“The cartels are waging war against the United States, and it’s time for the United States to wage war against the cartels,” Donald Trump threatened before the United States Congress in early March.
Since his return to the White House, the president has promoted aggressive diplomacy against Mexican drug traffickers. Supported by his vice president, J.D. Vance, he believed that if he doesn’t control these groups, the neighboring nation could become a “narco-state,” where the cartels would have more power than the government itself. Although Vance claims to prefer Mexico to take action on the matter, he warned: “We hope they do, and if not, we’ll figure out what to do from there.”
“And if not?” The US measures if the Mexican government doesn’t implement measures that meet Trump’s expectations are uncertainties that are worrying Mexico.
Trump promised to destroy the cartels
The Republican is credited with fulfilling his campaign promise to bomb Mexican cartel targets. This is not a new idea: Mark Esper, who served as Secretary of Defense during Trump’s first term, revealed in his 2022 memoir that the president consulted him about the possibility of launching missiles at drug labs in Mexico.
Interviewed by France 24, Sergio de la Peña, a former US Army colonel, insisted on highlighting that Trump’s reasoning is based on considering Mexican cartels a threat to US security, primarily due to their massive trafficking of fentanyl and their sponsorship of irregular migration:
“The fentanyl that enters the border costs us more than 100,000 deaths annually. That’s more than all the deaths of US soldiers in Vietnam, Korea, Iraq, Afghanistan, and Panama combined.”
The cartels, according to Tom Homan, the Trump administration’s border czar, “have killed more Americans than any terrorist organization in the world.” With this in mind, the next step, on January 28, was to designate six Mexican cartels as “terrorist organizations”: the Sinaloa Cartel, the Jalisco New Generation Cartel, the United Cartels, the Northwest Cartel, the Gulf Cartel, and the New Michoacan Family. Among the measures enabled by this inclusion on the Foreign Terrorist Organizations (FTO) list are the freezing of bank accounts, prohibiting financial transactions between US citizens and entities with the cartels and their members, “to financially stifle drug traffickers, as they have done with other organizations previously included on the list,” explains Javier Oliva, a security expert interviewed by France 24.
Furthermore, while the FTO list does not oblige other countries to extradite, it does facilitate the process by providing a stronger legal and diplomatic basis for the surrender of suspects.
We recall the case of Abu Hamza al-Masri, a radical Islamist cleric of Egyptian origin who gained notoriety in the United Kingdom for his extremist rhetoric and support for terrorist groups like Al-Qaeda. His extradition in 2012 illustrates how the United States can rely on the FTO list to prosecute those it considers its enemies.
Now, the real concern with the bellicose rhetoric of Donald Trump and his administration is the possibility of direct military intervention in Mexico. When the president signed executive orders in January, a reporter asked him if designating the cartels as “terrorist organizations” would open the door to a military operation. His response was ambiguous: “It’s possible. Stranger things have happened.”
“I’m not in a position to predict what Trump will do,” replied Sergio de la Peña, also former Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Western Hemisphere Affairs during the first Trump administration, when asked about that scenario.
The US invasion: “All a movie”?
From a legal standpoint, designating the cartels as terrorists does not automatically authorize military action. President Claudia Sheinbaum herself dismissed the possibility: “It’s all a movie.” However, in practice, the United States has used this designation as a basis for military interventions, as occurred in Afghanistan against the Taliban, as well as in Iraq and Syria against the self-proclaimed Islamic State.
According to an investigation published by Rolling Stone magazine in November, Trump’s advisors have presented him with plans that include airstrikes against cartel infrastructure, targeted assassinations of their leaders, and a training program for Mexican forces. The outlet also claims that, since at least last year, the now president has requested battle plans to “attack Mexico.”
In fact, several members of his cabinet have publicly endorsed the idea, including the now National Security Advisor, Mike Waltz. Another key ally, Congressman Dan Crenshaw, proposed a bill in 2023 to authorize the use of military force against the cartels. So, if Trump’s intention to attack the Mexican cartels is “a movie,” he already has at least scripts and actors.
“It’s a little-discussed fact, but Trump has already deployed 9,000 soldiers on the border with Mexico, while Sheinbaum’s administration has just sent 10,000 troops. That represents the largest border militarization in recent history,” notes Javier Oliva, a professor and researcher at the Faculty of Political and Social Sciences at UNAM.
“By constitutional mandate, US soldiers don’t carry bullets, but they do carry their weapons. They provide radars, night vision goggles, and drones to monitor irregular movements of both drugs and migrants,” adds the security analyst.
“To remain in a secure position, one has to know the enemy,” explains Sergio de la Peña. “It’s about situational awareness.” The former colonel uses the same expression to describe the movements of military aircraft from the United States that were detected at the edge of Mexican airspace last month.
An overt or covert intervention?
However, expert Javier Oliva considers a direct invasion unlikely: “The United States is coming off two military failures: the quagmire in Afghanistan, where the Taliban regained power, and the debacle in Iraq. The economic cost of an intervention in Mexico would be too high.”
However, he warns of another scenario: covert operations and special forces. “That could happen. In fact, as far as we know, the capture of Ismael “El Mayo” Zambada (leader of the Sinaloa Cartel) and Joaquín Guzmán López (son of drug trafficker Joaquín “El Chapo” Guzmán) in July 2024 was carried out without coordination with the Mexican Army.”
“The United States is coming off two military failures: the quagmire in Afghanistan, where the Taliban regained power, and the debacle in Iraq. The economic cost of an intervention in Mexico would be too high.”
For his part, the former Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Western Hemisphere Affairs advocates for military cooperation between the two countries: “There’s a lot of creativity in the US Armed Forces and the Mexican Navy. Ideally, they should work together.” He even recalls that this relationship is improving: “When I was at Northern Command, until 2006, cooperation was diminished; but we have a history of collaboration. In World War II, Mexico participated with a squadron. We should recover that level.”
There is also another avenue in Trump’s hypothetical war against Mexican drug traffickers. In an interview with The Spectator, the president revealed his intention to investigate Mexican officials for their ties to drug trafficking. Although he clarified that it will be up to Attorney General Pam Bondi to move forward in that direction.
“The Mexican government is colluding with the cartels. This is worrying for the U.S. government and should be worrying for the Mexican people,” Sergio de la Peña emphasized.
“Trump has mentioned in at least four official events that the Mexican government maintains an unacceptable relationship with drug trafficking,” notes Javier Oliva. “I hope I’m wrong, but the next step in that battle would be to leak files on politicians, senators, and officials linked to organized crime.”
After decades of failed strategies, the equation remains the same: as long as there is demand, there will be supply.
Finally, the offensive that Trump and his allies are proposing against the cartels in Mexico ignores an uncomfortable reality: drug use in the United States fuels violence south of the border. If the history of drug wars is any guide, militarization and punitive actions have only displaced the problem, and heavy-handed rhetoric has ultimately yielded to the inertia of an impossible-to-eradicate market.
Source: proceso
