Mexico and TrumpMexico’s Foreign PolicyMexico’s Politics
August 22, 2025
by Luis Rubio
19 Aug
by Luis Rubio, political analyst and chairman of México Evalúa.
For months, talk has been circulating about a possible US military intervention in Mexico. The idea has gained traction here due to the presence of American intelligence ships in the Gulf of California and, more recently, the sighting of a drone over Valle de Bravo. The issue is also alive in the United States, at least since several Mexican criminal organizations were designated as terrorist groups. In fact, the debate has been simmering for years, as observers there note the growing chaos in certain regions of Mexico and the Mexican government’s seeming inaction. A recent video lays out, quite clearly, the perspective many Americans hold on the matter. No one knows if actual military action might occur — whether directly on the ground or indirectly from the air — but it is a subject that deserves careful analysis.
The video (viewable below) features Joshua Treviño at 35 seconds in. Treviño is a former US Army adviser now with America First, introduced — incorrectly — as a seasoned observer of US–Mexico relations. As I argue below, he has little to no understanding of the situation on the Mexican side. Still, his words are emblematic of a mindset that currently holds sway in important circles of the US government.Play
00:00
02:43MuteSettingsEnter fullscreen
00:00
His core claim is that a potential US intervention would be justified as an act of self-defense under international law, carried out to protect America’s national interests. Yet, he insists, the decision to intervene ultimately rests not in Washington but in Mexico City, because it is the Mexican government that has been unwilling—though not incapable — to take on the cartels or create a framework of order and justice within the country.
As with so many issues in the bilateral relationship, the diagnosis is, in broad strokes, correct and impossible to dispute. But it reflects the fragmented perspective so typical of American politics: the view of a particular group, agency, or senator speaking to their base, rather than a full understanding of the problem itself or the consequences of the proposed solution.
There are at least three major flaws in this line of reasoning. First, cartels derive much of their power from the very nature of the drug market — an equation in which half the problem lies squarely in the United States. This is not to minimize the Mexican government’s responsibility for the disorder in Mexico, but rather to state the obvious: without reducing demand, supply will keep flowing, and vice versa. What’s more, eliminating one set of criminal groups (or “terrorists,” in the new language) would not solve the problem. As long as demand persists, new suppliers will take their place. In short, this is a structural issue that requires structural solutions.
Second, the argument misfires in suggesting that Mexico has the capacity but not the will to act. Certainly, there has been a lack of political will — though Calderón showed it, regardless of the wisdom of his strategy, and the current president also seems to display it. But more fundamentally, the problem is not fully acknowledged in Mexico, particularly in terms of how it affects ordinary citizens in their daily lives. And where the US diagnosis is flat-out wrong is in assuming that the Mexican state still has the necessary capacity to confront the problem. Decades of neglect, capped by the “hugs, not bullets” approach of the last administration, allowed criminal organizations to expand at unprecedented speed. Today, they not only rival the state but, in some cases, threaten its very viability. The only way forward, therefore, is through a joint strategy with the US focused on rebuilding and strengthening the Mexican government’s capacity to act.
Third, there is a striking arrogance in the video’s message, for the costs of a misguided strategy would fall heavily on the United States itself. If Mexico were to collapse into deeper chaos, the fallout would hit the US directly: border instability, migration surges, and serious disruptions to supply chains, among other consequences.
What is needed, then, is not a “machete” strategy of blunt force, but a “scalpel” approach — one that deals with immediate problems while at the same time building, over the medium term, a lasting institutional capacity in Mexico to restore order and enforce the law.
There is no denying the chaos in Mexico, the indifference of successive governments to public safety (extortion alone affects an enormous percentage of the population), and the fact that much of what the government has done recently stems more from US pressure than from genuine conviction about protecting its citizens. But unilateral American action would undo the little that has been achieved and bring with it all the predictable consequences outlined above.
It would therefore be prudent for the Mexican government to open a diplomatic front to redirect the discussion, for the risks of unilateral action are exorbitant.