On October 23, 2025, the escalating U.S. campaign against drug trafficking in the Western Hemisphere took center stage as former President Donald Trump convened a roundtable to tout his administration’s efforts. Trump, never one to mince words, described drug cartels as the “ISIS of the Western hemisphere,” underscoring the gravity with which his team views the ongoing battle against transnational criminal organizations. But while the U.S. has ramped up military strikes on suspected drug boats off the coasts of South and Central America, the backlash from regional leaders has been swift and pointed, exposing deep rifts over the legality and effectiveness of Washington’s approach.
Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum has emerged as one of the most vocal critics of the U.S. strategy. On October 23, Sheinbaum publicly condemned the recent American military strikes targeting boats off South America’s coast, which the U.S. claims are part of a broader crackdown on drug traffickers. Citing international maritime laws, Sheinbaum insisted that “there are international laws about the way to operate on the alleged transportation of illegal drugs or weapons in international waters. We have told this to the U.S. government and publicly.” Her remarks, widely reported by Latin Times and other outlets, reflect Mexico’s longstanding insistence on adherence to international protocols and its wariness of extraterritorial military actions by its powerful northern neighbor.
The controversy comes amid a surge in U.S. military activity at sea. According to Latin Times, the Trump administration has carried out at least nine strikes against alleged drug boats in both the Caribbean and the Pacific since last month. The most recent incident unfolded just off the Colombian coast in the Pacific on October 22, resulting in the deaths of three people aboard the targeted vessel. The day before, another attack killed at least two people, marking a significant expansion of the U.S. campaign into the Pacific as part of efforts to disrupt smuggling routes and exert pressure on Venezuela’s government.
These operations have not been bloodless. Since the campaign’s launch, a total of 37 people have lost their lives in U.S. strikes targeting suspected drug boats. While the Pentagon has maintained that the vessels were involved in illicit narcotics smuggling, it has yet to release concrete evidence linking them to cartels or insurgent groups. U.S. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, speaking after the October 19 destruction of another suspected drug vessel in the Caribbean, described the groups targeted as “the Al Qaeda of the Western Hemisphere,” vowing that they would be “hunted and killed” like terrorists. Hegseth asserted that the most recent Caribbean strike targeted “a vessel known by our intelligence to be involved in illicit narcotics smuggling” along a well-established trafficking route.
But the U.S. campaign has had unintended consequences. As reported by The New York Times and cited by Latin Times, drug traffickers have adapted quickly, shifting operations away from heavily patrolled corridors. They’ve begun dividing shipments into smaller loads, concealing narcotics in food containers, and conducting transfers farther from monitored zones. The result: while the U.S. military’s presence at sea has made certain smuggling routes riskier, it has not eliminated the underlying problem. Instead, traffickers have simply become more creative and elusive.
The legal and diplomatic fallout has been just as complex. President Sheinbaum’s criticism isn’t just about sovereignty; it’s also about process. She has repeatedly emphasized the need for “recognized protocols for dealing with allegations of illegal drug and arms transport in international waters,” and has called for strict adherence to international standards. Mexico’s stance, echoed by other Latin American nations, is that the fight against drug trafficking must not come at the expense of international law or the rights of sovereign states.
The United States, however, appears determined to press ahead with its aggressive tactics. At his roundtable on October 23, Trump doubled down on his administration’s hardline approach, likening drug cartels to ISIS and insisting that only decisive action can stem the tide of narcotics flowing northward. “We’re not going to let these groups terrorize our hemisphere,” Trump said, according to sources present at the event. “We’re going to hunt them down wherever they try to hide.”
The campaign’s regional implications are profound. In Colombia, President Gustavo Petro has accused Trump of using the strikes to interfere in the country’s upcoming 2026 elections. In a pointed social media post, Petro charged that “the magnitude of Trump’s insults to Colombia and myself are no longer part of a strategy to target drug-traffickers, but to influence the Colombian elections next year, seeking the victory of the far right. They are actually likely to have ties to drug-trafficking but are obedient when it comes to accepting invasions.” Petro’s remarks reflect a broader suspicion among some South American leaders that Washington’s anti-drug efforts are motivated as much by political calculations as by a genuine desire to combat crime.
For the Trump administration and its supporters, the stakes could hardly be higher. They argue that the region’s cartels and insurgent groups pose a grave threat not only to the United States but to the entire hemisphere. By invoking comparisons to ISIS and Al Qaeda, U.S. officials seek to justify their military campaign as a necessary response to an urgent and evolving menace. “These are not just criminals,” Defense Secretary Hegseth declared. “They’re terrorists, and we will treat them as such.”
Yet critics remain unconvinced. The lack of publicly available evidence tying the targeted vessels to specific cartels or insurgent groups has fueled skepticism about the campaign’s legitimacy. Human rights advocates have raised concerns about civilian casualties, while legal experts question whether the strikes comply with international maritime law. The debate has spilled over into diplomatic channels, with Mexico and other countries demanding greater transparency and a return to established protocols for addressing cross-border crime.
What’s clear is that the U.S. campaign has forced traffickers to adapt, but it has not solved the underlying challenge. As one regional official told The New York Times, “They’re just finding new ways to get the drugs through. The problem hasn’t gone away.” Meanwhile, the political and legal fallout continues to reverberate across the Americas, raising difficult questions about sovereignty, security, and the rule of law.
As the U.S. presses its offensive and regional leaders push back, the fight over how to tackle the hemisphere’s drug trade seems destined to intensify. The coming months will test not only the effectiveness of military force but also the resilience of the diplomatic ties that bind the Americas together.
