After winning reelection, Donald Trump moved at warp speed to fulfill a host of bold MAGA promises—from dismantling the “deep state” to effectively handing Ukraine over to Russia. None of this was surprising; he had openly stated his intentions. What is surprising; however, are his repeated threats against Mexico, asserting that the U.S. reserves the right to unilaterally
invade in pursuit of drug cartels, which it now considers terrorist organizations.
Rather than treating neighboring nations—Mexico and even Canada—as sovereign partners, Trump has taken a paternalistic, almost monarchical approach, attempting to impose his will through coercion and intimidation. Yet this strategy may backfire, with consequences that extend far beyond U.S. borders.
Trump’s actions and treatment of world leaders evoke a style of diplomacy reminiscent of the 19th century. For Mexicans, in particular, it recalls a long history of American interventionism—manifest in doctrines and policies like the Monroe Doctrine, the Roosevelt Corollary, Gunboat Diplomacy, Big Stick Diplomacy, the Good Neighbor Policy, and Operation Condor. Time and again, such interventions have destabilized and even toppled governments, including democratically elected ones.
This isn’t the 19th century, and today’s Mexico is a vastly different nation. Despite the negative propaganda about a porous border, the reality is quite the opposite. The U.S.-Mexico border is the hub of a $250 billion annual trade partnership that benefits both nations. This symbiotic relationship—spanning industries from automotive and electronics to medical equipment and agriculture—creates millions of jobs on both sides. Yet, none of this seems to matter to Trump and the MAGA movement.
For conservatives and MAGA loyalists, hostility toward Mexico is more than just policy—it is an obsession. What began as slanderous rhetoric, branding Mexicans as drug dealers, criminals, and rapists, has escalated into an agenda that extends beyond the deportation of undocumented immigrants. Now, the focus is on attacking Mexico itself. Trump and his supporters have embraced a savior complex, claiming that if Mexico will not “save itself,” he will do it for them.
The narrative follows a familiar trajectory: We have to do something! → Mexico is corrupt! → Mexico must obey the United States!
This rhetoric is not only reckless—it’s dangerously real. In the minds of Trump and his movement, “Mexico” and “cartel” are now one and the same.
To be clear, drug trafficking—especially fentanyl—is a serious issue, but it’s not just a problem for the United States. Mexico must work to curb, if not eliminate, drug production and distribution, but it cannot do so alone. Why? Because this is not merely a national issue; it is an international one. Addressing it requires a multifaceted approach.
Here’s the issue in a nutshell: Mexican cartels produce and traffic drugs because there is a massive and lucrative market in the U.S. Meanwhile, the vast majority of the weapons cartels use to protect their operations come from the U.S. The U.S. has a drug consumption problem; Mexico has a violent cartel problem. It’s a two-way street that requires a two-way solution.
To highlight the complexities involved: according to the DEA, fentanyl distribution is not solely tied to Mexico—it also involves sources in China, India, and Canada. U.S. ports, private carriers like FedEx and UPS, the dark web, and social media all facilitate its spread. Additionally, American financial institutions help move money for these illicit networks.
Meanwhile, the ATF reports that 74 percent of guns seized in Mexico were trafficked from the U.S., fueling cartel violence. The problem is so severe that Mexico has taken the issue to the U.S. Supreme Court, arguing that stricter arms control at the border would significantly reduce crime. In response, Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum is pushing for constitutional reforms that would impose the harshest penalties under Mexican law for foreigners involved in the manufacturing, smuggling, and distribution of firearms.
Mexico understands the stakes. Any unilateral military action by the United States to dismantle the cartels would trigger national outrage and destabilize the entire region. The Mexican public will not stand for it. As a sovereign nation, Mexico would be compelled to defend itself by any means necessary.
Beyond that, geopolitical realities cannot be ignored. U.S. adversaries would be quick to offer Mexico support, and regional powers would not tolerate such an affront to a hemispheric ally. Mexicans have endured occupation before, and they will not tolerate another. Even if the U.S. were to claim victory in the short term, Mexico would play the long game. History has shown that occupiers often face prolonged resistance and are ultimately forced to withdraw after years of conflict.
If the rhetoric about attacking cartels is merely a ploy to instill fear or pressure Mexico into action, it has failed spectacularly. Instead of bending to Trump’s threats, Mexico has responded with intensified nationalist resolve, uniting around the need to defend itself against an increasingly untrustworthy neighbor.
Trump’s threats against Mexico are proving to be more than just reckless rhetoric—they’re a political and economic liability. Even Vice President J.D. Vance has rejected the idea of military action, signaling divisions within Trump’s own camp. Meanwhile, the stock market has reacted negatively, reflecting fears of instability, and Trump himself has already reversed course on tariffs, realizing that economic warfare with Mexico would hurt the U.S. just as much.
Despite his tough talk, Trump is facing the limits of his own strategy. The U.S.-Mexico relationship is too intertwined for simplistic threats, and his recent backtracking suggests that reality is setting in. If Trump wants stability, security, and economic growth, Trump must abandon the fantasy of unilateral aggression and recognize Mexico as a necessary partner, not a political scapegoat.
Gabriel Buelna holds a PhD in Political Science from Claremont Graduate University and serves as a faculty member in the Chicana/o Studies Department at California State University, Northridge. He is also a practicing Family and Criminal Law attorney in California. Dr. Buelna is also a Trustee for the Los Angeles Community College District and can be reached at gabriel@buelnalaw.com
Enrique M. Buelna is a faculty member in the History Department at Cabrillo College, specializing in Chicano history with an emphasis on class, race, labor, radical activism, civil rights, immigration, culture, and identity. He is the author of Chicano Communists and the Struggle for Social Justice (2019). Dr. Buelna earned his doctorate in history from the University of California, Irvine, and holds an M.A. in Public Administration from the University of Washington, Seattle. The author can be reached at embuelna@gmail.com.
Editor’s Notes: Do you have an idea for an Opinion-Editorial? We want to hear from you! Send us your ideas to info@latinonewsnetwork.com