
Colombian soldiers fought guerrillas. Now they're fighting for Mexican cartels
MEXICO CITY — Dangerous new hired guns have arrived on the battlefield of Mexico's cartel wars: Colombian mercenaries.
Former combatants in Colombia's long-standing internal conflict are increasingly being lured to Mexico by criminal groups to train hitmen, build bombs and fight bloody turf battles.
Eleven Colombians were arrested in Michoacán state last week in connection to a roadside bomb attack that killed eight members of Mexico's National Guard. Colombia's foreign ministry said all of the detained men had once been soldiers.
Colombian President Gustavo Petro said on X that a cartel known as Los Reyes had 'hired the Colombian mercenaries to confront the Mexican state.'
The phenomenon highlights the growing intensity of Mexico's cartel warfare as well as the expanding role of Colombian combatants in conflicts globally. Recruited via private companies and even via TikTok, Colombians have fought in Sudan, Yemen and Ukraine.
More than 300 Colombian fighters have died defending Ukraine from Russian attacks, Colombian officials say.
Haitian authorities allege 26 Colombian mercenaries participated in the 2021 assassination of Haitian President Jovenel Moise. Colombians also were implicated in the 2023 killing of Ecuadorian presidential candidate Fernando Villavicencio.
Many of the fighters are former military personnel with meager or no pensions and little training for any activity other than war.
'You have this pool of human resources that is poorly compensated and not utilized to their full potential,' said Elizabeth Dickinson, a Colombia analyst with the International Crisis Group, a nonprofit think tank. 'They're being swept up with these attractive offers, both by states, by defense companies and also by criminal groups.'
The soldiers are in demand because they have real-life experience battling narcos and guerrillas in their home country. Colombia's army is the largest and most professional in Latin America, the recipient of billions dollars in aid from the United States.
Compared with American or European security contractors, Colombian fighters are cheap, Dickinson said: 'They're the ideal recruit.'
Many Colombians say they were tricked into working with the cartels.
Freddy, a 46-year-old who did not give his last name for fear of reprisals from a cartel, left the Colombian military at age 32 after more than a decade of intense combat fighting leftist guerrillas. He earned about $300 a month working for a private security firm in Colombia. When he heard about a supposed job with the French Foreign Legion offering $3,000 a month, he signed up, imaging a future guarding dignitaries or assisting in peacekeeping missions.
He thought he would be making a quick stopover in Mexico City when his contacts flew him there last year. But once he arrived, he and the nine other Colombians he had traveled with were driven to an isolated encampment in Jalisco state. Their phones and passports were confiscated, and they were told they were now part of a cartel.
Freddy said he was forced to participate in torture and killings. He said he would be killed if he did not oblige: 'It's either your life or the life of the person in front of you.'
Two other Colombian fighters recently active in Mexico described being lured there with the promise of good-paying jobs, according to video footage reviewed by The Times. Upon arrival, they claimed, they were ferried to cartel hot spots, handed guns and told to fight — and warned that their families would be harmed if they deserted.
'They deceived me,' said one man who said he was pledged $3,000 monthly as a security guard, but who instead was made to work for the Jalisco New Generation Cartel for roughly $300 a month.
He said he provided weapons training for about 100 cartel soldiers, many of whom were under 18 and there against their will. 'We were practically slaves,' he said. 'They tell you: 'Go fight, and whoever dies, dies.' They don't care about human life.'
The other man, a former Colombian police officer, said he worked as a medic alongside other international mercenaries from Venezuela and Guatemala. He said he had seen several Colombians die on the battlefield.
Mexican authorities have known for years that cartels are employing foreign fighters.
A Mexican military intelligence report from 2021 said the head of an armed cell working under a cartel leader known as El Abuelo — The Grandfather — employed 26 Colombian 'guerrilleros' to fight rivals from the Jalisco cartel.
The report, made public by the hacktivist group Guacamaya, said a drug lord from another group had hired 10 Colombians, paying them a weekly salary of around $600.
Derek Maltz, who stepped down last month as head of the Drug Enforcement Administration, said Colombian fighters have an obvious appeal. In addition to providing combat-seasoned muscle, the mercenaries operate in the role of player-coach, helping young cartel foot soldiers learn the art of war, Maltz said.
'They are wanted for their expertise with the use of IEDs — these guys are experts in these types of techniques. They are training all the gangster sicarios,' Maltz said, using the Spanish term for hitmen.
The group headed by El Abuelo — whose real name is Juan José Farías Álvarez — is based in the western state of Michoacán, which sprawls from heart of Mexico to the Pacific Coast. His gang was included on the Trump administration's list of cartels designated as foreign terrorist organizations earlier this year.
The rebranding enables U.S. law enforcement to pursue harsher penalties, and could open the door to drone strikes or other U.S. military action in Mexico, a possibility Trump has repeatedly floated.
Maltz said the U.S. has seen 'significant progress' from Mexico on security under Trump, but argued the presence of foreign fighters trained in bomb-making strengthens the case for U.S. intervention.
'If it comes down to it, the U.S. government should use all tools in the toolbox to neutralize them,' Maltz said. 'They need to feel pain like they've never felt before.'
The Jalisco cartel, one of the most powerful criminal groups in Mexico, was also included in Trump's terror designation and is known to have strong Colombian connections.
The Mexican military recently released photos that indicate that some Colombians working for the cartels have fought in wars the world over.
One showed camouflage fatigues worn by a Colombian fighter festooned with patches that include the flag of Ukraine. Another showed a military-style beret with a logo referring to a Jalisco commander nicknamed 'El Yogurt,' reputed to lead an armed cell that includes Colombians.
A narcocorrido ballad dedicated to El Yogurt boasts of his skills cooking methamphetamine ('In the kitchen, not a rival has been found…') and notes that he 'has a support team, his friends never leave him behind.'
Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum said last week that her country is in talks with Colombia about how to stop the flow of mercenaries.
'This is not the first time that people of this nationality have been arrested,' she said Thursday after the arrests of the 11 Colombians.
The issue is a sensitive one in Colombia, where the participation of Colombians in high-profile crimes has been the source of national shame. President Petro is pushing a bill that would require Colombia to sign on to a United Nations convention against the recruitment, financing and training of mercenaries.
Some veterans say it is discriminatory.
Ricardo Rodríguez, who worked as a security contractor in the United Arab Emirates after leaving the Colombian military, said in an interview that veterans should be able to take their skills elsewhere.
What former soldiers need, he said, is more support from the Colombian government.
'They're stuck. They don't have any hope of getting ahead,' he said, adding that the nation's veterans will continue to look elsewhere for work 'until the Colombian government gives them the opportunity to improve their lives.'
After eight months, Freddy escaped the cartel. Because he lacked identity documents, he traveled back to Colombia overland.
He's back home now, but is out of work and in debt. He is plagued by nightmares about what he saw — and did — in Mexico. To toughen up young fighters, he said, cartel leaders forced them to eat barbecued human flesh.
Still, he is looking again for opportunities to go abroad as a mercenary. Europe — and the salary he could make there — still calls to him.
'I don't have a career. I don't have any other skills,' he said. 'When you spend so many years at war, you don't have a vision of doing anything else. I like guns. I like security. This is what I was trained for.'
Linthicum reported from Mexico City and Hamilton from San Francisco. Times staff writer Patrick J. McDonnell in Mexico City contributed to this report.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
14 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Amid LA deployment, Hegseth falsely attacks Tim Walz over 2020 George Floyd riots
WASHINGTON – Amid an increasingly militarized response to immigration enforcement protests in Los Angeles, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth attacked Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz for his handling of the riots prompted by George Floyd's killing in 2020. Hegseth implied that federal intervention in Los Angeles is vital to preventing scenes, such as those seen in 2020 in Minneapolis. In June 2020, President Donald Trump praised Walz for his state-controlled use of the National Guard, telling a conference call of governors, "What they did in Minneapolis was incredible. They went in and dominated, and it happened immediately." More: Marines in LA, response to Ukraine: details from Hegseth hearings Hegseth's comments came in response to a Minnesota lawmaker at a June 10 hearing before the House Armed Services Committee. He argued the former Democratic vice presidential candidate "abandoned a police precinct and allowed it to be burned to the ground' during the Black Lives Matter protests in Minneapolis. Hegseth falsely claimed that Walz waited until after the burning of Minneapolis' third police precinct building to call up the Minnesota National Guard. Walz, in fact, ordered a mass mobilization of his Guardsmen on the afternoon of May 28, 2020, several hours before the police building burned. The defense secretary, defending his decision to deploy 700 Marines and around 4,000 federalized National Guard troops to Los Angeles without the consent of California Gov. Gavin Newsom, tried to compare Walz and Newsom's respective handling of the protests. "President Trump recognizes a situation like that, improperly handled by a governor, like it was by Governor Waltz... If it gets out of control, it's a bad situation for the citizens of any location,' said Hegseth. National Guard units, most of whose troops serve part-time and maintain civilian careers, can take days to fully mobilize and deploy. Newsom has strongly condemned President Donald Trump and his administration's actions in response to the ongoing protests, and the California attorney general filed a lawsuit against the administration over the National Guard federalization on June 9. Trump has openly mused about having the governor arrested for impeding immigration enforcement. "[Marines] shouldn't be deployed on American soil facing their own countrymen to fulfill the deranged fantasy of a dictatorial President," Newsom said. More: Marine infantry unit deploying to Los Angeles amid immigration enforcement unrest The anti-ICE protests are poised to roll into their fifth day on June 10. Los Angeles officials blamed fringe groups for the violence and said more than 100 people were arrested Monday evening. Several driverless Waymo cars were set ablaze over the weekend, leading the company to suspend its autonomous taxi service in the city. This article originally appeared on USA TODAY: Amid Marine LA deployment, Hegseth falsely attacks Tim Walz


WIRED
14 minutes ago
- WIRED
The ‘Long-Term Danger' of Trump Sending Troops to the LA Protests
Jun 10, 2025 12:24 PM President Trump's deployment of more than 700 Marines to Los Angeles—following ICE raids and mass protests—has ignited a fierce national debate over state sovereignty and civil-military boundaries. LAPD officers and National Guard soldiers stand on patrol as demonstrators protest outside a jail in downtown Los Angeles following two days of clashes with police during a series of immigration raids on June 8, 2025. Photograph:As hundreds of United States Marines deploy in Los Angeles under presidential orders to protect federal property amid growing protests over immigration enforcement, constitutional scholars and civil rights attorneys warn of long-term implications for American democracy and civil-military relations. President Donald Trump revealed Monday that he had ordered the deployment of more than 700 activity-duty Marines out of Camp Pendleton—an extraordinary use of military force in response to civil unrest. The move, widely condemned by his critics, follows Trump's federalization of the National Guard. Some 3,800 guardsmen have since been deployed in California against the objections of its government, spurring debate among legal observers over the limits of the president's power to send troops into American streets. Trump ordered the deployments in response to thousands of Angelenos who took to the streets on Friday in protests. LA residents responded after Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents carried out sweeping raids of local businesses, arresting, among others, dozens of day laborers who were vying for work outside a local Home Depot. Larger demonstrations soon formed and remained largely peaceful until residents were engaged by police with riot shields and crowd control weapons. Over the weekend, the clashes between police and protesters escalated across many neighborhoods with large immigrant populations. Numerous buildings were vandalized with anti-ICE messages, and several Waymo autonomous vehicles were set ablaze. Videos captured by protest attendees show police firing upon demonstrators with rubber bullets and other crowd control agents, including waves of asphyxiating CS gas. Members of the press shared images online showing injuries they incurred from the police assault. In widely shared footage, a Los Angeles police officer appears to intentionally target an Australian reporter, Lauren Tomasi, shooting her from feet away with a rubber bullet as she delivers a monologue into a camera. On Monday, CNN correspondent Jason Carroll was arrested live on air. California governor Gavin Newsom condemned Trump's troop deployment in posts on social media, calling the president's actions an 'unmistakable step toward authoritarianism.' His attorney general, Rob Bonata, has filed a lawsuit in federal court claiming the order violated the state's sovereignty, infringing on Newsom's authority as the California National Guard's commander in chief. In response to a request for comment, the Department of Defense referred WIRED to a US Northern Command press release detailing the deployment of Marines and National Guardsmen. Federal troops in the United States are ordinarily barred from participating in civilian law enforcement activities. This rule, known as 'posse comitatus,' may be suspended, however, by a sitting president in cases of civil unrest or outright rebellion. This exception—permitted under the Insurrection Act—allows the president to deploy troops when circumstances make it 'impracticable' for state authorities to enforce federal law by 'ordinary' means. While these powers are most often invoked at the request of a state government, the president may also invoke the act when a state chooses to ignore the constitutional rights of its inhabitants—as happened multiple times in the mid-20th century, when southern states refused to desegregate schools after the Supreme Court's landmark Brown v. Board of Education decision. President Trump, however, has so far not invoked the Insurrection Act, relying instead on a theory of 'inherent authority' advanced by the US Justice Department in 1971 during the height of the anti–Vietnam War protests. This interpretation of presidential power finds that troops may be deployed in an effort to 'protect federal property and functions.' Notably—unlike the Insurrection Act—this does not permit troops to engage in activities that are generally the purview of civilian law enforcement agencies. Trump also invoked statutory power granted to him by Congress under Title 10 of the US Code, which enabled him to federalize elements of California's National Guard. These activations typically occur when guardsmen are needed to support overseas military operations, as happened routinely this century during the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Domestically, however, guardsmen are not usually federalized without the agreement of a state's governor—unless the Insurrection Act has been invoked. Legal experts interviewed by WIRED offered a range of opinions on the president's authority to deploy active-duty military troops or federalize the National Guard. While most believe it is likely within Trump's power to ignore Newsom's express objections, doing so without an invocation of the Insurrection Act, they say, is a decision fraught with legal complexities that carries serious implications, from altering—perhaps permanently—the fundamental relationship between Americans, states, and the federal government, to disturbing the delicate balance between civilian governance and military power. Liza Goitein, senior director of the Brennan Center's Liberty and National Security Program, underscores the 'unprecedented' nature of Trump's approach. 'He's trying to basically exercise the powers of the Insurrection Act without invoking it,' she says. A key issue for Goitein is that the memorandum signed by Trump last week federalizing the National Guard makes no mention of Los Angeles or California. Rather, it states that the guardsmen are being mobilized to address protests that are both 'occurring' and 'likely to occur.' In essence, the memo 'authorizes the deployment of federal troops anywhere in the country,' Goitein says, 'including places where there are no protests yet. We're talking about preemptive deployment.' Goitein argues that the administration's justifications could undermine both judicial accountability and civil‑military boundaries. Under the Insurrection Act, federal troops can take on the responsibilities of local and state police. But without it, their authority should be quite limited. Neither the guardsmen nor the Marines, for instance, should engage with protesters acting peacefully, according to Goitein. 'He says they're there to protect federal property,' she says. 'But it looks a lot like quelling civil unrest.' Anthony Kuhn, a 28-year US Army veteran and managing partner at Tully Rinckey, believes, meanwhile, that there is really 'no question' that Trump would be justified in declaring a 'violent rebellion' underway in California, empowering him to ignore Newsom's objections. The images and video of protesters hurling rocks and other items at police and lighting cars on fire all serve as evidence toward that conclusion. 'I know people in California, the governor, the mayor, are trying to frame it as a protest. But at this point,' says Kuhn, 'it's a violent rebellion. You can draw your own conclusions from the pictures and videos floating around.' Kuhn argues that the intentions of the protesters, the politics fueling the demonstrations, don't matter. 'They're attacking federal facilities. They're destroying federal property. So in an attempt to restore the peace, the president has the authority under Title 10 to deploy troops. It's pretty straightforward.' In contrast, Rutgers University professor Bruce Afran says deploying military forces against Americans is 'completely unconstitutional' in the absence of a true state of domestic insurrection. 'There was an attack on ICE's offices, the doorways, there was some graffiti, there were images of protesters breaking into a guardhouse, which was empty,' he says. 'But even if it went to the point of setting a car on fire, that's not a domestic insurrection. That's a protest that is engaged in some illegality. And we have civil means to punish it without the armed forces.' Afran argues that meddling with the expectations of civilians, who naturally anticipate interacting with police but not armed soldiers, can fundamentally alter the relationship between citizens and their government, even blurring the line between democracy and authoritarianism. 'The long-term danger is that we come to accept the role of the army in regulating civilian protest instead of allowing local law enforcement to do the job,' he says. 'And once we accept that new paradigm—to use a kind of BS word—the relationship between the citizen and the government is altered forever.' 'Violent rioters in Los Angeles, enabled by Democrat governor Gavin Newsom, have attacked American law enforcement, set cars on fire, and fueled lawless chaos," Abigail Jackson, a White House spokesperson, tells WIRED. "President Trump rightfully stepped in to protect federal law enforcement officers. When Democrat leaders refuse to protect American citizens, President Trump will always step in.' As the orders to mobilize federal troops have come down, some users on social media have urged service members to consider the orders unlawful and refuse to obey—a move that legal experts say would be very difficult to pull off. David Coombs, a lecturer in criminal procedure and military law at the University of Buffalo and a veteran of the US Army's Judge Advocate General's Corps, says it's hypothetically possible that troops could question whether Trump has the authority to mobilize state guardsmen over the objection of a state governor. 'I think ultimately the answer to that will be yes,' he says. 'But it is a gray area. When you look at the chain of command, it envisions the governor controlling all of these individuals.' Separately, says Coombs, when troops are ordered to mobilize, they could—again, hypothetically—refuse to engage in activities that are beyond the scope of the president's orders, such as carrying out immigration raids or making arrests. 'All they can do in this case, under Title 10 status, is protect the safety of federal personnel and property. If you go beyond that, then it violates the Posse Comitatus Act.' Federal troops, for instance, would need civilian police to step in. At the point, authorities want peaceful protesters to disperse. The San Francisco Chronicle reports that, in a letter on Sunday, Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem requested that military troops be directed to detain alleged 'lawbreakers' during protests 'or arrest them,' which legal experts almost universally agree would be illegal under ordinary circumstances. The letter was addressed to Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth and accused the anti-ICE protesters of being 'violent, insurrectionist mobs' aiming to 'protect invaders and military aged males belonging to identified foreign terrorist organizations.' Khun, who warns there's a big difference between philosophizing over what constitutes an unlawful order and disobeying commands, dismisses the idea that troops, in the heat of the moment, will have an option. 'It's not going to be litigated in the middle of an actual deployment,' he says. 'There's no immediate relief, no immediate way to prove that an order is unlawful.' Khun says that were he deployed into a similar situation, 'me and my junior soldiers would not respond to a nonviolent or peaceful protest.' Asked what protesters should expect, should they engage with federal troops trained for combat overseas, Kuhn says the Marines will hold their ground more firmly than police, who are often forced to retreat as mobs approach. In addition to being armed with the same crowd control weapons, Marines are extensively trained in close-quarters combat. 'I would expect a defensive response,' he says, 'but not lethal force.' Additional reporting by Alexa O'Brien.


CNBC
15 minutes ago
- CNBC
Immigrant framed for Trump threats can be released on bond, judge says
The undocumented Mexican immigrant who was detained after being framed by a jailed inmate for threatening President Donald Trump can be released on a $7,500 bond, a Chicago Immigration Court judge ruled Tuesday morning. Judge Carla Espinoza said at a hearing that she does not believe Milwaukee resident Ramon Morales-Reyes is a danger to the community pending removal proceedings. The judge noted that although the 54-year-old Morales-Reyes has been arrested several times since 1996, he has only been convicted once, for disorderly conduct. An attorney representing the Department of Homeland Security did not oppose a request by the immigrant's lawyer, Cain Oulahan, requesting bond. Oulahan and Morales-Reyes appeared remotely, with the immigrant still detained in Dodge County Jail in Wisconsin. Espinoza said that if Morales-Reyes is unable to post bond, the next hearing in the case will be on July 10, and that she would set another date if the married dad of three is released. CNBC has requested comment from Oulahan. DHS Assistant Secretary Tricia McLaughlin, in a statement, said, "While this criminal illegal alien is no longer under investigation for threats against the President, he is in the country illegally with previous arrests for felony hit and run, criminal damage to property, and disorderly conduct with domestic abuse." "The Trump administration is committed to restoring the rule of law and fulfilling the President's mandate to deport illegal aliens. DHS will continue to fight for the arrest, detention, and removal of illegal aliens who have no right to be in this country," McLaughlin said. Morales-Reyes, who has lived in the United States since 1986, was arrested May 22 on suspicion that he had written three letters to law enforcement officers in Wisconsin that threatened Trump and others. A week later, Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem touted Morales-Reyes' arrest in a news release that called the dishwasher an "illegal alien," and featured his photo, as well as an image of a handwritten letter threatening to shoot "your precious president" Trump. But Milwaukee police who questioned Morales-Reyes quickly realized there was a problem with the allegations against him, court records show. First, a handwriting sample Morales-Reyes provided was "completely different" from the writing on the letters and the envelopes, which bore his home address as the return address, a criminal complaint says. Also, Morales-Reyes does not speak, read, or write English fluently, while the writing in the letters was in English. When a police detective asked Morales-Reyes, "Who would want to get [him] in trouble, [he] stated that the only person who would want to get him in [trouble] was the person who had robbed him and who law enforcement knows to be the defendant, Demetric D. Scott." Scott, who is detained in Milwaukee County Jail, was arrested in late 2023 for allegedly robbing Morales-Reyes and attacking him with a box cutter. Scott, 52, told police in late May that he had written the threatening letters about Trump, and put Morales-Reyes' address on the envelopes before they were sent on his behalf by others, to get the immigrant arrested by federal authorities so that he would be unable to testify at Scott's criminal trial in July, court records state. Scott hoped that his case would be dismissed when Morales-Reyes failed to appear in court, those records say. Scott has been charged with identity theft, felony intimidation of a witness, and bail jumping in connection with the letters plot. At the time Morales-Reyes was arrested, he had applied for a special type of visa available to victims of certain crimes. The web page announcing the Morales-Reyes' arrest remains up on DHS's site, with the now discredited allegations against him. At the bottom of that page is a "disclaimer," which notes that he is no longer under investigation for threatening Trump. —