President Trump’s aggressive campaign of blowing up suspected drug smuggler boats off Venezuela’s coast, alongside his declaration of an ‘armed conflict’ against drug cartels, has raised a critical question for a country much closer to home.
Could Mexico, a nation that produces far more illicit drugs and harbors some of the globe’s most powerful criminal organizations, face similar military action from the United States?
In May, Mr. Trump openly stated his willingness to deploy U.S. forces against cartel members, declaring, ‘I would be honored to go in and do it.’ He characterized these cartels as ‘evil’ entities attempting to ‘destroy our country.’
Despite these aggressive remarks, three high-ranking Mexican officials, interviewed recently, conveyed a surprising lack of immediate concern. While they monitor the U.S. military’s actions with a watchful eye, they aren’t currently worried about Mexico becoming the next target.
Their confidence stems from the deep and effective cooperation between the two nations, which has shown significant results in combating illegal migration and drug trafficking. They believe the Trump administration wouldn’t risk this valuable partnership by resorting to unilateral military interventions. This perspective is echoed by two Trump administration officials who underscored the importance of bilateral collaboration.
Even more remarkably, leaders within a prominent cartel expressed no fear of American intervention, stating their primary focus remains on internal conflicts within their organization.
To date, the U.S. government maintains that its operations have exclusively targeted vessels departing Venezuela, a nation led by an autocratic regime that Washington has openly sought to destabilize.
However, Mexico, a crucial trading partner for the U.S., represents a vastly different scenario. Any American military intervention on Mexican soil would trigger severe diplomatic, economic, and political repercussions, directly challenging Mexico’s firmly established red line on national sovereignty.
A cargo plane in Puerto Rico last month, part of a U.S. military buildup.
These Mexican officials, occupying high-level positions in foreign affairs and security and speaking anonymously due to the sensitive nature of the discussions, confirmed that their American counterparts have given no indication of Mexico being a target.
Nevertheless, the mere fact that analysts are even considering this possibility highlights the significant shift in U.S.-Latin American relations under the Trump administration.
Both American and Mexican political and security experts warn that Mexico should not dismiss the threat entirely. Mr. Trump’s ‘war’ rhetoric against cartels, coupled with the fact that the world’s most formidable drug organizations operate directly south of the U.S. border, suggests a persistent risk.
One Mexican official emphasized that while direct American military action within Mexico isn’t an immediate worry for the government, the Caribbean strikes raise long-term concerns about potential future interventions.
Similarly, in Washington, American officials have echoed the sentiment of prioritizing collaborative efforts. Two Trump administration sources, speaking anonymously, stated that due to enhanced cooperation between the two countries, the U.S. strategy currently favors joint operations over independent military actions against criminal groups.
According to one official, the Trump administration believes its assertive stance has prompted Mexico to intensify its efforts against cartels, thus mitigating the immediate necessity for U.S. military involvement. Another source noted that Secretary of State Marco Rubio’s recent visit to Mexico further solidified the perception of shared security objectives between the two nations.
A section of the U.S.-Mexico border in Tijuana, Mexico, in March.
Secretary Rubio’s meeting with Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum on September 3rd, just a day after Trump’s initial announcement of a U.S. strike in the Caribbean, saw Rubio delivering strong condemnation against Venezuelan smugglers.
He asserted, ‘We’re not going to sit back anymore and watch these people sail up and down the Caribbean like a cruise ship.’ He further argued that merely intercepting boats and seizing cargo is insufficient, emphasizing, ‘What will stop them is when you blow them up.’
However, his tone shifted to one of commendation when discussing Mexico, stating, ‘It is the closest security cooperation we have ever had.’
Following the meeting, a joint statement on security cooperation was released, highlighting principles of ‘respect for sovereignty and territorial integrity’ and ‘mutual trust.’
Mexico’s President Sheinbaum has consistently taken a firm stand against U.S. military intervention, marking it as a clear boundary.
‘Under no circumstances will the people of Mexico accept interventions that violate our territory,’ she declared at a recent rally in Mexico City, emphasizing, ‘Whether by land, water, sea or air.’
Remarkably, President Sheinbaum’s unwavering public opposition to foreign interventions has ironically offered a sense of security to the very criminal organizations she and Mr. Trump aim to dismantle. This includes the Sinaloa Cartel, a notoriously powerful global drug trafficking network that likely supplies more drugs than all Venezuelan smugglers combined.
President Claudia Sheinbaum of Mexico at the National Palace in Mexico City in February.
In anonymous interviews, five cartel operatives dismissed the notion of imminent U.S. military strikes within Mexico. They stated that their primary concern revolved around intense internal rivalries, with most having only a superficial awareness of the recent American attacks in the Caribbean.
A 39-year-old mid-level operative in Culiacán, a cartel stronghold, expressed little concern about U.S. intervention, confident that President Sheinbaum would prevent it. ‘It will never happen,’ he remarked, referring to Mr. Trump, ‘He can’t do that.’
He further claimed that even if the U.S. targeted their maritime smuggling operations, the impact would be negligible. ‘We don’t only have maritime routes, we have land and air as well,’ he explained, asserting, ‘There is always a way.’
Beyond their internal conflicts, Mexican criminal organizations face increasing pressure from their own government. Mexican forces have apprehended thousands of cartel members, extradited 55 high-ranking operatives to the U.S., and dismantled hundreds of fentanyl labs. These combined efforts, according to Mexican officials, have significantly reduced fentanyl seizures at the U.S.-Mexico border.
Moreover, Mexico has ramped up its efforts to control migration, contributing to a substantial decrease in illegal border crossings to their lowest levels in recent years.
A senior Mexican official highlighted the daily collaboration between U.S. and Mexican authorities on cartel matters, including routine American surveillance flights over Mexican territory. However, the official firmly stated that U.S. forces will not employ force within Mexico, citing prohibitions in the Mexican Constitution.
A critical economic factor, nearly a trillion dollars strong, further reinforces the belief that the United States will not launch attacks on Mexico. The two nations share a deeply interdependent trade relationship, with approximately $950 billion in goods and services exchanged annually.
Any disruption to this colossal trade flow could unleash economic devastation in the border regions of both countries and potentially lead to a surge of migrants seeking opportunities within the United States.
Simultaneously, analysts caution that Mexico might be relying too heavily on diplomatic solutions when dealing with a notoriously unpredictable U.S. president.
David Mora, a senior analyst at the International Crisis Group, observed, ‘Sheinbaum acts, delivers and gives, but it’s never enough for the U.S.’ He emphasized that ‘the problem is the volatility and unpredictability of the Trump administration.’
Members of the Mexican Army in Sinaloa, Mexico, in June.
Local sentiments, however, are far more intricate. This year, at least three national surveys revealed that over 60 percent of Mexicans oppose U.S. military operations on their soil. Intriguingly, one poll also indicated that 31 percent of Mexicans would welcome such intervention.
In Sinaloa, a region tragically accustomed to daily violence, certain conservative and business factions would surprisingly support U.S. strikes, according to Adrián López, editor of El Noroeste, the state’s largest newspaper. Businesses have endured massive losses due to cartel conflicts, and many Mexicans view the U.S. as more capable of tackling organized crime, making ‘the logic of U.S. intervention is appealing.’
‘People here say, ‘If that makes the violence stop,” he recounted, ”Where do I sign?’
‘But,’ he concluded, ‘we should be careful what we wish for.’