Report on Illicit Arms Trafficking from the United States to Mexico and its Implications for Sustainable Development Goals

Executive Summary

This report analyzes the persistent issue of illicit arms trafficking from the United States to Mexico, highlighting its profound negative impact on the achievement of Sustainable Development Goal 16 (SDG 16), which promotes peace, justice, and strong institutions. Data from both Mexican and U.S. government sources indicate a significant and largely unchecked flow of weapons that fuels organized crime and violence, undermining regional stability and contravening international commitments to reduce illicit arms flows as stipulated in SDG Target 16.4.

Illicit Arms Flows: A Direct Challenge to SDG 16

The trafficking of arms from the U.S. to Mexico represents a primary obstacle to fostering peaceful and inclusive societies. The estimated 200,000 weapons illegally crossing the border annually directly empower criminal organizations, escalating violence and death rates in direct opposition to SDG Target 16.1.

Identified Trafficking Corridors and Data Consistency

Official reports from both nations corroborate the primary sources and routes of these illicit weapons, demonstrating a shared understanding of the problem yet a disparity in action.

• A report from Mexico’s Ministry of Citizen Security (covering November 2024 to May 2025) identifies that at least 74% of illicit weapons originate in the U.S. states of Arizona, California, and Texas.
• A U.S. Department of Justice report confirms these findings, adding New Mexico as a source and noting that from 2022-2023, 73% of weapons recovered in Mexico were traced back to these states.
• Data shows Texas is the single largest source, accounting for 43% of the total, followed by Arizona with 22%.

Scale of Seizures and Destination

The scale of the trafficking is further evidenced by seizures made by Mexican authorities, which underscore the failure to meet SDG Target 16.4 (significantly reduce illicit arms flows).

1. Firearms Seized: 5,869 units
2. Magazines Seized: 31,000 units
3. Ammunition Seized: Over 1.2 million rounds
4. Grenades Seized: 289 units

According to U.S. data, 82% of these weapons are recovered in Mexican states with a heavy presence of cartels, the very organizations that undermine the establishment of strong institutions (SDG 16) and community safety (SDG 11).

U.S. Policy and Institutional Weakness: Hindering SDG Progress

Expert analysis suggests that U.S. policy and institutional priorities are not aligned with combating arms trafficking, thereby weakening the international cooperation necessary to achieve the SDGs (SDG 17).

Lack of Enforcement and Prioritization

Despite detailed intelligence on trafficking routes, there is a perceived lack of commensurate enforcement action from U.S. authorities. This inaction undermines the bilateral partnership required to combat transnational organized crime effectively. The lack of robust inspection operations and agent deployment from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) in key source states is cited as evidence that curbing arms flow is not a U.S. government priority.

Proposed Weakening of Regulatory Institutions

Proposed policy changes in the U.S. threaten to further dismantle the institutional capacity required to address the problem, directly contradicting the spirit of SDG Target 16.a, which calls for strengthening national institutions to combat crime.

• A proposed 25% budget cut for the ATF.
• The elimination of approximately 540 ATF inspectors, representing two-thirds of the total force.
• Simplification of background checks for firearm purchases.
• Destruction of firearm owner records older than 20 years.

These measures would severely curtail the ability to trace and interdict illicit weapons, further enabling the flow of arms to criminal enterprises and impeding progress toward a peaceful and just society.

Conclusion: A Failure in Partnership and a Setback for Sustainable Peace

The ongoing, large-scale trafficking of arms from the U.S. to Mexico is a critical failure in bilateral security cooperation and a significant impediment to sustainable development in the region. The lack of decisive U.S. action to control the outflow of weapons from its territory directly fuels the violence and instability that SDG 16 aims to eradicate. While Mexico pursues legal strategies against U.S. manufacturers, the policy direction within the U.S. points toward a weakening, not a strengthening, of the institutional frameworks necessary to achieve SDG Target 16.4. This dynamic undermines the principles of shared responsibility inherent in SDG 17 (Partnerships for the Goals) and ensures that violence continues to threaten the establishment of peaceful, just, and sustainable communities.

1. Which SDGs are addressed or connected to the issues highlighted in the article?

SDG 16: Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions

• The article’s central theme is the illicit trafficking of arms from the United States to Mexico, which directly fuels organized crime and violence. This undermines peace, security, and the rule of law, which are the core principles of SDG 16. The text explicitly mentions “drug cartels,” “organized crime groups,” and the failure of government institutions to control the “illegal arms sales.”

2. What specific targets under those SDGs can be identified based on the article’s content?

Target 16.1: Significantly reduce all forms of violence and related death rates everywhere

• The article connects the flow of weapons directly to violent organizations. It states that illegal arms are “destined for the drug cartels that have been classified as terrorist organizations.” By arming these groups, the trafficking contributes to violence and instability in the regions where they operate, such as Baja California, Chihuahua, and Jalisco.

Target 16.4: By 2030, significantly reduce illicit financial and arms flows, strengthen the recovery and return of stolen assets and combat all forms of organized crime

• This target is the most relevant to the article. The text is entirely focused on the failure to curb “illicit arms flows.” It quantifies the problem by stating, “The U.S. sends around 200,000 weapons to Mexico each year.” It also details the fight against “organized crime” by mentioning the “Sinaloa and Jalisco New Generation cartels” as the primary recipients of these weapons.

Target 16.a: Strengthen relevant national institutions, including through international cooperation, to build capacity at all levels, in particular in developing countries, to prevent violence and combat terrorism and crime

• The article highlights a failure in institutional strength and international cooperation. It questions the U.S. government’s commitment, stating that “combating arms trafficking is not on the U.S. government’s agenda.” It points to a weakening of institutional capacity with the plan to “cut the ATF’s budget by 25%” and “eliminate approximately 540 inspectors.” The lack of “beefing up of enforcement actions” and “checkpoints” despite knowing the trafficking routes signifies a breakdown in the cooperation needed to combat this transnational crime.

3. Are there any indicators mentioned or implied in the article that can be used to measure progress towards the identified targets?

Indicator 16.4.2: Proportion of seized, found or surrendered arms whose illicit origin or context has been traced or established by a competent authority

• The article provides specific data points that align with this indicator. It mentions that “trace data identified Arizona, California, and Texas as the distribution sources for 73% of the weapons recovered in Mexico that could be traced back to a buyer.” It also notes that “at least 74% of illicit weapons reach organized crime groups through these routes.” These percentages are direct measures of tracing the origin of seized arms.

Implied Indicators for Target 16.4

• Volume of illicit arms flow: The estimate that “around 200,000 weapons” are sent to Mexico annually serves as a baseline indicator for the scale of the problem.
• Number of seized arms and ammunition: The article provides concrete figures from a Mexican government report, including the “seizure of 5,869 firearms, 31,000 magazines, more than 1.2 million rounds of ammunition, and 289 grenades.” These numbers are direct measures of enforcement actions.

Implied Indicators for Target 16.a

• Budget and personnel for enforcement agencies: The article implies that the budget and staffing of agencies like the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) are key indicators of institutional capacity. The proposed plan to “reduce the ATF’s budget by 25%” and “eliminate approximately 540 inspectors” serves as a negative indicator for progress on this target.
• Number of inspection operations: The article implicitly suggests this as an indicator by asking, “How many inspection operations are U.S. authorities conducting?” This points to operational activity as a measure of institutional commitment.

4. Table of SDGs, Targets, and Indicators

Source: english.elpais.com