In the early months of Donald Trump’s second-term administration, a bold—and deeply controversial—proposal emerged from within the U.S. government’s own ranks. According to an exclusive report by The Washington Post, officials at the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) advocated for a series of military strikes in Mexico, aiming to disrupt powerful drug cartels operating just across the border. The suggestion, which surfaced earlier in 2025, immediately set off alarm bells inside both the White House and the Pentagon, revealing sharp divisions over how far the United States should go in combating what the administration described as a major adversary poisoning American citizens.
The context for this proposal was Trump’s recent designation of numerous Latin American cartels and criminal gangs as foreign terrorist organizations. The move was intended to signal a tough new posture on drug trafficking—one that would allow the administration to marshal additional resources and legal authorities against these groups. But the DEA’s call for military action took things a step further, pushing the boundaries of what many in the administration considered legally and politically feasible.
As reported by Dan Lamothe and Ellen Nakashima of The Washington Post, the DEA’s advocacy for military strikes was met with immediate resistance. White House and Pentagon officials were reportedly alarmed by what they saw as a premature and legally fraught proposal. “The conversations were fairly conceptual and lacked a robust legal framework,” one official told the Post, underscoring the sense that the agency was moving too quickly without sufficient consideration of the consequences or the law.
At the heart of the debate was a fundamental question: Does labeling a cartel as a terrorist organization grant the U.S. government authority to use military force against it? According to The Washington Post, some officials argued that it did not. “Just because something is labeled a terrorist organization does not give you the authority to fire anything at them,” one critic pointed out. Another added, “It was not an authorization for the use of military force. They were drawing analogies to terror strikes, and that’s not the way it works.”
Derek S. Maltz, who served as the DEA’s acting administrator at the time, defended the agency’s aggressive stance while also emphasizing the need for cooperation with Mexican authorities. “My position was always to do it collaboratively and cooperatively with Mexico but at the end of the day America has to stand up for Americans first,” Maltz told The Washington Post. His comments highlight the delicate balance U.S. officials must strike between respecting the sovereignty of a neighboring country and addressing the urgent threat posed by transnational criminal organizations.
But the legal and ethical obstacles to such a course of action were formidable. Pentagon officials, according to The Washington Post, noted there was no existing congressional authorization for the use of military force against drug cartels—a critical requirement under U.S. law. Without such authorization, any military action could be viewed as an illegal act of war, with potentially disastrous diplomatic and human consequences. Some officials also raised the specter of U.S. citizens being killed in the process, a risk that further complicated the calculus.
The proposal by the DEA did not emerge in a vacuum. It came at a time when the U.S. government was grappling with a surge in drug-related deaths, much of it fueled by fentanyl and other synthetic opioids flooding into the country from Mexico. The Trump administration had made combating the cartels a central pillar of its law enforcement agenda, arguing that more aggressive measures were necessary to stem the tide of narcotics and violence spilling over the border.
Yet, as The Washington Post reports, the push for military action “illustrates the divisions that have arisen as the Trump administration has taken an aggressive posture toward combating what it says is a major adversary poisoning American citizens.” The debate quickly spilled beyond the confines of the White House and Pentagon, presaging a broader and ongoing discussion in Washington over the legality and wisdom of using military force in the war on drugs.
This internal dispute took on new urgency as reports surfaced of deadly U.S. military attacks on alleged drug traffickers in the Caribbean Sea earlier this month. According to sources familiar with the matter, these strikes further intensified the debate in Washington, with lawmakers and officials questioning whether the administration’s actions were consistent with U.S. and international law. The legality of such operations, as well as their potential to destabilize relations with key allies like Mexico, became the subject of heated debate.
For some in the administration, the threat posed by the cartels justified extraordinary measures. They argued that the groups’ sophisticated operations, vast resources, and willingness to use violence made them a national security threat on par with traditional terrorist organizations. Others, however, warned that military intervention could backfire, undermining diplomatic ties and potentially putting American lives at risk.
“The pushback on DEA’s advocacy, which has not been reported previously, illustrates the divisions that have arisen as the Trump administration has taken an aggressive posture toward combating what it says is a major adversary poisoning American citizens,” The Washington Post wrote, capturing the high-stakes tension within the government. The fact that some officials were even considering military strikes inside a neighboring country—a longtime U.S. partner—underscores just how far the debate had shifted in recent years.
Meanwhile, the lack of a “robust legal framework” for such operations was not lost on lawmakers and legal experts. The U.S. Constitution grants Congress the sole authority to declare war, and the War Powers Resolution of 1973 was designed to prevent presidents from unilaterally launching military actions without congressional approval. Any move to target drug cartels with military force would almost certainly require new legislation, a prospect that appeared unlikely given the divided state of Washington politics.
As the debate raged on, questions remained about the broader implications of the administration’s approach. Would labeling criminal organizations as terrorists open the door to a new era of military interventions in Latin America? Could such actions set a dangerous precedent, blurring the lines between law enforcement and warfare? And perhaps most importantly, would military force actually succeed in curbing the flow of drugs into the United States—or merely escalate the violence and instability that have long plagued the region?
The controversy surrounding the DEA’s proposal and the subsequent military actions in the Caribbean Sea has left policymakers, legal experts, and ordinary citizens alike grappling with difficult questions about the limits of American power and the best way to confront an enduring crisis. For now, the debate continues, with no easy answers in sight—but with the stakes as high as ever for both sides of the border.