The threat of a US military intervention in Mexico resurfaces with recent statements by President Donald Trump, who authorized Pentagon strikes against Mexican drug cartels. This is an aggressive shift in US foreign policy, now more prone to war. The proposal for military action, possibly involving drones, raises fears of violations of Mexican sovereignty and regional destabilization.
President Claudia Sheinbaum has rejected any US military presence, defending Mexico’s sovereignty and armed forces. Unilateral attacks would be considered an invasion, requiring up to 500,000 troops to occupy Mexico, a risk with repercussions in US cities. Sheinbaum’s administration prioritizes non-military strategies against the cartels, with advances such as the extradition of several drug lords.
Omar García Harfuch, Secretary of Homeland Security, enjoys prestige in US circles for his data-driven approach and previous collaborations. His leadership in Mexico City reduced crime, but escalating it nationally faces challenges of corruption and the resilience of criminal groups. His role could counter Trump’s narrative of a failed Mexico, although a drone operation—seen as less invasive—remains provocative. Such actions risk civilian casualties and international criticism without addressing the root causes of drug trafficking.
The history of agreements with extradited drug lords, such as the sons of El Chapu Guzmán and El Mayo Zambada, reveals a complex relationship between the US and Mexico. These figures cooperate selectively, but their arrests do not dismantle the cartels, which quickly restructure. A drone strategy would not address the economic and social roots of drug trafficking and could fuel anti-American sentiment, as has happened after past interventions that strengthened Mexican nationalism.
The domestic pressures Trump currently faces complicate his position. The genocide in Gaza, the summit with Putin in Alaska to resolve the war in Ukraine, and the Epstein files scandal have already fractured the MAGA movement. This widespread crisis could push Trump to launch an operation in Mexico to project force.
Trump tends to overreach, and an intervention in Mexico would fit this pattern, risking unintended consequences. Urban and mountainous terrain complicates the effectiveness of drones, while cartels adapt with tactics like tunnels. Military action would prioritize image over results, damaging relations with a key neighbor. Criticism of past interventions, such as Iraq, suggests that Mexico could become another strategic mistake.
A drone-only operation, attractive to Trump because of its low cost, would not dismantle the cartels’ decentralized networks, which thrive on corruption and poverty. Airstrikes in other countries have generated pushback, a greater risk in Mexico due to its proximity. Interventions often serve elites, not public safety, and a mistake could unleash border chaos, with refugees and violence heading north.
Sheinbaum relies on social programs and intelligence data, achieving a 5% drop in homicides by 2024, although areas like Sinaloa remain volatile. Her rejection of US pressure recalls the historical resistance to interference, from the occupation of Veracruz in 1914 to CIA operations over recent decades. The challenge is to balance domestic reforms with US demands, avoiding an escalation.
Trump’s threat puts Mexico at a crossroads. Collective wisdom suggests that intervention would deepen the chaos, not resolve it. Drones or troops, the result could repeat past failures: mistrust, strengthened enemies, and a fractured border.