Trump Is Right to Target Cartels—Mexico Can't Handle the Job

Newsweek

11 hours ago

President Donald Trump's decision to authorize military action against Mexican drug cartels has predictably sparked outrage from critics who invoke sovereignty concerns and warn of another foreign entanglement. They're missing the point entirely. This isn't about American imperialism or invasion—it's about confronting a transnational threat that Mexico has proven incapable of controlling and is killing Americans at an unprecedented rate.
To start, the constitutional authority for this action is unambiguous. Congress has already funded the military capabilities that would be deployed to confront this threat, and Trump's designation of cartels as foreign terrorist organizations provides the same legal framework we've used against terrorist groups worldwide since 9/11. This is exactly how our constitutional system was designed to work, as it gives the commander in chief the autonomy to utilize the military forces Congress has appropriated as they see fit.
Beyond his legal authority to act lies the moral imperative at play. Over 100,000 Americans died from drug-involved overdoses in 2023 alone—casualties of a drug war Mexico is not capable of waging effectively. These cartels don't simply smuggle drugs; they operate as quasi-governmental entities controlling approximately a third of the Mexico's territory through assassination, terror, and brute force. They've turned massive portions of Mexico into narco-states where rule of law has completely collapsed.
President of Mexico Claudia Sheinbaum gestures during the daily morning briefing at Palacio Nacional on Aug. 6, 2025, in Mexico City, Mexico.
President of Mexico Claudia Sheinbaum gestures during the daily morning briefing at Palacio Nacional on Aug. 6, 2025, in Mexico City, Mexico.Mexico's response to this crisis has been institutional failure. Despite decades of American aid and cooperation, Mexican authorities remain either unwilling or unable to confront cartels that have thoroughly infiltrated their institutions. Pretending that traditional law enforcement cooperation can solve this problem is a dangerous farce that will only see Mexico continue to flounder as a failing state.
Critics also must acknowledge that Mexico has forfeited effective control over significant portions of its territory to cartels. International law increasingly recognizes that states may act against threats in foreign territory when the host state is "unwilling or unable" to address them. The justification under international law is even stronger here given the direct threat to American lives.
The closest parallel under international law to what Trump is proposing is related to how we deal with maritime piracy—where the world has long recognized universal jurisdiction and military force against non-state criminal actors. Just as naval forces routinely conduct military operations against pirate bases, often without explicit territorial consent, the same principle applies to land-based criminal organizations that threaten international security.
Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum's protests about sovereignty ring hollow when her government cannot provide basic security for its own citizens. Since 2006, the country has seen more than 460,000 homicides, averaging over 30,000 a year. Respecting Mexican sovereignty in this context means enabling continued mass casualties on both sides of the border to the tune of over 100,000 a year. That's a million lives lost per decade.
Trump's green lighting of military force against these cartels isn't a perfect solution, but it's the only realistic one given the status quo. The optimal approach would be one that focuses on eliminating high-value targets—cartel leaders and operational commanders—using intelligence assets and drone strikes to decapitate these organizations. Limited special operations that put American boots on the ground may occasionally be necessary, but the goal should be surgical strikes that minimize civilian casualties while maximizing disruption to cartel command structures.
Critics calling this an "invasion" are using inflammatory language that mischaracterizes the operation. Traditional invasions involve occupying territory, displacing sovereign authority, and establishing administrative control. What Trump is authorizing resembles counterterrorism operations—targeted strikes against specific criminal organizations without territorial occupation or intent to govern.
The uncomfortable truth we must embrace is that traditional approaches have failed. Decades of counter-narcotics cooperation, billions in aid, and endless diplomatic initiatives have only resulted in more sophisticated cartels and deadlier drugs flooding American streets. When cooperation fails and the threat continues to metastasize, military action becomes not only justified but necessary.
Mexico can object to American military operations on its soil—as it has already—but their objections don't change the fundamental calculus. Cartels have effectively declared war on both our countries, and Mexico has proven incapable of fighting back effectively. The moral obligation to protect American lives ultimately supersedes diplomatic niceties about sovereignty, particularly when that sovereignty exists more in theory than in practice.
This is exactly the kind of decisive action that American leadership requires. While critics debate legal technicalities, cartels continue flooding our communities with fentanyl and turning Mexican cities into war zones. Trump's willingness to use American military capabilities against these criminal organizations represents a long-overdue recognition that some threats require military solutions, regardless of where they're based.
Nicholas Creel is an associate professor of business law at Georgia College & State University.
The views expressed in this article are the writer's own.