In a bold move, the US president hints at expanding military actions beyond the seas, stirring curiosity about Washington’s evolving stance on drug trafficking.
The US president has signalled a possible expansion of military action (Image: Fox News)
The US president has signalled a possible expansion of military action beyond maritime operations, raising fresh questions about Washington’s approach to drug trafficking and relations with Mexico.
US President Donald Trump said he could extend military strikes from the sea to land-based targets linked to drug smuggling, while appearing to single out Mexico as a potential focus. Speaking on Fox News with Sean Hannity on Thursday night, Trump pointed to what he described as the effectiveness of recent strikes against boats his administration says are used by drug traffickers.
Those operations followed months of increased US naval activity and culminated over the weekend in the capture and transfer to New York of Venezuela’s leader Nicolas Maduro and his wife.
Trump suggested the focus could now shift south of the US border, a development likely to alarm Mexico.
“We’ve knocked out 97% of the drugs coming in by water,” said Trump to Hannity. “And we are going to start now hitting land with regard to the cartels.”
He coninued, “The cartels are running Mexico, it’s very sad to watch, and see what’s happened to that country. They’re killing 250,000, 300,000 in our country every single year. The drugs are horrible, they’re devestating families.”
Mexico plays down military threat
Despite the sharp language from Washington, Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum has sought to minimise concerns about possible US strikes on Mexican territory.
ABC reproted Sheinbaum as saying on Monday, “I don’t see risks (of that),” she said. “There is coordination, there is collaboration with the United States government.”
“I don’t believe in (the possibility of) invasion, I don’t believe even that it’s something they are taking seriously,” she said. “Organized crime is not taken care with (foreign military) intervention.”
Sheinbaum has acknowledged that US military action has come up repeatedly in discussions with Trump but said she has consistently rejected the idea. She has described it as a non-starter and insists her relationship with the US president is based on mutual respect.
Threats seen as negotiating tactic
Trump and senior figures around him have raised the prospect of striking Mexican cartels since his election campaign, though often in shifting tones. Analysts say the threats resemble earlier warnings over tariffs on Mexican imports, some of which were implemented while others were not.
Those moves have been described as a “negotiation weapon” designed to extract “commercial, diplomatic and political advantages,” according to Mexican security analyst David Saucedo, who spoke with ABC. He said Rubio and Trump “play good cop, bad cop,” with Trump issuing threats while Rubio works to smooth relations.
Experts note that Mexico has largely complied with US demands since tariffs were introduced, with Sheinbaum’s administration stepping up arrests, drug seizures and extraditions, and agreeing to accept more deportees from other countries.
Get More of Our News on Google
Set Daily Express as a ‘Preferred Source’ to get quicker access to the news you value.
Risks of breaking cooperation
Analysts have warned that direct US military action would jeopardise existing cooperation between the two countries.
“Intervention, military action in Mexico would suspend that cooperation,” said Carlos Pérez Ricart, a political analyst at Mexico’s Center for Economic Research and Teaching (CIDE), according to the ABC report. He added that such a move would leave Washington without a key partner.
Saucedo said the cost of military action would be far higher than rhetorical threats, noting that “a comment, a post on social networks doesn’t cost anything” and has proven effective.
With negotiations looming over tariffs and a review of the USMCA trade agreement, analysts expect the pressure to continue. Saucedo said Trump could push for greater access for US security agencies, demand high-profile arrests, or threaten new economic measures.
Uncertainty remains
Former Mexican ambassador to the US Arturo Sarukhán warned that Mexico would need to tread carefully amid overlapping trade, security and diplomatic talks.
“With the ongoing negotiations over punitive tariffs, the statutory revision of the USMCA and the delicate antidrug cooperation agenda, the Mexican government will have to be very meticulous in its position and statements,” he said.
He added that backing Maduro or maintaining support for Cuba could carry serious consequences for Mexico.
Bárcena said Mexico still needs to confront political corruption linked to organised crime while upholding international law.
While most observers see US military intervention as unlikely, it has not been ruled out.
“The United States does not function under rational logic,” Pérez Ricart said. “At this moment all possibilities are open, including those unimaginable a year ago.”
Social media reaction
Trump’s remarks on Fox Ness quickly prompted reaction from viewers on social media.
One X user, Mary Valerio, wrote: “YES! Let’s GO!”
Another user, EM727, questioned the implications of the comments, posting: “So they’re going to be targeting drug traffickers on land? Does that they’ll be bombing Langley?”
User True Woman suggested political consequences, writing: “Half of the congress is sponsored by cartels. They will be pissed.”
Others expressed support for Trump’s approach. User @adent42 posted: “It sucks Trump has to do everything in 4yrs that we have been begging presidents to do for the last 40 years”.
Lisabeth S. Williamson added: “He’s doing awesome things for the meek.”
