U.S. Senators Martin Heinrich (D-N.M.) and Ben Ray Luján (D-N.M.), and U.S. Representatives Teresa Leger Fernández (D-N.M.), Melanie Stansbury (D-N.M.), and Gabe Vasquez (D-N.M.) sent a letter demanding answers from U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) Administrator Terrance Cole on why the DEA allowed large quantities of fentanyl to circulate unseized in New Mexico communities.

Trafficking of fentanyl and other opioids poses one of the most severe — and often deadly — public health threats facing New Mexico and the nation. Illicit fentanyl, a Schedule I controlled substance, is an exceptionally potent synthetic opioid that can be fatal even in extremely small quantities. Illicitly manufactured fentanyl has been the primary driver of the overdose epidemic in the U.S.

Whistleblower complaints allege that Albuquerque-based DEA agents declined to interdict at least 1.8 million fentanyl pills between 2023 and 2025 in hopes of taking down a larger supply chain.

“We unequivocally assert that allowing fentanyl to go unseized creates an unconscionable risk to New Mexicans,” the lawmakers wrote to DEA Administrator Cole.

In 2017, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) and DEA established “Fentanyl Protocols” directing agents to “seize or otherwise prevent the distribution” of fentanyl “as soon as practicable” to protect public safety. In 2024, the DOJ revised those protocols to provide law enforcement with greater discretion, allowing agents to weigh public safety risks against “the benefits to be achieved through preserving the investigation.” A 2024 DOJ Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) investigative summary further states that the U.S. Attorney’s Office acted reasonably in allowing certain drugs to remain unseized and concluded that doing so posed no “specific danger to public health and safety.”

“We adamantly disagree with this internal assessment, and we urge your agency to immediately revert fentanyl protocols to the 2017 standard of seize or otherwise prevent the distribution of fentanyl as soon as practicable,” the lawmakers underscored. “We will be taking all necessary actions in Congress to better ensure the safety of New Mexicans and expect that you will stand with us in those efforts.”

The lawmakers concluded their letter by demanding responses to a request for written documentation on all instances where the DEA declined to interdict fentanyl, and the following questions on the DEA’s fentanyl interdiction policies, investigative protocols, and enforcement practices:

1. Provide comprehensive written documentation of all individual instances, occurring in New Mexico since January 2017, including dates, locations and amount of suspected contraband, during which DEA has declined to interdict fentanyl in the course of a Title III or electronic surveillance investigation. Please also indicate the extent to which fentanyl involved in these investigations was ultimately recovered.

2. What are DEA’s current internal directives and guidelines dictating how federal agents manage active drug-trafficking investigations involving fentanyl? Specifically, what protocols instruct agents on whether to seize a shipment of fentanyl immediately or allow it to pass temporarily under surveillance?

3. What internal DOJ or DEA documentation determines, or may supersede, official fentanyl interdiction and operational protocols both as a matter of agency-wide policy and also with regards to individual drug-trafficking investigations? How are these changes to operational protocols communicated to agents in the field? Please provide all such documentation since January 2017.

4. Under what circumstances are DEA agents permitted to exercise discretion, abandoning any presumption of interdiction, allowing a fentanyl transaction to proceed without immediate seizure? What safeguards are in place to protect communities when fentanyl shipments are allowed to continue as part of an ongoing investigation?

5. Must agents possess a guaranteed, continuous ability to seize the substance immediately if the operational environment changes? How is the likelihood of losing operational surveillance, and the potential number of lives impacted if the substance enters the illicit supply chain, measured against the benefits of a successful investigation?

6. What circumstances mandate when fentanyl must be safely interdicted, or swapped for a controlled delivery with a substituted substance, before it is allowed to advance within the supply chain? What levels of approval within your command structure are required to bypass immediate interdiction?

7. What other tactics such as controlled deliveries, enhanced surveillance, contraband substitution are available to your agency to facilitate long-term, high-level investigations without an unacceptable risk to public safety? What resources can we provide to make these tactics of more common use to your agency?

8. What is the reassignment status of DEA personnel based in New Mexico to out-of-state enforcement efforts since January 2025? During the same period, have DEA agents in New Mexico maintained their primary focus on drug-trafficking investigations or have any participated in joint immigration enforcement operations not limited to ICE Enforcement and Removal Operations?

For more information on the N.M. Delegation’s work to tackle the opioid crisis, click here.

The full text of the letter is here and below:

Related