[image: Why fentanyl is the leading cause of overdose deaths in the US]
Possible unilateral strikes
The administration has already been shifting military, intelligence and law enforcement resources toward combating the cartels, current and former officials said.
President Donald Trump’s nominee for ambassador to Mexico, Ronald Johnson, <www.reuters.com/world/americas/trump-nominee-ambassador-mexico-says-all-cards-table-security-operations-2025-03-13/> refused to rule out unilateral U.S. military action inside Mexico. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth reportedly warned Mexican officials <www.wsj.com/politics/policy/trump-mexico-drug-cartel-tariff-hegseth-military-action-5f507ab0> in private about possible unilateral U.S. action. Both have said variations of “all cards are on the table” when it comes to tackling the cartels.
According to a memoir by Mark Esper, who was defense secretary during Trump’s first term, Trump asked him in 2020 whether the military could fire missiles into Mexico to destroy drug labs and then deny the United States had conducted the strike. Trump and his aides have rejected Esper’s account as false.
The administration hopes to coordinate any action against the cartels with Mexico’s military and law enforcement agencies, the six sources said. They also said most administration officials see unilateral military action as a last resort that could cause a rupture with Mexico and jeopardize vital cooperation on immigration.
Staging a military attack on the cartels in Mexico without the government’s consent would arguably violate international law, though both Democratic and Republican administrations have argued that the United States has a right to defend itself from threats within a country that has lost control of its own security.
Advocates of using drones believe that if enough military pressure is placed on the cartels, they will decide that the cost is not worth the money they can make from fentanyl. But some experts and former U.S. officials who worked on counternarcotics are skeptical, arguing that drone strikes could prove to be merely symbolic or, worse, backfire politically for Mexican leaders and jeopardize further cooperation.
During Mexican President Felipe Calderón’s tenure from 2006 to 2012, the two countries embarked on a major campaign to strike at the cartels’ leaders, dubbed the “kingpin strategy.” American spy agencies provided intelligence, U.S. military teams trained elite Mexican commandos, and U.S. law enforcement agents worked alongside their Mexican counterparts.
Former officials and experts disagree about the results of the effort. Some former U.S. law enforcement officials maintain that it made real inroads and was cut short just as the cartels were weakening. The Bush and Obama administrations portrayed it as effective.
But targeting gang kingpins also created a vacuum and triggered a spree of intense violence among rival cartels. Once Calderón’s party was voted out of office, the joint operations with the United States ended and the government curtailed the Mexican military’s role in the counternarcotics fight.
Some supporters of the Trump administration, including the six current and former officials, argue that its refusal to publicly rule out unilateral U.S. military action, coupled with tariffs and other measures, could push Mexico to accept joint operations that it might have rejected in the past.
How far to go in targeting the cartels — including whether to use unilateral military action — is the subject of an ongoing debate in the administration, the six current and former officials said.
Mexico under pressure
Arturo Sarukhán, who was Mexico’s ambassador to the United States from 2007 to 2013, said it seems U.S. unilateral military action in Mexico is now a live possibility for the first time since 1914, when the United States attacked and occupied the port of Vera Cruz.
“There is no doubt if there were unilateral action inside Mexico, this would put the bilateral relationship into a nosedive,” said Sarukhán, who is now based in Washington. “It would be put in a tailspin, as it would represent a violation of international law and an act of war.”
Sarukhán said he believes Mexico has undermined its own position by failing to come to grips with rampant drug trafficking over the past decade, creating conditions that tried the patience of its more powerful neighbor.
“At the end of the day, it’s Mexico’s failings and mistakes that have put us in this position today,” he said.
Sheinbaum, Mexico’s relatively new president, has shown a willingness to cooperate with the Trump administration on the border and in countering the cartels, current and former U.S. officials said.
Possible unilateral strikes
The administration has already been shifting military, intelligence and law enforcement resources toward combating the cartels, current and former officials said.
President Donald Trump’s nominee for ambassador to Mexico, Ronald Johnson, <www.reuters.com/world/americas/trump-nominee-ambassador-mexico-says-all-cards-table-security-operations-2025-03-13/> refused to rule out unilateral U.S. military action inside Mexico. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth reportedly warned Mexican officials <www.wsj.com/politics/policy/trump-mexico-drug-cartel-tariff-hegseth-military-action-5f507ab0> in private about possible unilateral U.S. action. Both have said variations of “all cards are on the table” when it comes to tackling the cartels.
According to a memoir by Mark Esper, who was defense secretary during Trump’s first term, Trump asked him in 2020 whether the military could fire missiles into Mexico to destroy drug labs and then deny the United States had conducted the strike. Trump and his aides have rejected Esper’s account as false.
The administration hopes to coordinate any action against the cartels with Mexico’s military and law enforcement agencies, the six sources said. They also said most administration officials see unilateral military action as a last resort that could cause a rupture with Mexico and jeopardize vital cooperation on immigration.
Staging a military attack on the cartels in Mexico without the government’s consent would arguably violate international law, though both Democratic and Republican administrations have argued that the United States has a right to defend itself from threats within a country that has lost control of its own security.
Advocates of using drones believe that if enough military pressure is placed on the cartels, they will decide that the cost is not worth the money they can make from fentanyl. But some experts and former U.S. officials who worked on counternarcotics are skeptical, arguing that drone strikes could prove to be merely symbolic or, worse, backfire politically for Mexican leaders and jeopardize further cooperation.
During Mexican President Felipe Calderón’s tenure from 2006 to 2012, the two countries embarked on a major campaign to strike at the cartels’ leaders, dubbed the “kingpin strategy.” American spy agencies provided intelligence, U.S. military teams trained elite Mexican commandos, and U.S. law enforcement agents worked alongside their Mexican counterparts.
Former officials and experts disagree about the results of the effort. Some former U.S. law enforcement officials maintain that it made real inroads and was cut short just as the cartels were weakening. The Bush and Obama administrations portrayed it as effective.
But targeting gang kingpins also created a vacuum and triggered a spree of intense violence among rival cartels. Once Calderón’s party was voted out of office, the joint operations with the United States ended and the government curtailed the Mexican military’s role in the counternarcotics fight.
Some supporters of the Trump administration, including the six current and former officials, argue that its refusal to publicly rule out unilateral U.S. military action, coupled with tariffs and other measures, could push Mexico to accept joint operations that it might have rejected in the past.
How far to go in targeting the cartels — including whether to use unilateral military action — is the subject of an ongoing debate in the administration, the six current and former officials said.
Mexico under pressure
Arturo Sarukhán, who was Mexico’s ambassador to the United States from 2007 to 2013, said it seems U.S. unilateral military action in Mexico is now a live possibility for the first time since 1914, when the United States attacked and occupied the port of Vera Cruz.
“There is no doubt if there were unilateral action inside Mexico, this would put the bilateral relationship into a nosedive,” said Sarukhán, who is now based in Washington. “It would be put in a tailspin, as it would represent a violation of international law and an act of war.”
Sarukhán said he believes Mexico has undermined its own position by failing to come to grips with rampant drug trafficking over the past decade, creating conditions that tried the patience of its more powerful neighbor.
“At the end of the day, it’s Mexico’s failings and mistakes that have put us in this position today,” he said.
Sheinbaum, Mexico’s relatively new president, has shown a willingness to cooperate with the Trump administration on the border and in countering the cartels, current and former U.S. officials said.
GO HERE FOR MORE www.nbcnews.com/politics/rcna198930 THE NEWS FROM THESE LINKS ARE DECIDED TO BE ACCUARATE OR NOT BY YOU NOT BY THE PROPHETIC NEWS SERVICE by MESSIAH’S BRANCH which is an independent NEWS & RESEARCH MINSITRY FUNDED only by your kind donations, ANY SIZE DONATION HELPS GREATLY, Please go here to donate! prophecyhour.com/donations/ WE ALSO HAVE A MISSION CHURCH FOUND HERE wichitahomeless.com/