How Far Will the Trump Administration Go Against Mexican Drug Cartels?
Using the military to wage the drug war in Mexico raises practical and constitutional issues.
President Donald Trump promised on the campaign trail that he'd go after Mexico's drug cartels, which he claimed in January "essentially run" that country. Since taking office, he has leaned on militaristic tactics to stop the flow of fentanyl into the U.S., an approach that invites conflict—and plenty of collateral damage.
In January, when Fox News asked Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth whether the administration would use the military against cartels, he replied that "all options will be on the table." In February, the State Department designated eight cartels and transnational organizations as foreign terrorist organizations (FTOs) and specially designated global terrorists (SDGTs).
Those designations in and of themselves "are not exactly a declaration of war," wrote Reason's Matthew Petti. An FTO designation "bans Americans—or anyone who wants to immigrate to the United States—from providing any kind of 'material support' to a designated terrorist group," while an SDGT designation "allows the U.S. Treasury to seize a group's assets."
The "FTO and SDGT lists don't include exemptions for free speech or humanitarian aid," Petti noted. The designations may invite increased scrutiny of remittances to places where the targeted cartels are active. Because the cartels are involved "in mafioso-like protection rackets" throughout Mexico and "many people are forced to pay them off or be killed," the American Immigration Council's Aaron Reichlin-Melnick argued on X, "that could count as material support to terrorism" under U.S. law.
Washington has also "stepped up secret drone flights over Mexico to hunt for fentanyl labs," The New York Times reported in February. The surveillance program started under President Joe Biden, and the CIA "has not been authorized to use the drones to take lethal action," the Times continued. But the escalation is "a quick initial step" in the Trump administration's "more intense action against Mexican drug cartels."
Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum, who has cooperated with the Trump administration on migration policy and the extradition of several cartel leaders, has warned the U.S. against violating Mexico's sovereignty to combat cartels. "The Mexican people will not accept under any circumstances interventions, interference, or any other act from abroad that could be harmful to the integrity, independence, and sovereignty of the nation," she said in February.
Such action could "impinge on the constitutional separation of war powers and implicate the War Powers Resolution," warned a February resolution introduced by Reps. Joaquin Castro (D–Texas), Chuy García (D–Ill.), and Nydia Velázquez (D–N.Y.). The resolution "rejects and condemns the use of military force by the United States" against parties in Mexico if carried out without the Mexican government's approval and "an explicit authorization for the use of military force enacted by Congress." An "act of aggression on Mexico's sovereign territory without their consent could be considered an act of war and a violation of international law," it warns.
Could the U.S. cross that line? The Trump administration is seemingly "split over how hard to go on Mexican cartels," the Times reported in late February. One camp favors "unilateral military action against cartel figures and infrastructure to stem the flow of drugs across the border," while another is "arguing for increased partnership with the Mexican government to ensure, among other things, continued cooperation on the issue of migration." National security adviser Mike Waltz, who as a congressman in 2023 introduced legislation that would have given the president a blank check to use military force against cartels, vowed in February that the administration would "unleash holy hell" against the groups.
Trump took a similar tone on the campaign trail. He promised to "impose a total naval embargo on cartels" and "order the Department of Defense to inflict maximum damage on cartel leadership and operations." Airstrikes against cartels were "absolutely" on the table, he told Fox News in July.
Trump may start to realize that these ideas are easier to pitch as a candidate than to carry out as president. Mexico is far less likely to cooperate on the administration's other priorities if it's dealing with uninvited American military force. Even if the administration somehow gets Mexico's buy-in for such action, it will still have to grapple with the domestic fallout of potentially unconstitutional military action and the humanitarian costs it imposes.
This article originally appeared in print under the headline "How Far Will the U.S. Go Against Cartels?."
