The Trump Administration: Will It Resort to Military Action Against Drug Cartels? - A New Phase in the Drug War: Mobilizing the Military and Intelligence Agencies, Latin America Torn Between Alliance and Conflict

1. What's Happening—The "Drug War" Enters a Military Phase

"Treat cartels as 'armed terrorist organizations' rather than 'drug trafficking organizations'." The Trump administration is poised to make this stance clear, moving towards enforcement measures that include military and intelligence agency involvement. According to a report by Investing.com, Secretary of State Marco Rubio stated, "With the FTO designation, we can target these groups using other U.S. powers, including the Department of Defense and intelligence agencies, when opportunities arise."

Following reports from major U.S. newspapers, The Washington Post and CBS report that the President has issued "instructions" considering the use of military force. While the White House avoids commenting on specifics, it emphasizes, "The President's top priority is homeland defense."The Washington Postcbsnews.com

2. Legal Foundation—FTO Designation and Executive Order 14157

The foundation for this policy shift was laid by Executive Order 14157 (establishing the framework for FTO/SDGT designation), signed on the first day in office, followed by the State Department's terrorism designation. In February, several cartels and TCOs (Transnational Criminal Organizations) were designated as FTO/SDGT, leading to asset freezes, the cutoff of foreign support, and increased levers for investigation and prosecution.The White HouseU.S. Department of StateWhite & Case LLP

Simultaneously, alerts from the Congressional Research Service and law firms highlight the expanded scope of civil and criminal applications through terrorism designation and the Anti-Terrorism Act (ATA), as well as legal issues regarding the authority and constraints of military action (Congressional approval, War Powers Resolution, international law).Congress.govwilmerhale.com

3. Military "Options"—Surveillance, Capture, Remote Strikes

At present, there are no confirmed plans for a "land invasion." Rather, realistic options converge on "surveillance, capture, and surgical neutralization." The U.S. military, responsible for North American defense, has hinted at expanding aerial surveillance of Mexican cartels starting early 2025. Additionally, reports in the spring suggested the consideration of drone use, with discussions on capturing maritime transport networks and limited strikes on foreign bases (manufacturing labs, storage sites) as options.

4. Mexico's Reaction—"No Invasion." Sovereignty Lines Are Firm

The strongest reaction came from neighboring Mexico. President Sheinbaum declared, "There will be no U.S. military invasion," emphasizing cooperation but firmly rejecting any infringement on territorial sovereignty. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs also reaffirmed its stance against unilateral military actions. This "red line" reflects a consistent attitude of maintaining close security cooperation while not allowing military deployment within Mexican territory.ReutersThe GuardianEl País

5. Geopolitics of Latin America—Ripple Effects on Venezuela and Regional Countries

Some reports focus on Venezuela's criminal networks (such as Tren de Aragua) and suggest an expansion of U.S. military options in the region. This could increase tensions not only in Mexico but throughout the entire region. Regional media also convey a sense of caution, with diplomatic and military maneuvers accelerating.El País

6. Domestic Support and Opposition—"Protect the Border" vs. "Invite a Quagmire"

Supporters justify the harsh measures and cross-border actions by treating cartels as terrorist organizations, citing the severity of domestic harm such as the fentanyl crisis. Secretary Rubio also reiterated that the FTO designation allows for the utilization of the Department of Defense and intelligence agencies.

On the other hand, critics warn that military action is legally and strategically complex, could damage relations with Mexico, and increase the risk of retaliation or escalation. The Washington Post notes "uncertainty about the presence and scope of new approvals," highlighting legal gaps. The Guardian also reported concerns that a unilateral approach could undermine cooperation more than allied collaboration.The Washington PostThe Guardian

7. Sentiments on Social Media—Official Messaging vs. Grassroots Buzz

The government's and ruling party's messages are clear. Secretary Rubio repeatedly emphasized the significance of the FTO designation on X, showcasing the administration's hardline stance.

Meanwhile, reactions from general users are divided. On military community boards and social media, there are pragmatic voices saying, "Limited actions at sea or abroad are understandable," while others express concern over "the risk of a quagmire or abuse." For instance, on Reddit's military threads, comments like "If it develops into direct ground operations, it's a nightmare" and "The line between enforcement agencies could become blurred" ranked high. Here is an example:

“The order lays the groundwork for potential direct military operations at sea and on foreign land against the cartels. This is…a horrific nightmare.” (Excerpt)
(There are numerous posts. While opinions are balanced, voices questioning legal boundaries and operational checks are spreading.) Reddit

8. What Will Become "Reality"—Key Checkpoints to Watch

• Concrete Options: What tools will actually be adopted, such as maritime capture, neutralization of foreign labs, cyber blockades, and the normalization of ISR (Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance)?

• Implementation of the Law: To what extent can the strengthening of judicial and sanctions measures based on FTO/SDGT designation reduce the "military's role"?U.S. Department of StateCongress.gov

• Cooperation with Mexico: How to expand the framework for joint operations and information sharing while maintaining the sovereignty line. Mexico's principle of "no invasion" remains unshaken.The GuardianEl País

• Domestic Political Impact: Congressional involvement, budgeting, and electoral politics. The White House's "homeland defense" message is strong, but long-term operations require institutional backing.The Washington Post

9. Conclusion—Who Will Redefine the "Drug War"?

Treating cartels within a terrorism framework reshapes the intersection of U.S. security, diplomacy, and legal systems. While military involvement brings deterrence and rapid response, it also carries vulnerabilities from the perspectives of respecting sovereignty and long-term stability. What is crucial now is how to integrate the three layers of military, judicial, and diplomatic efforts. Sustainable outcomes are unlikely without cooperation with Mexico. Will a "surgical approach" to transnational crime become the focus of operations, or will it be shrouded in the "fog of war"? The answer depends on the specifics of the forthcoming measures and how the lines to be drawn by both countries are delineated.ReutersThe Guardian

Powered by Froala Editor