Analysts focused on U.S.-Mexico dynamics have voiced concern to Newsweek about potential military operations being considered by the Trump White House targeting cartels in Mexico. They believe such moves would be viewed as illegal aggression and could lead to unintentional, and potentially disastrous, outcomes. Additionally, they argue this strategy fundamentally misunderstands the inner workings of these criminal organizations.
As reported by independent journalist Ken Klippenstein, preparations for military engagement could be finalized by mid-September, directly influenced by President Donald Trump’s orders.
According to Geoffrey Corn, head of the Center for Military Law and Policy at Texas Tech School of Law, any military initiative carried out without Mexico’s permission would justifiably be condemned as aggressive. He points out that this violates essential aspects of the UN Charter and international law.
“The U.S. will assert its right to self-defense, but that right only applies when responding to an actual or imminent armed attack. Hence, a mere reaction to the actions of non-state actors doesn’t fit the criteria,” Corn discusses further with Newsweek.
Conveying Urgency
In response to inquiries regarding military options, Sean Parnell, spokesperson for the Pentagon, maintained the administration’s stance on the Foreign Terrorist Organization (FTO) designations of certain cartels. He reiterated the claim that these criminal organizations pose a “direct threat” to national safety.
Parnell stated, “These cartels propagate unprecedented violence, destabilizing nations and flooding the U.S. with illicit drugs and gangs.”
Klippenstein’s findings are just part of a broader picture emerging, as U.S. personnel have already been positioned around Mexico and Latin America in the past weeks.
Giving more clarity on what military operations could entail, David Mora, International Crisis Group’s senior analyst for Mexico, shared his thoughts. He mentions that drone strikes on cartel infrastructure would face significant challenges, especially since drug trafficking operations in Mexico are highly decentralized—spanning modest networks and unregulated labs within urban areas like Culiacán. Such drone strikes could be complicated and exceedingly risky.
Mora continues, noting that if U.S. forces were sent to capture or take out a cartel leader, it might create an enticing narrative for Trump’s administration. However, he emphasizes that while it might seem successful and grab headlines, this tactic hasn’t effectively addressed drug trafficking or organized crime historically.
Risks of Backlash on the Border
She cited, “This terminology clashes with the administration’s borders and migration policies. There’s ample evidence suggesting that violence causes internal migration. Any military action taken in Mexico risks retaliatory acts from these cartels, which might lead individuals to seek refuge at the U.S. border, counteracting the orderly migration Trump hopes to achieve.”
All three experts consulted by Newsweek expressed worries regarding whether current plans would abide by constitutional standards, especially since cartels haven’t conducted any direct attacks on the U.S. that could justify military action aimed at day-to-day gang operations.
Farfán-Méndez added that she perceives a misunderstanding from the administration about how drug trafficking rings operate, clarifying that the narcotics economy isn’t just about eliminating a handful of leading dealers but rather a vast network spanning both sides of the border.
Supporting her argument, U.S. Sentencing Commission statistics for 2024 showed that a vast majority—83.5%—of all sentenced fentanyl traffickers were U.S. citizens, highlighting domestic involvement.
Potential Political Fallout for Sheinbaum
Experts also raised concerns about how orchestrating military actions could impact the U.S.-Mexico relationship, particularly with President Claudia Sheinbaum, who has publicly pledged to tackle the streams of migrants and drugs while balancing trade relations with Washington.
Mora pointed out, “Mexico historically holds less power. If unilateral U.S. operations initiated during Sheinbaum’s presidency, it would provoke significant political sensitivity. In Mexican politics, solo military moves are equivalent to an invasion.”
“Envision the narrative: being the president under whom the U.S. once again invaded Mexico. It would be politically catastrophic for her tenure,” he added.
Amid Trump’s administration, which rose to power in January appearing tough on border security and fentanyl-related crime, the path ahead seems concerning—with escalated strategies against cartels planned but the effectiveness of those means still not clear.
Parnell noted that any assault on cartels must align with a coordinated governmentwide approach paired with regional allies to effectively dismantle the cartels’ capacity to inconvenience the safety and security of the U.S.
Corn concluded that deploying military force against cartel networks is ultimately counterproductive.
“It seems we’re witnessing a growing trend: appointing military action as the primary solution naturally leads to viewing all challenges as military-related. But this situation isn’t one suitable for militarized responses,” stated the legal expert.
