The escalating battle between the United States and Latin American drug cartels has entered a new and volatile phase, as President Donald Trump’s administration has authorized a series of military strikes on boats off Venezuela’s coast, declaring what he calls an “armed conflict” against powerful criminal organizations. The move, announced in early October 2025, has already resulted in at least four lethal strikes in international waters and the deaths of at least 21 people, according to reports from The New York Times and AFP.
Trump, never one to mince words, made his intentions clear back in May: “I would be honored to go in and do it,” he said, referring to the prospect of using U.S. forces to hunt cartel members. “The cartels are trying to destroy our country. They’re evil.” His administration’s actions have raised questions not only about the legality of such strikes but also about where the conflict might head next—and whether Mexico, home to some of the world’s most notorious drug syndicates, could soon find itself in the crosshairs.
For now, though, Mexican officials are watching the unfolding situation with a mix of caution and confidence. Three senior Mexican officials, speaking anonymously due to the sensitive nature of the issue, told The New York Times that they do not believe unilateral U.S. military action on Mexican soil is imminent. They point to robust bilateral cooperation on security and migration that, in their view, makes it unlikely that the Trump administration would risk jeopardizing such a crucial partnership by launching strikes inside Mexico.
That sense of security is echoed by two Trump administration officials, who emphasized that current U.S. strategy is focused on working closely with Mexico, not acting alone. One official suggested that the administration’s tough rhetoric and actions have already prompted Mexico to crack down harder on cartels, reducing the perceived need for direct U.S. intervention—at least for now.
Yet, the mere fact that experts and analysts are asking whether Mexico might be next speaks volumes about the shifting tenor of U.S.-Latin American relations under Trump. As one Mexican official noted, while there is no immediate threat of U.S. strikes within Mexico, the precedent set by American military actions in the Caribbean is a long-term concern.
Diplomatic efforts to reinforce cooperation have been front and center. On September 3, U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio visited Mexico, meeting with President Claudia Sheinbaum the day after Trump publicly announced the first strike in the Caribbean. Rubio did not mince words about the threat posed by smugglers from Venezuela: “We’re not going to sit back anymore and watch these people sail up and down the Caribbean like a cruise ship,” he told reporters. “What will stop them is when you blow them up.”
Following the meeting, both nations released a joint statement emphasizing their security partnership, grounded in “respect for sovereignty and territorial integrity” and “mutual trust.” For Sheinbaum, that principle is non-negotiable. At a rally in Mexico City on October 12, she drew a clear line: “Under no circumstances will the people of Mexico accept interventions that violate our territory—whether by land, water, sea or air.”
Ironically, Sheinbaum’s resolute stance has provided a measure of reassurance not only to her own government but also to elements of the very criminal networks both she and Trump have pledged to dismantle. In interviews with The New York Times, five operatives from the Sinaloa Cartel—one of the world’s most powerful drug organizations—shrugged off the prospect of U.S. military strikes on Mexican soil. Their main concern, they said, was the ongoing and brutal infighting among rival cartels, not intervention from the north. Most were only vaguely aware of the recent American attacks in the Caribbean.
For now, the U.S. military campaign has been limited to targeting boats leaving Venezuela. But the scale and scope of the operation—and the legal rationale behind it—have drawn scrutiny and controversy in Washington. In a letter to Congress on October 7, Trump asserted the United States is in an “armed conflict” with drug cartels, claiming legal authority for the strikes. CNN has reported the existence of a Justice Department memo granting Trump authority to use deadly force against drug cartels, arguing that they pose imminent threats to Americans. That memo, however, remains shrouded in secrecy, and Attorney-General Pam Bondi declined to confirm its existence when pressed by lawmakers. “What I can tell you is Maduro is a narco-terrorist,” Bondi said, referencing the U.S. government’s $50 million bounty on Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro, who faces charges of narco-terrorism in the United States.
Trump, like his predecessor Joe Biden, does not recognize Maduro as Venezuela’s legitimate president, citing a “very strange” election last year. The U.S. has accused Maduro of leading a cartel and, according to CNN, even authorized the CIA to conduct lethal targeting in the region. Meanwhile, the U.S. military presence has grown: a small Navy armada now patrols the Caribbean, and F-35 warplanes have been deployed to Puerto Rico. The Caracas government, feeling the heat, has placed its military on alert and mobilized citizen militias, claiming that U.S. planes have flown near its coast in recent days.
Some analysts, like Evan Ellis of the U.S. War College, believe these moves suggest the potential for further escalation. “President Trump, my general sense is—his patience has run out,” Ellis told AFP. Trump himself hinted at a possible shift in tactics during a U.S. naval event on October 12: “They’re not coming in by sea anymore, so now we’ll have to start looking about the land—because they’ll be forced to go by land. And let me tell you right now, that’s not going to work out well for them either.”
Venezuelan President Maduro has attempted to defuse tensions, sending Trump a letter seeking dialogue, but the White House has rejected the overture. Some experts, such as Frank Mora, a former deputy assistant secretary of Defense for the Western Hemisphere, believe the administration’s endgame remains unclear. “Deploying a naval flotilla to then not do anything, or simply take out some speed boats—I do not think that is what they had in mind,” Mora told AFP. “On one hand the president says he wants to dismantle the drug traffic. But at the same time, the hope is that this leads to the collapse of the regime.”
Back in Washington, the legal and political fallout continues to grow. Lawmakers from both parties have questioned the legality of the strikes, and debate rages over whether Trump is overstepping his authority. Yet, as history has shown, the final word often rests with the president, especially in matters of military action abroad.
For now, the boats off Venezuela’s coast bear the brunt of Trump’s war on cartels, while Mexico’s government and criminal organizations alike watch warily, uncertain where the next front might open in this high-stakes conflict.
