President Donald Trump’s administration has launched a dramatic new chapter in the decades-long U.S. war on drugs, targeting drug cartels with military force in the Caribbean and signaling a willingness to escalate operations in Latin America. The recent strikes, announced in September 2025, mark an unprecedented use of American military might against narcoterrorist organizations, raising questions about the future of U.S. security policy from Venezuela to Mexico—and stirring debate in both Washington and Latin American capitals.
On September 19, 2025, President Trump took to Truth Social to announce that he had ordered a lethal strike on a vessel linked to a designated terrorist group operating within the U.S. Southern Command’s area of responsibility. According to Fox News Digital, this was just the latest in a series of four fatal strikes against alleged drug boats in the Caribbean since the beginning of September. The White House followed up with a memo to lawmakers on September 30, declaring that the United States was now engaged in a "non-international armed conflict" with drug smugglers.
The Pentagon’s new counter-narcotics Joint Task Force, operating under the Southern Command, was unveiled by Secretary of War Pete Hegseth, who stated on X, "The message is clear: if you traffic drugs toward our shores, we will stop you cold." Hegseth described the mission as an effort to "crush the cartels, stop the poison, and keep America safe." The U.S. has ramped up its naval presence in the region, with several Navy guided missile destroyers deployed since August 2025, and more expected to rotate in for the foreseeable future.
Geoff Ramsey, a senior fellow at the Atlantic Council, characterized Trump’s approach as "taking the US war on drugs in Latin America to the next level." Ramsey noted that, by involving the military, Trump is "going after drug cartels in a way that no previous US administration has dared to so far." He suggested that the Pentagon could soon evaluate targets inside Venezuela, a significant escalation from previous policy, though he acknowledged that striking within Venezuelan territory would require dismantling its air defense system and might provoke direct hostilities with the Venezuelan military.
Despite these high-profile actions, experts remain divided on their likely impact. Nathan Jones, a nonresident scholar at Rice University’s Baker Institute, told Fox News Digital that these strikes are unlikely to significantly disrupt the flow of fentanyl into the U.S., as the precursors for the drug originate in China and are processed in Mexico before heading north—routes that bypass the Caribbean altogether. "I wouldn't expect your drug flow to be affected because of these strikes," Jones said, though he acknowledged that criminal organizations might be rattled by the unpredictability of the administration’s tactics.
In a speech at Marine Corps Base Quantico on September 30, President Trump hinted at further escalation, telling military leaders his administration would "look very seriously at cartels coming by land," a statement widely interpreted as a warning that strikes within Venezuela—and potentially beyond—remain on the table.
These developments have not gone unnoticed in neighboring Mexico, a country with deep ties to the U.S. and home to some of the world’s most powerful drug cartels. As reported by The New York Times, Mexican officials, speaking anonymously, said that while they are monitoring U.S. military actions with caution, they do not believe Mexico is currently at risk of unilateral American strikes. Robust cooperation between the two countries on migration and drug enforcement has, in their view, made such an escalation unlikely. U.S. officials echoed this sentiment, emphasizing collaboration over confrontation and pointing to Secretary of State Marco Rubio’s visit to Mexico in early September as evidence of "the closest security cooperation we have ever had."
President Claudia Sheinbaum of Mexico has drawn a firm line in the sand. At a rally in Mexico City on October 12, she declared, "Under no circumstances will the people of Mexico accept interventions that violate our territory. Whether by land, water, sea or air." Her government’s stance has reassured not only officials but also members of the Sinaloa Cartel, according to The New York Times. Five cartel operatives interviewed in October dismissed the possibility of U.S. military intervention inside Mexico, citing both the Mexican constitution’s ban on foreign military force and their own adaptability. "We don’t only have maritime routes, we have land and air as well," one operative said. "There is always a way."
Mexico’s current approach to combating organized crime has intensified under Sheinbaum. In her first year in office, which ended September 30, authorities arrested nearly 35,000 people for high-impact crimes and destroyed almost 1,600 drug labs—dramatic increases over the annual averages under her predecessor. The government also seized 3.8 million fentanyl pills, a figure not consistently tracked before, and reported that homicides had dropped by almost a third to their lowest level in a decade. Illegal border crossings have also reached their lowest point in years, reflecting stepped-up enforcement and cooperation with the U.S.
Still, the threat of U.S. intervention, however remote, remains a source of debate within Mexico. National surveys reveal that more than 60 percent of Mexicans oppose the idea of U.S. military operations on their soil, though about a third would welcome it—particularly in regions ravaged by cartel violence. Adrián López, editor of El Noroeste, explained that some business and conservative groups see American intervention as a potential solution to the unending bloodshed. "People here say, ‘If that makes the violence stop, where do I sign?’" López noted, while cautioning, "we should be careful what we wish for."
Back in Washington, the legality of Trump’s strikes has sparked heated debate on Capitol Hill. Senators Adam Schiff and Tim Kaine introduced a war powers resolution in September to block U.S. forces from engaging in hostilities against certain non-state organizations. "There has been no authorization to use force by Congress in this way," Schiff told reporters, calling the administration’s actions "plainly unconstitutional." The resolution, however, failed in the Senate by a narrow 51–48 margin. Some Republicans, including Rand Paul and Lisa Murkowski, crossed party lines to support the measure, while Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Jim Risch defended the strikes as both legal and necessary. "When he sees an attack like this coming... he not only has the authority to do something about it, he has the duty to do something about it," Risch said.
Economic realities also loom large. The U.S. and Mexico are deeply intertwined, with nearly $950 billion in annual trade. Any disruption—let alone a military conflict—could have devastating consequences for both economies and potentially trigger a surge in migration northward.
As the Trump administration’s campaign against drug cartels unfolds, it has drawn praise for its boldness and criticism for its risks. The coming months may reveal whether this new strategy can achieve its aims—or whether it will prompt new challenges in a region already fraught with complexity and volatility.