In a dramatic escalation of America’s war on drugs, President Donald Trump’s second administration has unleashed a sweeping military and diplomatic campaign targeting Latin American cartels and the governments allegedly supporting them. The move, which combines aggressive military deployments, legal reclassifications, and a renewed symbolic offensive, signals a fundamental shift in US policy toward its southern neighbors—and has sent shockwaves through the region and beyond.
It all began in February 2025, when the Trump administration designated multiple Mexican and South American cartels—including Venezuela’s Tren de Aragua—as international terrorist organizations. According to The Spectator, this unprecedented move opened the door for a host of new legal, intelligence, and potentially military responses. By grouping these criminal groups with the likes of al-Qaida and ISIS, the US signaled a willingness to use the full force of its counterterrorism apparatus against them.
The second step was action—eye-popping, kinetic action. In August, the US Southern Command (SOUTHCOM) deployed eight warships to the Caribbean and Pacific, including three Aegis guided-missile destroyers off Venezuela, a landing dock, amphibious assault ships, and a fast-attack nuclear submarine. These vessels, as The Spectator notes, can carry up to 4,500 Navy and Marines, helicopters, advanced surveillance equipment, and cruise missiles capable of striking targets anywhere in the region.
The world took notice earlier this month when a US missile destroyed a boat coming out of Venezuela, killing 11 alleged “narco-terrorists” associated with Tren de Aragua. Secretary of State Marco Rubio confirmed, “Instead of interdicting it, on the President’s orders, we blew it up. And it’ll happen again.” This marked a sharp departure from the usual practice of interdicting suspected drug boats and arresting their crews. As Vox reported, the Trump administration has suggested that more such strikes may follow, with the President himself announcing a “kinetic strike” against the group.
This new approach is rooted in a broader, three-step strategy. First comes the declaration of authority—designating the cartels as terror groups. Next is the show of force, as seen in the Caribbean missile strike. Finally, the administration has sought to forge a distinctly Trumpian symbolism. Last month, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth announced the restoration of the Mexican Border Defense Medal, a century-old award originally given to US troops who participated in General “Black Jack” Pershing’s expedition into Mexico. The medal, emblazoned with a bronze Roman sword and crossed sabers, sends a clear message: the US is prepared to take decisive action against threats from the south.
But what is the ultimate aim? According to The Spectator, the Trump administration’s goal is not to conquer Mexico or eliminate the cartels entirely—an impossible task given their hydra-like ability to regenerate. Instead, the White House seeks to force the Mexican government to act decisively against the cartels, or face the prospect of unilateral US military intervention. Defense Secretary Hegseth delivered this message unequivocally in a January call with Mexican officials, warning that “nothing is off the table” if Mexico fails to rein in the cartels. The warning reportedly “shocked and angered” Mexican brass, but was quickly followed by the extradition of 29 top cartel officials to the US.
Behind the scenes, a network of drones and spy planes now provides the US with unprecedented surveillance of cartel assets and activities. These technologies, proven in Africa and the Middle East, can seamlessly shift from intelligence gathering to targeted strikes. “There is no part of Mexico we cannot reach,” one analyst told The Spectator. Recent court deals with Ismael “El Mayo” Zambada and Ovidio Guzmán López—key cartel figures who pleaded guilty in US courts—could yield valuable intelligence on both the cartels and the Mexican government itself.
The Trump administration’s approach is not just about Mexico. SOUTHCOM’s encirclement strategy targets Venezuelan, Cuban, and Nicaraguan support for Mexican cartels, while partnering with friendly governments like Ecuador to root out criminal networks in their own territories. The administration has also accused Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro of controlling Tren de Aragua. While US intelligence agencies and some experts cast doubt on the directness of these ties, the administration has made it clear that regime change in Venezuela would not be unwelcome. As one Trump official told Axios, “This is 105% about narco-terrorism, but if Maduro winds up no longer in power, no one will be crying.”
Not everyone is convinced by the administration’s claims or its methods. Adam Isacson, a defense and drug policy analyst at the Washington Office on Latin America, told Vox that groups like Tren de Aragua are “poor organized crime groups” who make their money through extortion and local crimes, not large-scale drug trafficking into the US. The administration’s evidence for the missile strike remains classified, though Trump claimed, “We have tapes of them speaking.” Legal scholars have also raised questions about the strike’s justification. White House spokesperson Anna Kelly said the action was taken in “defense of vital U.S. national interests and in the collective self-defense of other nations,” a rationale that stretches the post-9/11 Authorization for Use of Military Force to new limits.
The regional response has been mixed. While some leaders, such as the prime minister of Trinidad and Tobago, praised the strike, others have voiced concern. Colombia’s President Gustavo Petro called the attack a “murder.” In Mexico, a Senate debate over the prospect of US military intervention turned into a literal brawl. After a meeting between Rubio and Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum, both countries agreed to expand cooperation against the cartels while reaffirming respect for each other’s sovereignty. Still, as Vox observed, “there is nervousness about it and trepidation. They’re all wondering, what is this guy doing, and are we next?”
Within the US, the move has energized the MAGA base and drawn support from right-leaning think tanks. Heritage Foundation President Kevin Roberts described the threat from cartels and their Chinese connections as “a problem people are willing to confront.” Ryan P. Williams of the Claremont Institute framed the military campaign as an extension of “reflexive Jacksonian values,” arguing, “If you have sovereign control over territory and you lose it, and violence comes from that which hurts our citizens, it’s our right to fix a situation if you can’t or won’t, including with force.”
Yet critics on both the left and right warn of the risks: blowback, the potential for escalation, and the dangers of further militarizing US policy in Latin America. Some, like former ambassador Christopher Landau, advocate for cooperation and caution. Even within the Trump administration, there are voices urging restraint, mindful of the region’s history and the limits of military power.
For now, the drones are silent and the warships remain on station. The administration’s encirclement strategy continues, with the ever-present threat of more dramatic action should diplomatic pressure fail. As America’s war on drugs enters this new, more militarized phase, the world is watching closely—wondering just how far the US is willing to go in pursuit of its aims.