Dr. Yasmin Calmet

The recent proposal by U.S. President Donald Trump to send American troops to Mexico to "combat drug cartels" is not an isolated act, but rather the latest manifestation of a historically entrenched interventionist policy employed by the U.S. in Latin America. During a phone call, Trump suggested to Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum that U.S. military forces enter Mexican territory, claiming this would assist against narcotrafficking. This justification, however, conceals a broader geopolitical strategy: under the guise of a 'war on drugs,' the U.S. seeks to influence domestic policies and secure economic interests, as seen previously with Plan Colombia (2000–2016) and the 2024 interventions in Ecuador. Faced with this scenario, Sheinbaum rejected the proposal with calculated diplomacy, aware of the consequences of an aggressive response.Coercive Diplomacy Donald Trump, exploiting Mexico's commercial vulnerability – with the U.S. as the primary destination for its exports (World Bank, 2023) – proposed a military intervention that, while framed as aid against cartels, constitutes a blatant affront to national sovereignty. President Sheinbaum’s measured response, avoiding direct confrontation while reaffirming Mexico’s territorial inviolability, reflects the perennial dilemma of Latin American governments: how to resist U.S. interference without jeopardizing vital economic ties. The recent case of Ecuador serves as a stark warning after declaring "total war" on drug traffickers in 2024, the country saw homicides surge by 210% in six months, exposing the risks of militarization as a singular solution.This interventionist dynamic has deep historical roots. From the Monroe Doctrine in the 19th century to the so-called "war on drugs" declared by President Reagan in the 1980s, the U.S. has justified regional interventions under various pretexts. The emblematic Plan Colombia, launched in 2000 with an initial investment of 7.5 billion (1.3 billion directly funded by the U.S.), starkly illustrates the paradoxes of this approach. While it achieved tactical successes, such as the capture of Cali and Medellín cartel leaders and localized reductions in coca cultivation, it failed strategically: cocaine production remained steady, criminal organizations fragmented into more decentralized and transnational structures, and state violence escalated dramatically, with reports of thousands of extrajudicial killings. Paradoxically, Plan Colombia’s primary legacy was the expansion of U.S. military presence in the region, with seven new bases established in Colombian territory by 2015, confirming that behind the rhetoric of drug enforcement lay far broader geopolitical interests.Multiple Implications Far from genuine bilateral cooperation, Donald Trump’s proposal to deploy troops to Mexican territory reveals a concerning geopolitical strategy that threatens national sovereignty and weaponizes the "war on drugs" for expansionist purposes. As recent history demonstrates, from the 1989 invasion of Panama to current military support for Ecuador, the U.S. has used anti-drug rhetoric as a pretext for interventions that, in practice, strengthen its control over regional policies. In Mexico’s case, this strategy is particularly alarming: given the country’s heavy trade dependence on the U.S., the implicit threat of punitive tariffs on key exports like avocados (3.2 billion) and tequila (2.1 billion) effectively turns the military proposal into economic coercion.Trump’s 2024 decision to designate Mexican cartels as "foreign terrorist organizations" – an unprecedented move in bilateral relations – poses an even greater danger by expanding U.S. unilateral powers. As warned by the Center for Economic and Policy Research (CEPR, 2024), this designation allows the U.S. to bypass existing legal cooperation mechanisms, conduct military operations without prior consultation with Mexico, and justify unilateral economic sanctions.The Colombian case illustrates the risks of this approach: after the FARC’s 1997 terrorist designation, the U.S. escalated military presence under Plan Colombia, leading to a dramatic surge in violence (over 8 million conflict victims, per Colombia’s National Center for Historical Memory). In Mexico, where cartels operate in densely populated urban areas, unilateral military action could trigger catastrophic humanitarian crises.In response to Trump's proposal, President Claudia Sheinbaum adopted a diplomatic stance, avoiding direct confrontation and emphasizing the importance of respectful bilateral cooperation. Sheinbaum highlighted Mexico's efforts in combating drug trafficking, including the extradition of cartel leaders and increased border security operations.The Mexican government's response reflects an attempt to preserve stability in relations with the United States while reaffirming the country's autonomy and sovereignty. This approach seeks to avoid repeating historical episodes of foreign interventions that resulted in negative consequences for Latin American countries.Key Considerations &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Trump's proposal to militarily intervene in Mexico (under the pretext of combating drug trafficking) exposes a fundamental contradiction in hemispheric security policies. As demonstrated by the cases of Colombia (2000-2015) and Ecuador (2024), interventions of this kind not only fail to reduce drug flows – which increased by 40% in the post-Plan Colombia period – but also produce three collateral effects: the erosion of local democratic institutions, an escalation of armed violence, and the consolidation of more decentralized and transnational criminal structures.Mexico now faces the dilemma of resisting these pressures without jeopardizing its vital economic relationship with the U.S. The solution, however, does not lie in submitting to demonstrably failed strategies, but in strengthening evidence-based public policies.To build a sovereign and effective strategy, Mexico should: a) Reform its judicial system to combat the structural corruption that enables cartel operations (according to Transparency International 2023, Mexico loses 5% of its annual GDP to corruption); b) Invest in territorial development – 80% of cartel recruitment occurs in municipalities with an HDI below 0.7; c) Demand reciprocal action from the U.S.: effective control of arms trafficking (ATF 2023 data shows 90% of cartel weapons come from the U.S.), crackdowns on money laundering, and reduced domestic drug demand. DEA data reveals the U.S. drug market generates $150 billion annually.Sheinbaum’s current diplomatic stance, which balances rejecting intervention with offers of technical cooperation, is sound but insufficient. This moment calls for a bold agenda that transforms the security crisis into an opportunity to redefine hemispheric relations on more equitable terms, where shared responsibility replaces interventionist logic.

What Are the Motives Behind Trump’s Troop Proposal for Mexico?