In a move that has sent shockwaves through diplomatic and military circles on both sides of the border, the U.S. military is reportedly preparing for possible attacks against powerful drug cartels inside Mexico, with plans expected to be ready by mid-September 2025. According to investigative journalist Ken Klippenstein, the Trump administration issued a directive in late spring, instructing U.S. Northern Command (NORTHCOM) to develop "lethal strike" options targeting major transnational criminal organizations—specifically those with ties to fentanyl trafficking, such as the Sinaloa Cartel and the Jalisco New Generation Cartel.
The details of these potential operations remain shrouded in secrecy. As reported by both Straight Arrow News and the Daily Mail, it is not yet clear whether the U.S. would deploy military boots on Mexican soil or rely on airstrikes, drone attacks, or special operations raids. The Pentagon, when pressed for specifics, declined to comment, citing operational security. "The Department of Defense will not comment on future operations considering operational security," a spokesperson told the Daily Mail.
What is certain is that any such action would dramatically escalate tensions between the U.S. and Mexico, two nations with deeply intertwined economic, cultural, and security ties. The Trump administration’s approach has been characterized by a willingness to take unilateral action, even at the risk of political fallout. One senior intelligence official, speaking to Klippenstein, said, "Not only is Donald Trump uniquely focused on TCOs [transnational criminal organizations], having designated them terrorists in one of his first Executive Orders, but he has shown himself to be willing to take unilateral action despite potentially negative political ramifications."
This prospect has not gone unnoticed in Mexico. President Claudia Sheinbaum has publicly and unequivocally rejected the idea of U.S. military intervention on her country’s soil. At a recent news conference, she stated, "The United States is not sending its military to Mexico. We cooperate, we collaborate, but there will be no invasion. We’re ruling this out, absolutely." Her administration’s stance echoes a broader national sentiment—any foreign military presence without express permission is seen as a violation of sovereignty.
Despite the public denials and concerns, there has been a degree of behind-the-scenes cooperation. In July 2025, NORTHCOM’s commander, Gen. Gregory M. Guillot, met with two of Mexico’s highest-ranking military officials—Adm. Raymundo Pedro Morales Ángeles, Secretary of the Navy, and Gen. Ricardo Trevilla Trejo, Secretary of National Defense. Following the meeting, Morales remarked, "Today, more than ever, the challenges we face demand a joint, coordinated, and adapted response." However, intelligence sources caution that the U.S. may still proceed without the formal consent of the Mexican government.
The CIA, too, has ramped up its activities, increasing secret drone flights over Mexican territory to identify fentanyl labs and other cartel infrastructure. This drone program began under the Biden administration but has reportedly intensified in recent months, signaling a heightened sense of urgency and a possible prelude to direct military action. According to Dr. Nathan Jones, associate professor of security studies at Sam Houston State University, "There’s increased intelligence that the United States can gather using DoD resources because they’ve been designated [as] terrorist organizations." This intelligence could, in theory, enable U.S. law enforcement and military to work with specialized Mexican units to target high-value cartel leaders.
Yet, the risks of such a strategy are profound. Dr. Jones warns that overt American military action could jeopardize the crucial cooperation that has developed between the two nations over years of joint efforts against organized crime. "What I fear is that that significant cooperation could be lost if there were to be American soldiers on Mexican soil," Jones told Straight Arrow News. "And if that cooperation gets lost, the question is, is it worth it to have done it—is targeting one high value target, or even a few, or even 10 or many high value targets. Is that worth the loss of Mexican cooperation on a whole plethora of other issues?"
Historically, targeting cartel kingpins has had mixed results. While the removal of leaders such as Joaquín "El Chapo" Guzmán can disrupt operations in the short term, it often leads to fragmentation of the cartels, increased violence, and a turn to other criminal enterprises such as extortion. "We’ve seen this before," Jones explained. "The kingpin strikes happen. They fragment. The cartels end up fighting each other more violently and they become more predatory on the local population. They lose their drug source contacts, so they start using extortion and all kinds of other criminal activities to make up the difference in terms of their bottom line."
For the U.S. military, the tactical challenge of locating and striking cartel leaders is different from past manhunts like that for Osama bin Laden. "It took a long time to find Bin Laden, because Bin Laden wasn’t talking to anybody, and he wasn’t of operational significance," Jones noted. "Even ‘El Chapo’ Guzman had people near him who were using phones who could be targeted by U.S. signal intelligence, be it law enforcement or military." In other words, active cartel leaders may be more vulnerable to high-tech surveillance and rapid strikes—but the strategic impact remains uncertain.
Chief Pentagon Spokesman Sean Parnell, in a statement to the Daily Mail, underscored the gravity of the threat posed by the cartels: "These cartels have engaged in historic violence and terror throughout our Hemisphere—and around the globe—that has destabilized economies and internal security of countries but also flooded the United States with deadly drugs, violent criminals, and vicious gangs." He added, "The Department of Defense will undoubtedly play an important role towards meeting the President’s objective to eliminate the ability of these cartels to threaten the territory, safety, and security of the United States and its people."
Not everyone in Washington is on board with the prospect of unilateral military action. Senator Tim Kaine of Virginia condemned the idea, stating, "[S]igning a secret directive to potentially send U.S. servicemembers into harm’s way—without consulting Congress, notifying the American people, or any legal authority to launch strikes within the sovereign territory of our neighbors—is shortsighted and lawless, and will destroy the critical relationships we need to effectively address this challenge."
There are also practical concerns about what comes next. If the U.S. does succeed in taking out high-level cartel members, the resulting power vacuum could spark even greater violence within Mexico, with local populations caught in the crossfire. Experts like Jones argue that building up Mexican local and state law enforcement is essential to counteract these effects. "Mexican local and state law enforcement needs to be built up," he said. "That state capacity needs to get better. So, when the kingpin strikes happen and these lower-level individuals come up and fill the ranks, they’re going to be combated at the local and state levels."
As mid-September approaches, the world is watching closely. The United States has the military might to defeat cartel forces in direct engagements, but as history has shown—whether in Vietnam or in the war on drugs—winning battles does not always translate to winning the war. The coming weeks may reveal whether the U.S. and Mexico can find a path forward that addresses the scourge of cartel violence without sacrificing the delicate partnership that has, until now, underpinned their shared security.
