resources and coordinated operational capabilities.

Local and State Law Enforcement: By promoting better information-sharing and collaboration between federal and local law enforcement, the EO indirectly supports local police and officials in combating the local impacts of TOC, such as drug trafficking and violent crime. This approach fosters enhanced community safety and mitigating related social harms.

Partner Nations and Allies: International allies and partner nations also benefit from this EO through enhanced cooperation and support from the U.S. The assistance includes technical aid and capacity-building initiatives to bolster the deterrence and dismantling of TOC infrastructures, primarily in regions vulnerable to TOC expansion.

Intelligence Sector: The Intelligence Community gains from clearer directives and strategic priorities related to TOC, facilitating an adjusted focus in resource allocation and reconnaissance. This emphasis ensures that intelligence efforts accurately reflect and support broader national security goals.

The General Public: U.S. citizens benefit indirectly from increased national security and public safety. Efforts to dismantle criminal organizations that operate across borders aim to reduce illicit activities like drug trafficking, which have a direct impact on communities and, consequently, on public health and safety.

Who Suffers

Transnational Criminal Organizations: The direct targets of this EO are transnational organized crime groups, which face increased scrutiny and disruption efforts. Their operations are likely to encounter more significant obstacles through enhanced surveillance, intelligence-sharing, and collective law enforcement activities.

Corrupt Networks and Affiliates: Networks engaged in corruption that facilitate TOC operations will face increased threats of exposure and dismantlement. This includes those within private entities and government officials overseas who collaborate with or benefit from these criminal syndicates.

Potential Allies to Organized Crime: Those indirectly linked to TOC, including those economically or politically dependent on such organizations, may find their activities curtailed. This includes individual beneficiaries of organized crime logistics and financial flow mechanisms who might experience reduced operations.

Regions with Weak State Presence: Areas where TOC functions as a shadow government might witness disruptions in illicit economic activities, which, while desirable from a law enforcement perspective, could cause short-term instability. This is due to the vacuum left by diminished TOC influence before legitimate state services can be fully reestablished.

Entities in Gray Zone Economies: Businesses operating on the fringes of legality, who inadvertently rely on TOC activities, may face enforcement actions. Industries tangential to smuggling or black market trade could find themselves under greater scrutiny, pushing them out of the economic shadows into regulation-heavy landscapes.

Historical Context

Continued Legacy of Anti-TOC Strategy: EO 14060 marks a continued evolution in U.S. strategy against transnational organized crime, building on frameworks established by previous administrations but enhancing scope and integration. Executive orders against TOC have been pivotal since the early 2000s when globalization began to expose the weaknesses exploited by TOC networks.

Biden Administration's Broader Security Goals: This EO fits Biden's broader national and international policy objectives, which include restoring alliances and a commitment to multilateralism. This order emphasizes collaboration not only within U.S. borders but also with international partners, aligned with Biden's broader foreign policy of rebuilding alliances.

Consistent Anti-Corruption Stance: The EO also reflects a consistent focus on anti-corruption, evident in Biden's domestic and international policy push. By targeting the corruption that enables TOC, the Administration reinforces its stance on protecting democratic institutions and reinforcing the rule of law globally.

Addressing Cybercrime and Emerging Threats: Emphasis on technology underscores a forward-looking stance towards cybercrime—a defining feature of modern TOC. This follows an acknowledged trend where technological proliferation became central to both the functioning of organized crime and to strategies devised to combat it.

Aligning with Global Trends: Internationally, this EO aligns with the global trend towards cooperative security frameworks, a reflection of recognition that TOC is not confined within national borders. It suggests a cooperative security emphasis is becoming standard in international relations, as countries grapple with globalized crime networks.

Potential Controversies or Challenges

Legal Challenges on Intelligence Use: There may arise legal scrutiny regarding the expansion of intelligence-sharing, especially concerning privacy and civil liberties. The EO's push for enhanced information-sharing between law enforcement and intelligence entities can be contentious within jurisdictions that prioritize data protection.

Interagency Coordination Challenges: Historically, interagency collaboration in the U.S. government has been fraught with bureaucratic hurdles and turf wars. The EO's effectiveness depends heavily on the harmonious operation of diverse agencies, which may encounter challenges when aligning priorities and reconciling different operational cultures.

Congressional Oversight and Funding Issues: The resources needed to implement this EO could face congressional scrutiny, particularly concerning budget allocations. Legislative backing for such comprehensive security initiatives requires consensus that does not always align with congressional priorities, potentially leading to funding limitations.

International Sovereignty Considerations: U.S. involvement in building capacity and intelligence operations in other countries may be seen as infringing on national sovereignty, a potential point of tension with countries wary of U.S. influence. This order must navigate these diplomatic waters carefully to avoid international pushback.

Compliance with International Law: The EO's initiatives must comply with international law, especially in regions sensitive to foreign intervention. Assurance of compliance and seeking collaborations rather than impositions will be critical to preventing diplomatic disputes over perceived extra-territorial operations.