U.S. President Donald Trump has reiterated his intention to combat drug trafficking by targeting Mexican cartels, following recent military actions against Venezuela. In an interview on the television program “Fox and Friends,” Trump stated, “We have to do something” about the situation in Mexico, noting that the Mexican government has previously rejected his proposals to eliminate the drug cartels. This renewed focus on Mexico comes as the country stands as a significant player in the international drug trade, particularly as a major source of fentanyl entering the United States.
On March 15, 2024, Trump emphasized his strategy during a follow-up interview, declaring, “We’ve knocked out 97% of the drugs coming in by water, and we are gonna start now hitting land, with regard to the cartels.” His remarks reflect a view that Mexico is a logical target in a broader war on drugs. The nation is not only the main producer of fentanyl destined for the U.S. but also serves as a critical transit route for cocaine from Colombia.
While Trump frames the issue as a battle against a few dominant cartels, experts highlight the complexity of the drug trafficking landscape in Mexico. Eduardo Guerrero, director of Lantia Intelligence, identifies approximately 400 distinct criminal organizations operating in the country today. This fragmentation of power means that dismantling a few key players might not significantly disrupt the flow of drugs.
The portrayal of cartels as centralized operations led by notorious figures like Joaquín “El Chapo” Guzmán is increasingly outdated. During the 1980s and 1990s, a handful of cartels dominated the drug trade, but the landscape has evolved dramatically. Today, the most powerful cartel, the Jalisco New Generation Cartel, consists of around 90 affiliated groups, a noticeable increase from 45 just a few years ago. Guerrero explains, “This fragmentation has meant that you’ll need a more complex, more sophisticated strategy to weaken and dismember them.”
Attempts to implement a “kingpin” strategy since 2007 have not yielded the intended results. Mexican authorities, supported by U.S. intelligence and resources, have pursued and apprehended numerous cartel leaders. Yet, these efforts have often led to the emergence of new leaders and an uninterrupted flow of drugs across the U.S.-Mexico border. As author Benjamin T. Smith notes, “If you took out the CEO of Coca-Cola tomorrow, you wouldn’t stop Coca-Cola sales.” A strong demand for drugs perpetuates the supply chain.
The ongoing challenges in addressing cartel activities are compounded by the lack of a unified power structure within Mexico. Falko Ernst, a researcher focused on organized crime, emphasizes that “no one is firmly in control, neither the cartels nor the government.” In some regions, the government maintains authority, while in others, armed groups have taken over. “You have a mosaic of different forms of power,” he states, underscoring the complexity of the situation that defies a one-size-fits-all solution.
The intertwining of criminal organizations with local economies and governance further complicates efforts to combat drug trafficking. During the 2024 national elections, for instance, crime groups sought to influence local politics, resulting in the assassination of three dozen candidates and the intimidation of many more. Cartels have embedded themselves within various sectors, effectively providing jobs and services in exchange for loyalty and compliance from local populations. A study published in Science estimates that these groups employ between 160,000 and 185,000 individuals nationwide.
The Trump administration’s approach to the issue has faced criticism for oversimplifying the complexities of the Mexican cartel problem. Anna Kelly, a spokesperson for the White House, pointed to the administration’s reliance on the Monroe Doctrine as a framework for dealing with regional issues, including drug trafficking. “The president has many options at his disposal to continue to protect our homeland from illicit narcotics that kill tens of thousands of Americans every year,” Kelly noted.
Meanwhile, Mexico’s President Claudia Sheinbaum has maintained a cooperative relationship with the Trump administration but has firmly rejected the idea of U.S. troops being deployed on Mexican soil. She emphasized the importance of sovereignty, stating, “Our position should be firm and clear with regard to our sovereignty.” Sheinbaum has already taken measures to address drug trafficking, including dispatching thousands of troops to the U.S. border and cooperating with U.S. authorities in the transfer of drug trafficking suspects.
Concerns about potential U.S. military action have historical resonance in Mexico, where memories of past invasions linger. Sheinbaum’s hesitance is rooted not only in public sentiment but also in the political dynamics within her leftist party and the nationalist sentiment of the Mexican military.
A cautionary tale arises from recent events in the Pacific state of Sinaloa, where the capture of Ismael “El Mayo” Zambada, a leader of the Sinaloa cartel, led to violent internal conflicts that resulted in numerous casualties. The fallout from such actions illustrates the unintended consequences of aggressive tactics against cartel leadership.
Despite the complexities, Trump has reiterated the urgency of addressing drug trafficking. He remarked, “The cartels are running Mexico.” Sheinbaum has sought to mitigate concerns by indicating that communication with the Trump administration remains positive. When asked if she believes Trump would pursue military action, she simply replied, “Yes,” indicating her cautious optimism regarding the situation.
The evolving dynamics between the U.S. and Mexico regarding drug trafficking continue to pose significant challenges. As the U.S. expands its military focus, the implications for bilateral relations and regional stability remain uncertain. As noted by Brenda Estefan, a professor of geopolitics, recent U.S. actions signify a shift in power dynamics that Latin American countries must navigate carefully.
